There are none so blind as those who will not see!

[Doctordick]

Well, I think everyone here has already formed their own opinion of me so I expect not to be bothered by those who are easily insulted; however, for those of you who are open to real thought, I have some comments to make. First, I am very much an opinionated old man and I would not bother with this at all except that it is becoming quite evident that I am most probably going to take what I have discovered to the grave. I still have the hope of reaching someone capable of comprehending what I have been trying to discuss or I wouldn't be posting here. It has occurred to me that perhaps a discourse on how I came to realize what I have realized would prompt someone with a decent education to step back and think about it for a moment or two. Or perhaps interest someone young in making a sincere attempt to understand some of the more subtle issues of fundamental physics. :(

 

My father liked to read science fiction and, when I was still quite young, he told me about relativity. It was a rather simple minded introduction but none the less convincing to a child with essentially no mathematics training. His explanation started with the need to send a light signal to check the agreement of clocks and how the assumption that the light moved at a constant velocity in their own frame would lead a person on a moving train to set his clocks slightly different from how they would be set by an observer in the station. When the observer in the station would measure the length of the train, he would clearly get a different answer than the observer on the train because they disagreed on the positions of the ends of their rulers (the issue being the necessity of marking positions at simultaneous moments separated by some distance, the very issue they would disagree about). Obtaining the same value for the speed of light would also required their clocks to appear to run differently (since time was defined by how long light took to cover a fixed path this also made sense to me). And of course all that leads one directly to the twin paradox. :beer:

 

The simple minded childish conclusion which jumped into my mind was, "Oh, clocks don't measure time!" In my childish unsophisticated mind, time being the same meant we could interact and time being different meant one of us was in the past relative to the other and we couldn't interact. The final key he gave me was that Einstein conceived of the world as a four dimensional space time continuum. Of course I had no idea of what he meant by "space time". To me the four dimensional aspect was the only important issue and it was this fourth dimension which had to do with what readings were on the clock. He told me we couldn't see this fourth dimension because it was beyond our minds ability to comprehend: we could only comprehend three dimensions. (I seem to remember some allusion to Plato talking about working with shadows of reality on the wall). So, once again, I jumped to the childish conclusion that we couldn't see this strange fourth dimension because our minds could only see the projected shadow of it. :cup:

 

It was not more than a few days later that I had worked out in most all of the direct logical consequences of the picture which my father had unintentionally created in my mind. At the time, I fully believed that I totally understood relativity; my image of reality was exactly what I thought my father had described to me. As this was not an issue my playmates talked about, all my thoughts were strictly internal and not discussed with anyone else; but I did regard it as a totally valid conception of reality and it was quite often in my thoughts. By the time I was in high school, and had a little geometry to work with, I could deduce the consequences of almost any situation one could describe (I obtained a scholarship in physics to college via a national test where my ability to quickly answer questions related to relativity may have played an important role). :cup:

 

When I went off to college and actually began to study Einstein's relativity for real, I discovered that I was totally wrong. The mental image I had in mind bore little resemblance at all to what Einstein was proposing; however, by that time it was quite evident to me that both views lead to exactly the same conclusions. At the time, it was very clear to me that my idea was neither as rational nor as well thought out as the "real" theory as mine required this ridiculous ad hoc necessity to project out that spurious and unnecessary fourth dimension conceived of by my childish mind. None the less, being intimately familiar with my perspective through years of using it, I found it very convenient to switch between the two on a regular basis. :omg:

 

In most cases, one perspective or the other would provide a quicker and easier deduction of answers (which perspective was actually best depended very much on the details of the specific problem). For example, in my perspective, simple Newtonian F=ma gave the correct dynamic solutions for accelerated motion (one only had to use the original rest frame for the space part together with time as defined on a clock on the traveling entity to obtain the relativistically correct solution for accelerated motion). From that time on I generally thought of it as little more than a convenient rule of thumb useful for seeing quick results in some specific situations. :eek:

 

When I got to graduate school and began to studying quantum mechanics, I learned about the Heisenberg uncertainty principal. (Quantum mechanics was not part of the curriculum where I went to college.) Of course, what popped out at that time was the obvious mechanism for that fourth dimension being projected out. In my picture, mass being momentum in that unobservable tau dimension clearly made tau the variable canonical to mass, the fact that practically everything in our everyday experience consisted of mass quantized entities implied the uncertainty in tau had to be infinite. No wonder we couldn't directly perceive that fourth dimension. It was this realization that cast a whole new light on the issue of why my strange perspective worked so well. :hihi:

