Quentin, As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just revert to hot air...
Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > ahahah > > > 2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>>: > > 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 overla > > ... -- 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.
