Then perhaps you might care to clarify what your point was.
Well, this conversation is pretty tedious for me, and you seem to keep asking me to do more work. Well, OK. So, the context was:
We have a very nice theory that seems to describe how the world works with great accuracy and precision. It does not have the property that when you simply T-reverse it C and P get reversed automatically.
Only because it doesn’t say anything about that. It’s a model of physics. In physics, you can’t just reverse time, that is not a permitted operation.
...and the idea was that the job of physics is mostly to tell us how the temporal evolution of the world works. It’s main job is not to tell us what happens if an impossible physical event—like time running backwards—takes place. So, it is not a terribly big surprise that it doesn’t have too much to say about the issue of whether charge reversal is an automatic consequence of time reversal—or not. That is not really an important part of its job description.
You seem to be asking for more specifics than I, or anyone else, has.
Then you should stop talking about “the model” as if, y’know, you actually have a model.
Well, this conversation is pretty tedious for me, and you seem to keep asking me to do more work. Well, OK. So, the context was:
...and the idea was that the job of physics is mostly to tell us how the temporal evolution of the world works. It’s main job is not to tell us what happens if an impossible physical event—like time running backwards—takes place. So, it is not a terribly big surprise that it doesn’t have too much to say about the issue of whether charge reversal is an automatic consequence of time reversal—or not. That is not really an important part of its job description.
“Model” can be a pretty general term:
The problem is that you are not using the term in the same sense as me—which leads to communication problems. The results seem kind-of tedious to me.
Yeah, me too. Let’s stop.