Believe it or not, I was quite delighted by your response. I found absolutely nothing in it irrational. Given the facts you have to work with, your response was quite to be expected. I still find it strange that everyone on this forum tries so hard to hide their identity. Perhaps I am missing something of significant importance.
>>>oh. There went the BS flag. And it's starting to make sense why there are more than one of you around here who hold an outmoded definition of time. >I'll soon discover why your twenty year-long quest for funding has been fruitless.>Hmmm... does this mean you consider absolute knowledge and absolute understanding to be impossibilities?> Also, considering the implications of position vs. momentum vis-a-vis relativity, do you also realize that you'd have to completely reinvent Lorentz Transformations in order to rectify the time is not a dimension nonsense?>How very 1960s. (How much LSD do you take on a weekly basis?)>Maybe because it is a Netscape web site, and I run Explorer. But, now I am really interested in your dissertation, so I'll get to it somehow. >Indeed! This is a good opportunity for the neutral reader to employ Occam’s Razor, to wit:
Dick can’t get funding for his studies because...
(A) He’s smarter than everyone who examines his efforts, and therefore nobody is capable of fully grasping his work, which is extremely revolutionary and would usurp too many long-standing establishments; or
(B) He’s lost his marbles. >Of course, I shouldn't expect you to be able to objectively respond, so save it until I consider your dissertation.