Hi Bruce,

Even though Dick complains that you never post anything intelligent, I think the only problem with you is that you don't post enough. I for one enjoy reading your brief comments. There aren't many physicists here and the few who are seldom talk about physics.

" Dick's model isn't isomorphic with relativity. "

I think what Dick is really saying is that his entire model is isomorphic to the entirety of physics, which of course doesn't mean that isolated portions are isomorphic. The problem as I see it is that since his definition of time differs from the one used by physicists, and since t is the single most important variable in physics, one can easily see how messy it can get.

" Its interesting that you say you disagreed with relativity prior to making an effort to familiarize yourself with what Einstein proposed. "

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't a better solution to the problems Einstein solved, but I mean "better" only in the sense of "more elegant" or "more intuitive". I think you're knowledgeable enough to understand that even though movement affects the "rate of change" of a clock, it doesn't affect its readings. From a philosophical perspective that issue is, in my opinion, extremely meaningful, but from a scientific perspective, I think it's entirely beside the point.

So my trouble was with Einstein the philosopher. The only thing I realized, after reading his book, was that he was smart enough not to waste time with philosophy! Now you can only worship a guy like that.

• matrax - carefuluniverse - August 15, 2002 - 21:33 UTC