My dear Doctordick, the real question has nothing to do with the strawmen you keep putting in the mouths of others and why you demonstrate such uh what is it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
The real question here is why everyone immediately drops into the adversary mode whenever I walk on the scene.
|
...oh yes, accurate perceptions of intent. That's it.
The only complaint here is that the article has nothing to do with what you say it does. Do I not make myself clear? You're certainly welcome to argue that GR and QM disagree (which I agree with completely, but then so does every physicist out there, again, so what?), just recognize that throwing up this article as somehow being proof that time is inadequate or that Einstein is wrong because he's incomplete in your view, is just plain...irrelevant...
I'll try to be clear: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that your argumentative thread is
not making sense, and its really *not* because I'm blonde!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
No it is just another example of some subtle difficulties in his perspective. I see his "theory" as little more than a convenient mechanism for solving a particular set of problems and not as a necessary representation of reality. Shall we say a difficulty from an idealistic perspective?
|
Cool! Just pointing to the article doesn't help yer point! You've lost even the smart crowd here. I'll tell ya my high school Geometry teacher pounded it into me: "those big jumps in your proof are *not* obvious. You're missing a bunch of steps if you expect to get credit for it."
I'll have a Hurricane please,
Buffy
