Time paradox


by jaumzaum
Tags: paradox, time
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#55
Jan13-13, 08:16 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,517
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
They are not even coordinate times (on the red worldline) since they violate the one-to-one requirement of coordinate charts.
The time assigned by each individual frame in the succession of blue's frames is a coordinate time; the time assignments of each individual frame are one-to-one. The problem only arises if you try to put together a single non-inertial frame whose coordinate assignments along a given worldline (such as red's) agree with those of the succession of inertial frames; as you point out, you can't do that globally without violating the one-to-one requirement.

It looks to me like bobc2 didn't actually intend to construct a single non-inertial frame in this way, but to me that's really a side issue; even if one is careful *not* to make any claims about a single non-inertial frame, it's still true that you can't get anything physically meaningful just by looking at coordinate times of events along red's worldline in the succession of blue's inertial frames.
bobc2
bobc2 is offline
#56
Jan13-13, 08:35 PM
P: 848
Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
The time assigned by each individual frame in the succession of blue's frames is a coordinate time; the time assignments of each individual frame are one-to-one. The problem only arises if you try to put together a single non-inertial frame whose coordinate assignments along a given worldline (such as red's) agree with those of the succession of inertial frames; as you point out, you can't do that globally without violating the one-to-one requirement.

It looks to me like bobc2 didn't actually intend to construct a single non-inertial frame in this way...
You are exactly correct. That is what I've been trying to get across. Regarding the collection of individual inertial frames as representing a single non-inertial frame is definitely not the way to understand this.

Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
...but to me that's really a side issue; even if one is careful *not* to make any claims about a single non-inertial frame, it's still true that you can't get anything physically meaningful just by looking at coordinate times of events along red's worldline in the succession of blue's inertial frames.
That is a philosophically based idea. Einstein cautioned against these kinds of ideas which trap you into solipsism.

You are saying that there is no reality to be associated with the hyperplanes of simultaneity for a given Lorentz frame. I don't think our monitor will want us to continue a discussion along those lines. The monitor may allow you to define for us how you would describe or define criteria for identifying the real world of existence in the context of physical theory--I'm not sure.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#57
Jan13-13, 08:43 PM
Mentor
P: 16,485
Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
The time assigned by each individual frame in the succession of blue's frames is a coordinate time; the time assignments of each individual frame are one-to-one. The problem only arises if you try to put together a single non-inertial frame whose coordinate assignments along a given worldline (such as red's) agree with those of the succession of inertial frames; as you point out, you can't do that globally without violating the one-to-one requirement.
Right, and this is exactly what bobc2 did in his post 32. In that post he is explicitly NOT talking about a sequence of individual 4D inertial frames, but a sequence of instantaneous "3D worlds". This is the same as defining a simultaneity convention for a single non-inertial 4D coordinate system.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#58
Jan13-13, 08:48 PM
Mentor
P: 16,485
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
You are exactly correct. That is what I've been trying to get across. Regarding the collection of individual inertial frames as representing a single non-inertial frame is definitely not the way to understand this.
I already addressed this in post 50, but that is exactly what you were doing in claiming that the red guy's time was going backwards. If you talk about a sequence of inertial frames then his clock goes forwards at all times and in all frames. If you talk about a sequence of "3D worlds" then you are talking about a 4D non-inertial frame, and mathematically that frame cannot cover the red guy's worldline.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
That is a philosophically based idea. Einstein cautioned against these kinds of ideas which trap you into solipsism.
Reference please?
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#59
Jan13-13, 10:51 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,517
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
Regarding the collection of individual inertial frames as representing a single non-inertial frame is definitely not the way to understand this.
Then, as DaleSpam pointed out, you can't make any claims about red's time "running backwards". Just noticing that the coordinate times in a succession of different inertial frames "run backwards" doesn't say anything about red's time "running backwards".