 

So, that was the event that lead me to point out this useful alternate perspective to the Chairman of the department (one of the "theoretical gurus" of our physics department). Initially, his position was that what I was saying couldn't possibly be true. It was only after several hours of argument that I was finally able to lay out an absolute mathematical proof that the two perspectives had to yield exactly the same result that he finally accepted the fact that I was right; however, he insisted that I not mention it to any of the other students as "it might confuse them". Yeah sure, I think it might have confused them into asking some serious questions he couldn't answer! (On the other hand, it is entirely possible that, in spite of the proof, he didn't really understand what I was doing; certainly no one here seems to have comprehended my thoughts.) Nevertheless, it didn't prevent me from carrying on with some thought about the issue. :ip:

 

About a year later, (in thinking about some subtle aspects of my unauthorized perspective) I had dug myself into an interesting conundrum which lead me to asking my thesis adviser an admittedly strange question ("How can one prove a measurement in one dimension is the same as an analogous measurement in an orthogonal dimension?") . His answer rather surprised me. He said, "only geniuses ask questions like that and, believe me Stafford, you're no genius!" and left it at that. My mother was quite correct! (She had told me that one learns a lot more by listening than by talking.) :smile: :cup:

 

My thesis had to do with calculating "Nucleon-Nucleus Inelastic Scattering with Realistic Nucleon-Nucleon Interactions", a major number crunching effort suggested by an Oak Ridge colleague of my thesis adviser (of course it was done on a computer inadequate to the job as, in those days, everything was). It was pretty much a waste of time having utterly nothing to do with physics theory and everything to do with complex numerical approximations (the authorities of that day and age presumed they understood reality; the only problem for theorists was to figure out how to calculate the answers in their own lifetime). I always thought it was somewhat funny that Feynman's greatest contribution to physics was a method of keeping track of terms. (And that was not meant to insult Feynman as he was a very thoughtful and competent physicist.) :cup:

 

At any rate, it was during that period (when I was concerned with handling large numbers of virtual interactions) that I attempted to ask my last question. Being well aware of the great explanative power of exchange forces, (the quantum mechanical consequences of virtual exchange of fundamental particles), the impact as seen from my unauthorized perspective implied some significant consequences. (In my perspective, as mass was quantized momentum in the tau direction, massive exchange forces had to obey a relationship quite similar to Maxwell's equation.) This fact moved me to ask him a question. I started with, "What if ..." and that is as far as I got. He said, "physics has no interest in 'what if'; physics is only concerned with 'what is'!" which pretty well laid the position of the Academy on the line. So I finished my Ph.D. thesis, got my degree and forgot about wasting my time with idiot savants. :hihi:

 

The point of my "What if ..." question was that if all forces are entirely due to quantum mechanical exchange forces, then the fundamental equation describing the behavior of the Universe turns out to be quite simple in that unauthorized perspective my father had erroneously given me (if you are interested, you can see it explicitly displayed at the end of my paper "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself", a rewrite of something I wrote some four years ago). :boy:

 

Though this conclusion stands on very strong ground (in spite of Qfwfq's educated position to the contrary), that fact is a pretty worthless piece of information if one cannot solve the equation. No one I showed it to was able to even suggest any reasonable methods of attack on finding solutions so it was quite a number of years before I was able to drag out and defend my first valid result. After that, solutions began to fall out almost on their own and I thought that I had enough to publish by 1982. :eek:

 

No journal I sent it to would publish it. I don't think a referee ever saw it as every journal I sent it to said it was outside their area of expertise and that I should try a different journal (were they trying to be kind to a quack?) After a year or so, I attempted to get assistance in publication from my thesis adviser but got rebuffed with the following comment: "No one will ever read your stuff Stafford, because you haven't paid your dues!" He also personally refused to even look at what I had discovered. :hihi:

 

At the time (being a mere youth of 45) I didn't really believe the whole academic community was actually that adamantly concerned with their exclusive right to control the dogma. That they would, to a man, refuse to even think about an alternate perspective astonished me. But, after a few years, they pretty well convinced me they were. The physicists I knew said it was Philosophy, the Philosophers said it was Mathematics and the Mathematicians said it was Physics. Most tended to say that they felt the whole thing was just over their head. One thing they all agreed upon was that it was neither in their field nor of any interest to them whatsoever. So I laid the whole thing aside and went on with my life. :(

 

In 2000, while cleaning out my attic, I came across an old type set copy I had done on Word Perfect in 1987 (the first program I personally ever saw which could render equations). After so many years, I read it over and somewhat impressed myself. Particularly with the fact that, being totally consistent with quantum mechanics from the get go, a representation of general relativity consistent with quantum mechanics was actually quite straight forward and easy to deduce. Since I was retired and had considerable free time, I thought I would look around and see if there might be an rational educated person out there capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with me. To date the answer seems to be in the negative. :(

 

I am very sorry if you all find that self serving and insulting but it seems to me to be a very accurate assessment of my experiences. Again, I am sorry that my search has subjected all you Charlie Browns out there to issues so far outside your own personal interests.

