ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>: > Quentin, > > I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and > relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried > repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own > admission) and hasn't succeeded so far.... > > You can't just state an uniformed opinion and expect anyone to believe > it.... > > Edgar > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:19:57 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 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 >> >> ... > > -- > 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.