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
That is a philosophically based idea. Einstein cautioned against these kinds of ideas which trap you into solipsism.
Einstein did no such thing. Arguments from authority don't count anyway, but I believe Einstein would have agreed that coordinate times (and indeed coordinates in general) are not "physically real". See below.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
The monitor may allow you to define for us how you would describe or define criteria for identifying the real world of existence in the context of physical theory--I'm not sure.
Read my post #49. I gave there a perfectly good definition of what counts as "real"--invariants, things that are not frame-dependent. As far as I know, as I said in that post, Einstein would have agreed with such a definition. Simultaneity is frame-dependent, hence it does not count as "real" by that definition. The same goes for coordinate times, and for your "3-D worlds". They are fine as logical constructions, or as elements in a model that helps you to understand things; but that's all.
laurub
laurub is offline
#60
Jan14-13, 06:54 AM
P: 10
Quote Quote by ghwellsjr View Post
No, your brother will not receive many messages from you at the moment of his about-face. His about-face will not cause him to receive any messages from you. What's going to happen is that for the first half of his trip, he will receive messages from you at a slower rate than he sends them (1/R as I said in my first post to you), then for the second half of his trip he will receive messages from you at a faster rate than he sends them (R).

So for your example of your brother traveling at 0.5c, we can use the Relativistic Doppler formula to calculate what R is:

√((1+β)/(1-β)) = √((1+0.5)/(1-0.5)) = √((1.5)/(0.5)) = √3 = 1.732

And 1/R is the reciprocal, 0.57735.

This means that he will see your yearly messages coming to him slower than his during the first half of the trip. In fact it will take 1.732 years before he sees your first message.

And for the last half his trip, he will see your messages arriving more often than once per year according to his clock. It will only take 0.57735 years between each of your messages.

Now without knowing how long the trip will take, we can average these two numbers:

(1.732+0.57735)/2 = 2.30935/2 = 1.154675

This is the final ratio of your two clocks when he returns. How ever many years it took him according to his clock, yours will be 1.154675 times that amount.

So let's say your brother travels away at 0.5c for 13 years and then takes 13 years to get back at the same speed. Here is a spacetime diagram to show what is happening according to your rest frame. I show you as a thick blue stationary line with dots every year and your messages going out as thin blue lines traveling at c. I show your brother as a thick black line traveling at 0.5c with black dots every year and his messages coming back to you as thin black lines:



Now let's see how the previous calculations based on Relativistic Doppler fit in with this diagram. First off, I said that the rate at which your brother receives your yearly messages take 1.732 of his years. Can you see that on the graph? For example, at about his year 12, just before he turns around, he is just receiving the message you sent at your year 7. Can you follow that? If we divide 12 by 7 we get 1.714 which is about right. (We don't expect it to be exact because he didn't receive your message exactly at his year 12.)

Furthermore, if you look at your year 12, you can see that you are just receiving his message from year 7. It's symmetrical.

Now you should be able to see that after he turns around, he starts receiving your messages faster than one per year. In fact, from about his year 19 (you'll have to count his dots) to when you meet at his year 26, he will have received your messages from year 18 to 30. That is a ratio of the differences of (26-19)/(30-18) = 7/12 = 0.583, close enough to 0.577.

And in a similar manner, you can see that from his year 14 (just after he turns around) until you meet (12 years of messages from him), you will see them from your year 23 to your year 30 (7 years) and the reciprocal ratio applies.

Now that we can look at a spacetime diagram, we can see that the reason why the two of you age differently is because your brother sees these two ratios for half of his total trip time each but you see the smaller ratio for three-quarters of the time and the higher ratio for just one-quarter of the time. This means you are seeing him age less for a longer time while he sees you age less for half the time.

The last thing we want to notice is that ratio of your final age difference is 30/26 or 1.1538, very close to the actual 1.154675. (Again, these numbers are not exact because we're eyeballing them off the diagram.) This ratio is the famous value of gamma which is also the time dilation factor which shows in the diagram as the ratio of the coordinate time for your brother compared to his actual time on his clock. Can you see that?

