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.
