Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger  Pat's 'Idea' thread has been instrumental in accessing the ideas of others, some of which have been very useful to me. But if you reject the very concept of the aether then we have little common ground. |
Felix,
If you think I reject the ether, then you did not read my words the way I intended them to be read, which of course is my doing. Apologies therefore, I should have made my words as clear as possible, and not leading anyone to think that I said A or B, when in reality I state A(B) and/or (A)B.
In short (because things are often best said the short way): it does not matter as long as you get to the same outcome as those who reject the ether. If you don't come to the same answer, then one or neither has the toe. The one that has the toe also explains why both versions can be followed to get to the same answer.
I am adamant about the two dimensions, because the three dimensions contain a hole (though the three divisions or directions are real). So, if I see you walking with a bucket of water prepared to go great distances, then I cannot but tell you that you need to check for holes in your bucket. If you go for short distances (i.e. separate aspects), the hole can be insignificant and does not need mentioning; there will be plenty of water left in the bucket when you get to your destination nearby. However, if you go all the way, the tiniest hole can leave you stranded without accomplishing your goal of reaching the destination plus delivering the water.
So, please, see my words as the quickest way to communicate on what I see is an important, but tiny aspect in your otherwise impressive delivery.
I like your fleas if you like them. I prefer to not even have
flies on me, but I will admit that that happens from time to time.