Wow...it is getting deep in here...Johnny5, could you better define a "rotating frame of reference"? Do you have any descriptive math? Are you insinuating that change in time is in some way cyclic? I guess you could bend space back upon itself in a space smaller then a Planck length...then you could have c=0, of course it really is traveling at c, but only in this loop. Of course, this is not valid because it breaks the postulate of universality. I do not know...I got bored between pages 6 at 9 so skipped some of the longer posts (in skimming it all seemed sort of cyclic - hehehe). Anyways, it appears to me as if you (Johnny5) are using some sort of philosophical arguement against a mathematic/ scientific one...I have an idea that you might find fun...If you think SR is counter intuitive and therefore easy to prove wrong (philosphically, based upon your homegrown version of logic), take a look at QED...a theory in which causality is an illusion should fit great within your "x before y and y before x" theories. I guess if you cannot make your philosophy fit the theory...find a theory that fits your philosophy... - KitNyx
The logic which I use is fundamentally nothing but binary logic. What makes it interesting, is that it is the one and only temporal binary logic that can ever be accessed by a reasoning agent. I wouldn't call it homegrown logic, since I am not the first person to use it.
I copied this from the link that our resident genius kindly gave us. Kind of blows you away, wouldn't you say? I just love that little tease.........."I will not prove this here"