Now I want to show you what the exact same information presented in the first diagram looks like in two more diagrams based on the IRF's in which your brother is at rest, first during his outbound leg and then during his inbound leg. First the outbound leg:



Notice how your brother's time is not dilated during the outbound leg (because he is at rest) but yours is. Note also that he has to travel at a higher speed than 0.5c (look up "veloctiy addition" in wikipedia to see that this higher speed is 0.8c) when he turns around and therefore now has more time dilation than you have. Nevertheless, all the signals between the two of you continue to travel at c and arrive at exactly the same times according to your own clocks as they did before. Does this all make sense to you?

Finally the diagram for the IRF in which your brother is at rest during the inbound leg:



This is very similar to the previous diagram so I won't go into any more explanation except that I want to point out that when your brother turns around, in no case does that have any bearing on what you see, until some time later and even then, each diagram shows accurately what you actually see and what your brother actually sees during the entire scenario.

Any questions?
Awesome diagrams and explanation! thank you for this!
ghwellsjr
ghwellsjr is offline
#61
Jan14-13, 08:42 AM
PF Gold
P: 4,537
Quote Quote by laurub View Post
Awesome diagrams and explanation! thank you for this!
You're welcome.

And thanks for the feedback.
ghwellsjr
ghwellsjr is offline
#62
Jan14-13, 08:50 AM
PF Gold
P: 4,537
Quote Quote by jaumzaum View Post
Thanks George! I mean, I really want to thank you, in all of the threads I've already posted here, I've never seen such a good and detailed answer as yours. I'm new in special relativity and you explained everything so carefully I could understood almost completely. I thought I had understood before, but I didn't know the explanation had nothing to do to what I suppose it was correct. There should be more guys like you here in PF. I want to thank everyone who answered this thread but the george's answer was phenomenal (at least for me). Now I think I'm startin g to understand special relativity.
You're very welcome and thanks for feedback.
Quote Quote by jaumzaum View Post
And yes, I do have some questons, I would appreciate if you could help me again

How it would be the diagram if we take the referential frame as the whole trip of my brother (I mean, my brother is at rest in the whole time). I'm not being able to "close" the graphic. If my brother is a straight line, my lines can't be together as they are smaller than his. Is this right?
The problem with the type of diagram that you are asking for is that it would not be inertial because your brother is not inertial. Inertial, in the context of Special Relativity means that he would be traveling at a constant speed in a constant direction, in other words, not accelerating. That means that it is impossible to use the Lorentz Transformation process to get from one of the IRF's we already considered to a not-inertial frame in which your brother was always at rest.

Besides, I'm curious, why do you want to have such a diagram? What do you think it will tell you that you don't already know from studying any one of the IRF diagrams?
bobc2
bobc2 is offline
#63
Jan14-13, 09:05 PM
P: 848
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
I already addressed this in post 50, but that is exactly what you were doing in claiming that the red guy's time was going backwards. If you talk about a sequence of inertial frames then his clock goes forwards at all times and in all frames. If you talk about a sequence of "3D worlds" then you are talking about a 4D non-inertial frame, and mathematically that frame cannot cover the red guy's worldline.
You are still not getting it. I am not saying the red guy's clock goes backward for the red guy sitting at rest in his own frame of reference (see sketch at the bottom of my post #32). The red guy always sees his clock moving forward as he moves along his world line in his positive X4 (time) direction.

But if you were to make a list of the RED clock readings in the order they are presented in the blue guy's frame each time he (blue--referring to my earlier sketch at the bottom of post #32) boosts to his next inertial frame, then you would see those clock readings getting smaller and smaller as blue advances along his worldline (with blue's own clock readings moving forward in time). So, each time blue is coasting in a new inertial frame you note the clock reading on the red worldline at the intersection of the blue X1 axis with the red worldline (you can of course calculate this using the Lorentz transformation between red and blue coordinates, where red's frame is the same as black's except displaced along the black X2 axis). And of course you will perform a new Lorentz transformation for each new period of blue coasting in a new inertial frame.

