Brent, You claim my p-time theory "sounds outrageous" but you haven't been able to meaningfully comment on my many demonstrations of how it actually works that I've made to Jesse.
For example Jesse claims that there is no 1:1 correlation of proper ages of twins separated by distance in relative motion but there is when the twins are at rest relative to each other even at distance. But what if the twins are separated by a great distance and just start walking away from each other? Do they then magically somehow COMPLETELY LOSE ALL their 1:1 correlation of proper ages? If not, ithen the DEGREE OF CORRELATION of proper ages must be dependent on the amount of relative motion in contradiction to how most interpret relativistic non-simultaneity? My point is that Jesse and I are having a real detailed discussion of P-time theory, and for someone not following the details of that discussion to pass judgment on it without actually engaging with the theory is pretty presumptuous. I'd be happy for you to join the discussion if you think you are up to it.... Or to discuss my theory of how spaceCLOCKtime emerges from quantum events which you claim to be interested in but never actually engage with or ask questions about. I for one look forward to such a discussion.... Edgar On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:39:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: >> >>> >>> I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" >>> depend on our demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of >>> energy is a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation >>> invariant. >>> >> >> That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.) >> >> Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a >> lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity. But >> that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a >> "demand"; or at least a strong desiderata. Remember how the neutrino was >> discovered. If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look >> for something new we could count as the energy difference. >> > > I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous > comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or > Vic Stenger). > > IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey > conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that > everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300 > years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately > assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out, > they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond > being a mere "accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such > as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support > (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode). > > > Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing > something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby > achieve conservation. I don't think the general conservation of energy was > considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was > seriously entertained in the case of beta decay. But the idea that the > "laws of physics" should not depend on time or place goes back much further > and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also > metaphysical. Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just > wants a universal clock. How would it sound to put forth a theory that > reference a specific time? No one would accept it as fundamental. > > > Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly > detected, and scientists were duly surprised. > > > Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry > and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem. I don't claim it's an > absolute requirement (notice I said "desiderata") but it's surprising how > much you can get out of symmetry principles. Did you read Stenger's > essay? My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and > others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant > theory, then we'll know what's really real. I don't think they pay enough > attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics. > > Brent > > > I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a > postmodernist take on how scientists operate. > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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.
