Dear Flyer, You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful to the discussion? :-)
Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:44:47 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > Haha! Ya Liz, I think your point is very well taken. > > On my part, I am finding it infinitely amusing that a guy who is so > obviously self-deluded and unable to grok any of the most basic criticisms > of his "theory" from the many textbook gedanken experiments so > compassionately offered by people (experiments, by the way, that are easy > to find in sophomore college level textbooks on physics available for free > on the web) on this list nevertheless feels as though what he says is > original and important enough to write a book on "Reality". What could this > guy possibly know about reality when he can't even answer in good faith > some of the most basic objections made against his "account"? > > Oi vey! At least Roger Clough's vacuous murmurings bow in the direction of > greatness (Leibniz)... this guy pretends he's figured it all out for > himself, and his (wrong, or at least apparently indefensible) theory stands > alone and has no need to build upon or incorporate anything that came > before. > > Talk about hubris... > > Nevertheless, following along is very entertaining for me!! > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Terren, >>> >>> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories >>> into standard categories. It's an entirely new theory. >>> >> >> This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be >> prepared for some parts of your theory to overlap others. The definitions >> and categories you use, the logic and any maths that is applicable, are all >> derived from existing theories. What you call shoehorning is an attempt to >> find out what your theory actually is. >> >> Over and over, someone makes a comparison and is told that is what your >> theory is NOT. This is starting to look like "Games People Play" - I'm >> thinking of the one where someone says they want to do X, their friend >> says, "Why don't you (do something that will help you achieve X) " to >> which the other person always says "Yes, but..." and comes up with some >> objection. So they never achieve X. In this case, we say "Why don't you >> give a formal definition that anyone can understand?" and you say "Don't >> shoehorn me - I've explained that - see my post of... it's obvious... >> anyone who disagrees with me is a moron..." Anything but actually achieving >> X, in this case a theory with a formal definition that can be critiqued. >> It's almost as though you only came here in the hope that everyone would >> say "Yes, wow, wonderful theory! Shut down CERN, this guy's got it all >> worked out..." >> >> A formal definition is needed, with defined terms, assumptions, >> deductions, proofs. You haven't even given a proper definition of P-time >> that actually makes sense yet. >> >> I await your hand waving tack spitting insistence that you have, or stony >> silence 'cos I'm only a stupid gurl as the case may be. >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