So, we are not trying to manufacture some single coordinate transformation for a curvalinear non-inertial frame at all. We could talk about using something like Rindler coordinates, etc., but that's not at all what I've been trying to convey.

Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
Reference please?
Here are a couple of Einstein quotes on solipsism from The Library of Living Philosophers Volume VII – Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Arthur Schillp,Editor

I've included comments with a sketch to clarify the way the problem of solipsism comes into special relativity and hyperplanes of simultaneity.

Page 673 …A few more remarks of a general nature concerning concepts and [also] concerning the insinuation that a concept - for example that of the real - is something metaphysical (and therefore to be rejected). A basic conceptual distinction, which is a necessary prerequisite of scientific and pre-scientific thinking, is the distinction between "sense-impressions" (and the recollection of such) on the one hand and mere ideas on the other...one needs this distinction in order to be able to overcome solipsism… we shall make use of this distinction unconcerned with the reproach that, in doing so, we are guilty of the metaphysical "original sin."

Page 673 (further down the page) …We represent the sense-impressions as conditioned by an "objective" and by a "subjective" factor. For this conceptual distinction there also is no logical-philosophical justification. But if we reject it, we cannot escape solipsism.

Also from Schillp, Page 81: "Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as it is thought independently of its being observed. In this sense one speaks of 'physical reality'."

"Belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science."
Einstein, "Maxwell's Influence on the Evolution of the Idea of Physical Reality," 1931, in Einstein, Albert, Ideas and Opinions, New York: Random House, 266.

“I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists', which is obviously false.
Autobiographical Notes, 1949, in Schilpp 1949 p.81

The sketch depicts the problem with denying the real external world does not exist for observers if they cannot observe it. A common objection to the external world existing for an observer at a particular moment in time is that he cannot know anything about such a world “out there” until light signals arrive to inform the observer—by then the external world he is informed of is in the distant past (such as observation of stars, etc.).

So, the problem as depicted below is that under such objections the observer cannot know of anything but himself, for he is continually advancing forward along his worldline at the speed of light at the apex of his backward light cone. At that apex point he has no knowledge of the world of his hyperplane of simultaneity, and by the positivist’s claim he must consider himself to be a solipsist—the only known existing entity.

PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#64
Jan14-13, 09:13 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,517
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
the observer cannot know of anything but himself, for he is continually advancing forward along his worldline at the speed of light at the apex of his backward light cone. At that apex point he has no knowledge of the world of his hyperplane of simultaneity, and by the positivist’s claim he must consider himself to be a solipsist—the only known existing entity.
Sorry to be blunt, but this is hogwash. The observer has information coming in from his past light cone, and that information tells him about the existence of other objects. The information is time-delayed, but so what? It's still perfectly good information about the existence of other objects.

Edit: On reflection, it's even worse than that. You (bobc2) are arguing for a "block universe" interpretation of SR. But on that interpretation, "objects" don't exist in 3-D worlds; they exist in 4-D spacetime. So knowledge of *any* event on an object's worldline counts as knowledge of the object's existence, since the object *is* its worldline. So not only are you incorrectly stating the opposing view, you aren't even consistently applying your own view.
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#65
Jan14-13, 09:14 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,517
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
Here are a couple of Einstein quotes on solipsism from The Library of Living Philosophers Volume VII Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Arthur Schillp,Editor
These are all general comments. How about some quotes where Einstein talked specifically about relativity? As in, where he said the same sorts of things I said in my post #49?
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#66
Jan14-13, 09:44 PM
Mentor
P: 16,485
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
Here are a couple of Einstein quotes on solipsism
OK, those quotes all show that Einstein didn't like solipsism, which wasn't in doubt. Not one of them support your claim that Einstein said that rejecting the physical meaningfulness of coordinate time leads to solipsism.
bobc2
bobc2 is offline
#67
Jan14-13, 09:54 PM
P: 848
Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
Sorry to be blunt, but this is hogwash. The observer has information coming in from his past light cone, and that information tells him about the existence of other objects. The information is time-delayed, but so what? It's still perfectly good information about the existence of other objects.
You have just made my case. What do you think I've been trying to get across all of this time? I've certainly not been claiming that there is no external world just because the observer is always moving at the apex of his light cone. That was my example of the absurdity you arrive at when denying the external world of the hyperplanes of simultaneity. You're the one who has been denying the reality of the real external objective world represented by the hyperplanes of simultaneity.

Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
Edit: On reflection, it's even worse than that. You (bobc2) are arguing for a "block universe" interpretation of SR. But on that interpretation, "objects" don't exist in 3-D worlds
No. 1: I have said nothing of block universe. But, what an absurdity for you to come to the conclusion that objects don't exist in the 3-D world because they are 4-D objects. That's like saying a thin slice of a wooden 2 x 4 lumber doesn't exist because its length is 8 ft and the slice is only 0.001 inch thick. How does a 3-D piece of an object not exist just because it is a piece of a 4-D object. You have lost all logic here.


Quote Quote by PeterDonis View Post
...they exist in 4-D spacetime. So knowledge of *any* event on an object's worldline counts as knowledge of the object's existence, since the object *is* its worldline. So not only are you incorrectly stating the opposing view, you aren't even consistently applying your own view.
Sorry to be blunt, but you have just presented a total distortion of what my posts have been conveying, and you logic is totally flawed. And, again, I've said nothing of block universe--I don't think the monitor wants any more of that.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#68
Jan14-13, 10:12 PM
Mentor
P: 16,485
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
You are still not getting it. I am not saying the red guy's clock goes backward for the red guy sitting at rest in his own frame of reference (see sketch at the bottom of my post #32). The red guy always sees his clock moving forward as he moves along his world line in his positive X4 (time) direction.
I understand that. You are talking about your take on the blue observer's "perspective". The problem is that the math simply doesn't support your claim.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
But if you were to make a list of the RED clock readings in the order they are presented in the blue guy's frame each time he (blue--referring to my earlier sketch at the bottom of post #32) boosts to his next inertial frame, then you would see those clock readings getting smaller and smaller as blue advances along his worldline (with blue's own clock readings moving forward in time). So, each time blue is coasting in a new inertial frame you note the clock reading on the red worldline at the intersection of the blue X1 axis with the red worldline (you can of course calculate this using the Lorentz transformation between red and blue coordinates, where red's frame is the same as black's except displaced along the black X2 axis). And of course you will perform a new Lorentz transformation for each new period of blue coasting in a new inertial frame.

So, we are not trying to manufacture some single coordinate transformation for a curvalinear non-inertial frame at all. We could talk about using something like Rindler coordinates, etc., but that's not at all what I've been trying to convey.
That is exactly what you are trying to do. You are going to great linguistic lengths to disguise that fact, but it is exactly what you are trying to do.

You are adopting a simultaneity convention, and giving it an ordering corresponding to readings on a clock, so that clearly establishes a time coordinate. That time coordinate is not the time coordinate of an inertial frame, so your frame is non inertial.

All of your verbose obfuscations do not hide that fact. If you do not adopt a simultaneity convention and give it an ordering then you cannot claim that red's clock runs backwards according to blue. As soon as you do that, then you have established a non inertial frame.
bobc2
bobc2 is offline
#69
Jan14-13, 10:13 PM
P: 848
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
OK, those quotes all show that Einstein didn't like solipsism, which wasn't in doubt. Not one of them support your claim that Einstein said that rejecting the physical meaningfulness of coordinate time leads to solipsism.
DaleSpam, your not connecting the dots. The collection of Einstein quotes makes it quite clear the point Einstein was making about solipsism, and it is quite obvious that the external reality he refers to is associated with the hyperplanes of simultaneity. Can you imagine any other component of the Einstein-Minkowski model that could play that role in the description of physical reality?

I knew this would spiral into a monitor lockdown.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#70
Jan14-13, 10:19 PM
Mentor
P: 16,485
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
DaleSpam, your not connecting the dots.
If the dots have to be connected to make your point then it is not something Einstein actually said, is it?

