Clearly, we do disagree, but I am happy with your reply, Paul.
Physicists can wag the dog and not have the dog wag its tail. One cannot have it both ways. One must pick which way is which.
I'll use the experiment of clocks sent into space to make that point clear.
The time on the display of these cesium clocks was different from clocks left on Earth. What did it show? Two options:
A: Time dilated.
B: Matter of the Cesium clock changed.
Any person studying Newton or Einstein knows or should know by heart that B is the answer. A is wagging the dog.
--
Einstein devised a framework to explain the behavior of matter. He did not talk about the universe, he did not talk about space, he did not talk about time. Those were not his subject matters. His subject matter was the behavior of matter.
So, you have to pick, Paul. You cannot have it both ways.
A: You are with all these second generation physicists that came after Einstein, wagging the dog, or
B: You are with Einstein, showing that the time on the display shows once and for all that the matter of the clock changed.
--
Space and time are phenomena; they have no attributes of their own.
God cannot be a Cyclops. The universe cannot be a unit.
The structure in your mind is based on something that is not possible. You want to unify things while the original Vase broke. We would not be here if that Vase had not been broken, could not have been here; structurally impossible.
--
It is real simple: w cannot have a secondary outcome of having a 100% Universe, and this secondary outcome of the Universe remaining in that state. If it were already possible, the secondary 100% of everything would return to the original 100% in two seconds or less.
We cannot live in the original state and have all these results. Paul, it can structurally not exist. The original state must have been broken.
--
When playing Sudoku, people may think they can put a '4' in an empty spot if they see an empty spot. But that is not true. A '4' cannot be put in an empty spot when there is a '4' already in the same row, the same column, or in the same square.
Empty spots of not-knowing with absolute certainty does not mean that 'anything goes'. There are things that are simply not possible.
--
I so wish for the day that physicists finally see that they are wagging the dog instead of having the dog wag its tail. Everything else is correct, but not the big picture level; it's reversed, based on an infantile idea that ultimately all can be unified somehow.
Gödel already showed how that cannot be. I have evidence of my own. But knowing that the binary system is based on 1s and 0s, and that we can declare the entire universe mathematically just using the binary system and nothing else shows abundantly already that we live in a result and that unification at the highest level is not available. there is no 1 in the binary system that represents the ultimate 1. We can create something that says 'Unity' in the binary system, but it is not automatically present.
Meanwhile in the decimal system, number 1 is kind of automatically 'Unity'. Our brains use shortcuts, but that means we can stop seeing the big picture of the binary system as well.
--
Thank you for your reply. I hope you take the challenge to investigate the format/structure of the highest level inside your brain. You think something is possible because you can't see that it is impossible. You think you can put a '4' in the empty spot in the Sudoku game while that option is not available.
