"Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:00756409$0$9725$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:Gkf6m.11513$lv5.3645@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com... >> >> "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:007553af$0$9722$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >>> "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message >>> news:Nxc6m.11602$j84.5639@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... >>>> >>>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message >>>> news:LJf5m.776484$yE1.160977@attbi_s21... >>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The physical universe all around you is it's own experiment, you just >>>>>> have to open your eyes to see it. And no, my understanding is >>>>>> completely >>>>>> correct. Since things change, they change from an earlier condition. >>>>>> That condition has ceased to be. Similar to the future, it is yet to >>>>>> be. >>>>>> >>>>>> When SR falsely posits lack of simultaneity _the universe_ falsifies >>>>>> it. >>>>>> There is no block universe which lack of simultaneity demands. >>>>>> Your "experiments" are misconceived. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Spirit of Truth >>>>> >>>>> Dear Spirit-- >>>>> >>>>> I would like you to watch... >>>>> >>>>> The Mechanical Universe series. >>>>> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html >>>>> >>>>> 42. The Lorentz Transformation >>>>> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then >>>>> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, >>>>> depends on who measures it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> and report back to me what the half-hour program says about >>>>> simultaneity or the lack thereof. You can use email if you like. >>>>> >>>>> -Sam >>>> >>>> Yes, an excellent presentation. Yes, I was aware of all that. There was >>>> one mistake in verbiage when it was first mentioned that >>>> simultaneneity >>>> was out between the person at rest and the traveller, didn't make it >>>> clear >>>> that it was what one frame was thinking happened in the other frame. >>>> The truth, as later noted, was that BOTH frames seeing themselves at >>>> rest >>>> see the light in their frames being received simultaneously, which is >>>> what >>>> I have posted often here. >>>> >>>> I have ALSO posted here that the math is correct in itself, and >>>> rather beautiful, if I may say so. >>>> >>>> However, as I've also posted continuously here, lack of >>>> simultaneity creates a blocktime universe. It is false. >>> >>> It doesn't create anything. Not that you could tell if the universe was >>> block or not anyway. >>> >>>> The key to the falseness is the baseline being used for the math. >>>> There is no time dimension in the first place. Time is not passsing. >>>> The now is not changing, it is only an illusion that it is changing. >>>> What exists is a nowness with space dimensions containing >>>> objects which are subject to changing, and changing of the objects >>>> occur being change of position of the particles, >>> >>> Now that was a lovely serving of word soup. A little heavy on the >>> 'changing' though. >>> >>>> this vchnage of >>>> position of the particles can be position but also give produce >>>> the state changes of objects in now. Also, ties into what we >>>> call motion. >>> >>> How can things change without there being time. Time is that which >>> allows things to change. >>> >>>> Speed is a comparison of distance covered COMPARED >>>> to an agreed upon object's diatance covered... >>> >>> In a given time. You forget that. >>> >>>> the hand >>>> moving on the face of a watch for instance...and speed >>>> should simply be a number...."That is going at a speed of >>>> 10", for instance. >>> >>> None of which can happen without there being time >>> >>>> None of this contains a time dimension. >>> >>> All of it does .. just because you omit the word doesn't mean it isn't >>> there >>> >>>> We could be looking at a dimension of changing forces/action >>>> in addition to the usual 3 dimensions but is is a motive >>>> parameter only. This dimension takes place in now, >>>> which is simply existence in an unchanging "now". There >>>> actually is neither past nor future, as such, and it is only >>>> because Man appears to himself as a creature of time >>>> that this mistake is being made. >>> >>> I definitely think there is someone making a mistake >>> >>>> The math that would actually be correct has to have all >>>> points in the universe at rest continuously in reference >>>> to each other and changes like gap closure between two >>>> at rest point considered without any reference to a >>>> "time dimension". It simply does not exist. >>> >>> Nice bit of philosophy. Yet the universe behaves as if that time >>> dimension does exist .. ie it is well modeled by theories of physics >>> that have a concept of time (which is all of them). There's pretty much >>> no point in doing physics if we don't talk about time. And the model >>> that works best has simultaneity depending on the frame of reference. >> >> ................................................................................................. >> ................................................................................................ >> >> OK, I have given you your chance for education. > > I've had one .. it appears you haven't .. at least not one in physics. > >> Whoever, you have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science. > > You weren't speaking science .. you were speaking philosophy and > metaphysics. > >> *plonk* > > Ha. . the one ignorant of science here is you. You think it is > philosophy. As usual, the cowardly crank hides behind a plonk. > > Well. you ignoring me is only a loss to yourself, not to me. I'll still > post replies to your nonsense as I see fit, of course, so others can see > the error of your ways, and maybe learn something.
OK, I have given you your chance for education.
Whoever, you have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science. *plonk*