It is one thing to claim that X leads to Y, but you are trying to give your claim a false veneer of authority. It is both fallacious and counter-factual. Einstein never said what you claim he said, and even if he did that doesn't make it correct.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
it is quite obvious that the external reality he refers to is associated with the hyperplanes of simultaneity. Can you imagine any other component of the Einstein-Minkowski model that could play that role in the description of physical reality?
Yes, the invariants could play that role.

It is not obvious at all to me that he is refering to hyperplanes of simultaneity, and he certainly wasn't explicit about it. You are putting your own words in his mouth. I think that you need to re-read what he actually said and not insert your own biases.
zonde
zonde is offline
#71
Jan14-13, 11:11 PM
PF Gold
P: 1,376
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
OK, those quotes all show that Einstein didn't like solipsism, which wasn't in doubt. Not one of them support your claim that Einstein said that rejecting the physical meaningfulness of coordinate time leads to solipsism.
Well, not only solipsism but positivism too. For example this one:
I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists', which is obviously false."

And what you say sounds like positivism: "what cannot be observed does not exist".
PeterDonis
PeterDonis is offline
#72
Jan14-13, 11:13 PM
Physics
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,517
Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
I've certainly not been claiming that there is no external world just because the observer is always moving at the apex of his light cone. That was my example of the absurdity you arrive at when denying the external world of the hyperplanes of simultaneity.
But in the block universe view, the "external world" is a single 4-D world. It is not a bunch of 3-D hyperplanes of simultaneity. The hyperplanes of simultaneity are completely unnecessary to the block universe view.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
You're the one who has been denying the reality of the real external objective world represented by the hyperplanes of simultaneity.
I have been denying that hyperplanes of simultaneity are "real physical things" because they are frame-dependent, and "real physical things" are represented in the theory by frame-independent quantities. So far you have said absolutely nothing that refutes that view. I have certainly not been denying the reality of the "real external objective world"; I just deny that that real external objective world is represented by hyperplanes of simultaneity. And since that is precisely the point at issue, you can't help yourself to it by implying that "the real external objective world" *is* in fact represented by hyperplanes of simultaneity. You have to first *prove* that, and you haven't.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
No. 1: I have said nothing of block universe.
Then what position, exactly, are you defending? I'm very confused.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
But, what an absurdity for you to come to the conclusion that objects don't exist in the 3-D world because they are 4-D objects.
I said no such thing. What I have been saying is that "3-D worlds" are frame-dependent, and the actual physics of SR is contained in the things that are frame-independent, so the actual physics of SR is *not* contained in 3-D worlds. That in no way denies the "reality" of objects; the only things whose "reality" it denies are the 3-D worlds, and only in the sense that they are frame-dependent, so you don't need them to describe the physics.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
That's like saying a thin slice of a wooden 2 x 4 lumber doesn't exist because its length is 8 ft and the slice is only 0.001 inch thick.
No, it's like saying that the 0.001 inch thick slice of the 8 ft. 2x4 is not the same thing as a complete slice out of the entire universe that contains the 0.001 inch thick slice of lumber.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
How does a 3-D piece of an object not exist just because it is a piece of a 4-D object. You have lost all logic here.
I didn't say a 3-D piece of an object doesn't exist. See above for further elaboration of what I did say. Please read more carefully.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
Sorry to be blunt, but you have just presented a total distortion of what my posts have been conveying
If you're not talking about the "block universe", then you're right, I have no idea what you think your posts have been conveying.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
and you logic is totally flawed.
No, my logic is just not what you have been claiming it is.

Quote Quote by bobc2 View Post
And, again, I've said nothing of block universe--I don't think the monitor wants any more of that.
There's nothing wrong with talking about the block universe in itself. The only things that have gotten people in trouble are claims that the block universe is the only possible interpretation of SR.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Time paradox (?) Special & General Relativity 7
Time paradox? Special & General Relativity 2
Name for a particular time travel paradox General Discussion 1
waiting time paradox Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 1
silly time paradox General Discussion 17