means? Whats true and real is strictly observer dependent. Its obvious that it varies from observer to observer. Stafford wants to show that it isn't observer dependent. That it is a set of numbers. For Tourist it is a set of bananas [I'm sure Tourist doesn't believe this]. For me it is observer dependent and relative. All Stafford's machinations are meaningless wrt his claim that he derives both QM and GR from what you are still trying to understand. Believe me if it is that hard to grasp it is useless for doing physics. He made one prediction after I asked him numerous times to do just that. He predicted Newton had elliptical orbits exactly correct while claiming that he derived GR from 'whatever'. This means he doesn't even know the difference between the Newton and Einstein prediction. Its obvious [to me] that he is just a Newtonian hanging onto his background of absolute space and time.

• "true" reality - sagefr0g - September 28, 2003 - 00:54 UTC
  • True reality as you just defined it... - bruce - September 28, 2003 - 04:30 UTC
    • Try this Bruce! - dolphin - September 28, 2003 - 10:04 UTC
    • does our discussion... - sagefr0g - September 28, 2003 - 17:15 UTC
      • No... - bruce - September 29, 2003 - 02:10 UTC
        • ok - sagefr0g - September 29, 2003 - 22:28 UTC