Nice to know you're still around. I hope you don't mind my throwing some more stuff in the fan, I find your challenges quite interesting.
" I think you still misunderstand some of the things I say. "
I sure do, but I decided to turn that against you. Just watch! :-)
" I still think [Einstein] would have seen what I am talking about "
I disagree! For one thing, Einstein says in his book that Euclidean geometry is not "true". I won't get into the details of his argument, as you are supposed to understand Einstein better than I do, but the point remains that Einstein's concept of truth is far removed from yours. Read Einstein again if you think I'm wrong, one forgets a lot after leaving school.
" Yes, my problem is more with Einstenians than with Einstein even though I think Einstein was the basic cause of the problem. "
Right here you have started digging your own grave. If Einstein can be blamed for inspiring weirdos, what do we make of you for inspiring Paul, Alan, and, I'm embarassed to say, myself, to post a lot of philosophical Language Removed around here?
" Boy, it sure gets me that so many people will admit that they don't know what time is while at exactly the same time they will not admit any possibility of error in their use of the concept. "
I don't know who those "so many people" are. The only people I know who won't admit any possibility of error in anything they talk about are you and Harv. Everyone else seems quite enlightened in that regard.
Perhaps you don't realize your definition of time is as faulty as anyone else's. For one thing it doesn't explain entropy (which in your terms means making entropy true by definition) Can you solve that? I know you can't, nobody can at the moment.
" All I am saying is that they should be concerned as a little thought results in another possibility which is much simpler than Einstein's presentation, fulfills all the needs of Einstein's work and has none of the difficulties extant in Einstein's work. "
If that "another possibility" is contained in your paper then I can't understand how you can possibly say that! I know a lot of people who understand Einstein's work, and 20 years after first hearing of Relativity I'm glad to finally be able to count myself among those. As to your paper, do you know anyone who understands it?
How can you say your paper is simpler than Einstein's work? How can you say that???!!!
" But none of them will even look at the idea of defining clocks as measuring that: i.e. using the relativistic transformation to obtain time in any given frame (the reverse of the standard procedure)! No mathematical difference, just a difference in definition which leads to a rather different geometry. Using what clocks measure as one of the coordinates instead of using time! "
Come on, Dick, I know perfectly well that that "little" change has an enormous impact on our whole understanding of physics. It's not as simple as you try to make it, you are concealing the facts hoping no one will realize the full consequences of what you are talking about. I'm not an expert on the matter and I can see enough of it, I can imagine how an expert would react to that. That's why I started to think Bruce's attitude makes sense, even though you won't listen to him.
" One, counter to 5,000 years of physical observation, Einstein's theory includes the possibility of time travel. Serious scientists are, at this very moment giving serious thought to that issue. "
Time travel is perfectly possible if you accept Einstein's definition of time, and you know that very well. What you are really asking is that people drop Einstein's definition of time and adopt yours, simply because according to your definition time travel is not possible. I maintain this is an issue of semantics and nothing else. Definitely not physics.
" If one uses Einstein's geometry, you must add the constraint that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. "
This sounds like nonsense to my ears. What really happens with relativity is that if v is greater than c then the result of the relativistic transformation is undefined. "Undefined" is quite different from "wrong".
Besides, what you fail to see is that any philosophical problem arising out of our current version of modern physics will arise out of any isomorphic version of it. In different words perhaps, but a similar problem and of exactly the same difficulty. Since you claim your paper is isomorphic to modern physics for the life of me I can't understand why you can't see that.
" [Aurino: I think the problem is with the people who parrot about physics without understanding it.]
And I think a lot of those people are professional physicists. "
Now with that I agree 100%!
" [Aurino: your ideas, nobody even knows what they are about]
That is purely because no one with sufficient education has taken the trouble to look at them. "
Dick, you are a very smart guy, you have to understand this, it's so simple:
You are not saying Einstein's math is wrong, after all you can't possibly say that since your version of relativity is isomorphic to his. All you're saying is that Einstein's theory is not good because it's too difficult to understand. But while I agree that relativity is not easy, I can't understand why in the world you want to replace it with something nobody in the whole wide world can understand.
Perhaps you believe in the stories you tell yourself to explain why nobody looks at your paper. All I can say is, well, those are just stories you tell yourself, the truth is a lot simpler.
" Have fun - Dick "
This is more than fun, it's more important to me than you can possibly imagine.