Those are a lot of interesting words that I'm afraid I can't follow. All through your post I what came to my mind were more questions than answers, like "what "OP"?, what logical conclusion from relativity?, what "B theory"?, how can spacetime be atemporal any more than it can be non-spacial...
Look, you and I don't share "truth". All that you and I can share to talk about is our observations.
Assuming that we're looking at the same thing and also assuming that there are things that exist outside of ourselves, most cosmologists say that the observable universe had a beginning and...
--and we have yet to reconcile some of the particulars of general relativity w/ those of quantum mechanics, but that's ok because both QM and GR are handy models until something better comes along. Meanwhile my thinking is that there IS in fact a "privileged, fixed point, from which to observe"...
...Why can't you?
Are we all together on the fact that the mass of our observable universe is finite, one estimate is 1.5x10^53kg. The only infinitely long piece of string possible in this universe would have to be an imaginary one.
What we observe is that the spacetime in which we exist has had a beginning (the big bang) and it will have an end (either cold or hot). Sure, you can insist that our space time came from another spacetime (or something) but there's no way to observe any evidence of it. It's pure unreasoned...
So it looks like the reason we're not communicating is that the general mode of this forum is conflict/confrontation, and my interest is consultation. That's fine, I can pull back, and I do thank you for your time and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Seems like we're not communicating here.
Many people say the earth has heated up 1C over the past century. If they say this is caused by human green-house action then they're wrong because the earth is too massive for any part of 200 terawatts to make that much of a temp. difference. It...
Let's work together on this please.
If we only have one point that's heating up, and all the points around it don't change in temperature, then the localized temperature fluctuation will resolve itself w/o problems. Think of it this way, if one gram of water were to warm up 1C, while the...
My thinking now is that we'd do well to focus on on point at a time.
First, let's all agree that it's stupid to say that over the past century the earth has warmed up 1C because of the greenhouse. Sure, lots of folks may take issue w/ me pointing this out, but from what I gather here we all...
--and it's good that you're getting pleasure from our interchange. Please let me know whenever you want work with me on the heat transfer question that the greenhouse issue raises.
That's nice and it tells us nothing about what the greenhouse is doing. It doesn't matter if important people talk about the "surface". The surface is still just a surface and the greenhouse cannot transfer energy to a surface.
Can you work with me on this or should we just give it a rest?
What's happening here is you and I are in conflict and that is counter-productive. My interest is in understanding what is happening and I am not getting any information, all we got is that I'm a bad guy for not agreeing. For me agreement is not the issue. What's important is what's...
OK, you're saying that you believe the earth has been warming 1C over the past 1-1/2 centuries because of a green house effect. This is what I was talking about above when I posted...
Like I said, the earth may very well be warming at a disastrous rate but it can't be warming because of a...
You touched upon a number of subjects, maybe I can separate them out & we can deal w/ them one at a time.
First, what I was talking about was all the folks who are saying the earth is warming. Specifically, I did a quick internet search and got hits from the U.S. gov't, CNN, National...