On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > 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 > Well, I can put hand on heart I have no personal investment in your theory being wrong. Or right. But more right than wrong because I do minimally know you, so have that much surplus with me at least. But I have tried to gently point out some questions. They are big Edgar, because the do impact on logic. That you are using. For example, nothing is inconsistent with anything, if it is laid in a causally isolated layer directly beneath or above. Is there a necesseary causal input from the perspective of Relativity in terms of P-time? Does P-time have necessary implication within itself for a relativistic nature that must occupy the level above. This is another way of restating what I raised with you. This time closer teo the context you are using at this moment in your debate. The question then becomes reversed as "how could it be possible for an inconsistency to exist on these terms". Unleshs there's an answer, the relevance of this consistency is about as much as the fact me lying here in my bath is entirely consistent with the Planet Neptune It's up to you what you do with issue. I won't push it. I don't know what you most want to get out of this process. Maybe the issue isn't at all helpful. I don't want to be the way,
> > 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.
