Hi Paul,

Surely it's not that hard to understand? I don't think my latest item on 'proper time'; or gravitational refraction, or geometry of knots in different dimensions; is any harder to understand than the writings of Feynman, Kaku, Penrose, Hawking, etc.! The main difficulty is having to use words here; when some drawings would help to clarify what I'm saying.

Does anyone understand those writers?

I think Richard Stafford would be surprised if he actually made an effort to read what I wrote recently!

Thanks for the tip re: the Langan essay.

If you re-read QED and re-experience that extraordinary story; maybe you will see again what so many physicists have been running around in circles over! I am amazed by Feynman's book!

His book is an ideal guidebook to Richard Staffords ideas; and I think to mine; because it shows what the problem is.

-Alan

• Good tip, Paul. Langan gets it! - dolphin - January 8, 2002 - 06:51 UTC
  • I can't resist to ask - harvey1 - January 8, 2002 - 15:02 UTC
    • Let me guess - pmartin - January 8, 2002 - 17:00 UTC
      • The problem with modal realism - harvey1 - January 8, 2002 - 17:53 UTC
        • I don't know what "Modal Realism" is, but... - pmartin - January 11, 2002 - 01:24 UTC
          • What is a "Law" and what is a "Theory?" - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 02:14 UTC
            • signed, Cranshaw the Annniversary Ape's silly friend - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 02:18 UTC
          • Modal realism is.. - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 16:45 UTC
    • Self-consistent means no contradictions - dolphin - January 11, 2002 - 09:01 UTC
      • What does contradiction mean? (nt) - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 19:17 UTC
  • You may have missed the best part - pmartin - January 8, 2002 - 17:27 UTC
• Not to me they aren't - pmartin - January 8, 2002 - 17:25 UTC
  • I agree, Paul - dolphin - January 11, 2002 - 09:16 UTC