Ghibbsa, I apologize, but I'm a little unsure as to what you are actually asking of me here, but I'll try to answer.
First P-time and relativity are NOT causally isolated. A proper interpretation of relativity actually implies the necessity of P-time. i've demonstrated why. Please read to my proximate reply to Quentin for an explanation of some of it. So because they are causally connected, there could be an inconsistency, which would be fatal, but there isn't any such consistency that has arisen even after many have tried to find one. Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:48:10 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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 adm > > ... -- 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.
