Liz, No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa.
Edgar On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:15:42 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which > sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with > it - for example an astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the > same time as his twin on Earth, but intersecting it at an angle that means > his clock runs at a different rate. > > Or something like that. This hyperplane appears to be the rest frame of > the CMBR (probably) and orthogonal to the expansion of the universe in 5 > dimensions, ignoring the bumpy bits. > > > > On 8 February 2014 20:59, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with >>>> it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to >>>> deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best >>>> efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is Edgar's insight? Can you explain it? All I've seen is that >>>> observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is >>>> trivially the meaning of "at the same event". >>>> >>>> His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are >>>> derived from some kind of "alignment" of frames, sounds more interesting. >>>> Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light >>>> signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of "aligning" the >>>> clocks so they define and inertial frame. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight >>> is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with >>> goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway. >>> >>> I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he >>> himself seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory stands >>> or falls on. >>> >>> I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think >>> that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem. >>> >>> I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your >>> question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel >>> better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of >>> following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out >>> of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage >>> to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum >>> indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it >>> doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be >>> about time in the end. >>> >>> So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in >>> terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically >>> enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out >>> well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest >>> sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how it >>> might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe >>> are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled. >>> >>> That's my best guess for your answer. >>> >> >> Final word from me: The only new distinction I'm proposing that isn't >> already what Edgar is saying and not already a 'fact on the ground' >> given so much time is already being given to this, is that we seek to >> formalize things a little bit by getting clear, what is already effectively >> in play, and seeking to reinforce whatever that is by some >> basic principles that can be enshrined in method because that's >> the generally accepted best way to ensure on-going consistency. >> The outcome I have proposed assumes the goal is sort of, positive in the >> extreme, and everything else rolls from that. But another totally >> legitimate outcome would be that having stopped to collectively think about >> this, people throw up their arms and say "what the fuck are we doing giving >> all this freakin' attention to such an undeserving idea that is >> clearly totally screwy and wrong". >> >> That would be perfectly legitimate too. If the garbage needs to be taken >> out and the collective insight is that is Edgar and his ideas, then it's >> best for him too that he can know that cleanly and make his own mind up the >> merits on which it was based, and keep open for himself that he focuses >> on searching for a fairer bunch of folk to get his idea considered. That's >> fine. I can definitely vouch for that outcome as totally in the gift of any >> group of people to decide. >> >> What I personally couldn't vouch for and wouldn't feel good about in the >> fulsomeness of reflection, would be if that had been the built in implicit >> decision, in effect by the way things were actually done on the ground. But >> that was never fully realized by either side him or the collective. For him >> that could be really bad. That could be like, being left totally burned out >> by the process and walking away from his idea forever, when actually that >> outcome and kind of been an realized given from the start. Not purposefully >> - that is not necessary at all for that to be the real intention at the >> level of the METHOD. The method is objectively real, and it is always there >> whether it's realized or not. It's objective in that sense. If it isn't >> explicit worked through, then it's just the whatever was most repeating and >> most long term influential in the carcrash of what happened. >> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- 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.
