On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:57:44 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Liz, > > No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa. > > Edgar > I wusn't messin' with your idea man promise! I was just ranting away full of good intentions but basically a bit sick in the head.
> > > > 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]> 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]. >>> 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. >>> >> >> -- 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.
