Plenty of people have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your view of p-time and simultaneity... you just ignore it and play dumb. You still haven't grasped what it means to be at the same spacetime coordinate...
Quentin 2014-02-24 18:14 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>: > Ghibbsa, > > Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with > relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way > that it is. > > Edgar > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:48:09 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> >>> Ghibbsa, >>> >>> To address one of your points. >>> >>> My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and >>> adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is >>> inconsistent with relativity in any respect I would consider my theory >>> falsified. >>> >> >> To be honest this wasn't one of my points. This has already come up and >> been stated quite a few times. Feel free to try reading but otherwise not >> to worry. >> >> >>> I'm not trying to replace relativity in any respect at all. I'm adding a >>> necessary interpretation and context to it, which it itself implicitly >>> assumes, though without stating that assumption. >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:48:54 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:12:05 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ghibbsa, >>>>> >>>>> Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks >>>>> nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise >>>>> are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES >>>>> reality. It doesn't make it more complex as you claim. And in fact it >>>>> clarifies many points that relativity can't on its own, such as how the >>>>> twins can have different clock times and different real ages in an agreed >>>>> upon and empirically observable single present moment. Only p-time can >>>>> explain that. >>>>> >>>>> Relativity on its own just can't explain that... My theory makes it >>>>> all clear, and directly leads to the clarification of many other mysteries >>>>> as well, from cosmology to how spaceclocktime is created by quantum >>>>> events. >>>>> By doing that it resolves quantum paradox, conceptually unifies GR and QT, >>>>> and explains the source of quantum randomness. >>>>> >>>>> So rather than complicating things, it simplifies and clarifies things. >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Edgar - if you thought something I asked was worthwhile why didn't >>>> you have a go at answering? >>>> >>>> I don't recall the two themes you answered in being part of what I put >>>> to you. I tend to throw out metaphor if it feels easier at the time, maybe >>>> you answered one of those literally, which maybe was a reasonable thing to >>>> do, no bother either way my end. >>>> >>>> I've seen you reference that piece about not telling nature how to do >>>> things. It's certainly an idea to admire and agree with, and something to >>>> aspire to also. But what's really worth just for the knowing and speaking? >>>> How do you translate the goal of seeking to see nature as pure as possible, >>>> involving the least reflection of yourself? >>>> >>>> For example, I've put that front and centre by seeking the nature of >>>> discovery as a methodical procedure. How go you? >>>> >>>> Also, if you are tempted to respond to just one of the questions I >>>> asked, the one I'd most like to hear back about is how you reconcile that >>>> back end logical perfection for initial conditions, with what nature then >>>> did when she got local to where we are? Why all the relativistic overlays >>>> and finite speeds of light, and fussy complex arrangements to minute scale, >>>> and all the rest? Why would she do all that if she already had something in >>>> the opposite direction that was perfect? >>>> >>>> p.s. we share a lot of basic instincts about the nature of the world. >>>> About infinity and its usage and so on. But as things stand, I actually >>>> regard p-time as one of the worser cases opf infinity like thinking. It >>>> might be finite in some key dimensions, but that absolute consistency, that >>>> sameness, that all corners of reality being in earshot of the same single >>>> drum. That's infinity thinking to my mind unless and until I can see why >>>> not. Infinity thinking isn't just about infinity, it's just any kind of >>>> magical thinking, in which nature is assumed capable of anything even at >>>> such an early stage as you envisage p-time >>>> >>>> But I'm interested to see otherwise. You clearly have a good >>>> culturally-empirical mind >>>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
