Thanks I don't have an obsession with being in agreement...but I'm not sure whether we disagree anyway.

One of Doctor Dick's points had been that
"self-evident" definitions are a potentially
fruitful place to search for new discoveries
by reexamining them.
It seems you agree.
How about this:
1+1= 2 is self-evident from rules of arithemetic
but seems not to function in relativity where 1+1 may equal a different number.

And direction, for example, is a simpler term in everyday life than in physics.
As we try to show the direction of our flight through space, the "direction" may change according to what our anchor is... ya know, in relation to what point or frame of reference?
And so as we fly around our sun, Sol flies in some other direction in a star region which is orbiting the center of the galaxy...which too is
flying some direction.
To find the real "direction" of "our flight", we need to know the relative speeds at each level or it would not be a true computation...and in the best case, we admit our direction is in relation to a geometrically more-than-simple point of reference.

This only illustrates that our familiar terms may become different in any scientific use.

warm regards back atcha even if I don't always say it,
Mike

• oops I went on and on - spazcon - December 27, 2001 - 02:13 UTC