That's just the trouble. I am best in something where the answers are mostly a matter of opinion!

I am looking for someone with an interest in precise thinking, hopefully young enough to carry an understanding of these discoveries into the future further than I can. :cup:

 

I believe that my perspective is superior to Einstein's for a number of very specific reasons. The first and single most significant reason is that my perspective is not based on any theory at all: its can be directly deduced from an analytical truth specified by an exact definition of an explanation. But furthermore it solves a great number of philosophical problems about reality as seen by the physics community. It is quite simple to show that Schroedinger's equation (and thus all of classical mechanics), Dirac's equation, Maxwell's equation and particle exchange forces of nuclear physics are all approximate solutions to to that very fundamental equation. :eek:

 

When the required approximations are made (approximations required to deduce the physics equations mentioned above), certain consequences of those approximations become quite self evident. You should notice that the Dirac delta function in the fundamental equation makes every fundamental entity in the universe a point object. This is absolutely inconceivable to the physics community because, from their theoretical perspective, the implied energy of the interaction fields go to infinity (the old infinite mass associated with the electric field of a point electron). It turns out that the old problem of infinite mass for a point electron becomes a direct consequence of the approximations required to achieve Maxwell's equations: i.e., the required approximations simply are not valid when the energy of that hypothetical entity called a photon exceeds it's own rest mass. That is to say, Maxwell's equations are not correct, they are only macroscopic approximations to my equation. The very concept of fundamental particles is a direct consequence of an attempt to isolate and characterize specific solutions to the equation: i.e., ignoring the generality of the representation (it is exactly the far reaching generality of requiring all interactions to be included which is the major problem with finding valid solutions). ;)

 

Another rather interesting consequence is that what is commonly called gravity is no more than a direct subtle consequence of gradients in the interaction density of those exchange forces. As such, the force of gravity always points towards the source of those gradients (making antigravity an absolute impossibility) and is also substantially less intense than any of the actual observed exchange forces (it is a very much smaller effect). A direct calculation of the effects of those gradients yields almost exactly the same gravitational results of general relativity. I examined the exact nature of the difference and concluded that the effect was far too small to be measured and would not provide a factor of interest in defending my results. :(

 

But that leads to a very interesting final clue. The difference between Einstein's result and my result may very well be an extremely small factor and quite difficult to measure but it might nonetheless yield observable consequences. The actual size of the factor is the same order of magnitude as Einstein's correction to Newton's gravitational result but is essentially orthogonal to it. That orthogonality makes it unobservable in both the gravitational deflection of star light and the relatively circular orbit of Mercury as it ends up being a very small radial correction in position of the photon or of Mercury's orbit, neither of which can be measured to the required accuracy. :cup:

 

However, the factor does amount to a very small correction in the radial potential energy of an entity which could certainly be seen as an unexplained small retardation of a radially outward moving object (essentially equivalent to calculation of the potential energy at a slightly erroneous position). Given sufficient time, a small deviation from Einstein's result might actually be noticeable. I can show that it will look like a small retardation. Does that look to any of you like the apparent retardation of that satellite heading out of the solar system; the one requiring the invention of Dark matter? Or is it more reasonable to presume the existence of "Dark" matter rather than consider a possible error in Einstein's general relativity? Apparently the academy believes the existence of "Dark" matter is much more probable than an error in our concept of time. :cup:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Racoon]

Is this an Autobiographical submission?

or Thesis statement?

 

It reads well! :eek: :hihi:

I'm as blind as 3 mice...:cup:

[Queso]

yes I read it and was wondering the same thing, actually.

[Vending]

well, I think to give this proper treatment I will have to spend some time thinking about it. So, it may be a while before I post my actual reply to your theory. Just thought I would let you know that I haven't forgot. (it may be weeks, i think)

[Doctordick]

Is this an Autobiographical submission?

or Thesis statement?

As an Autobiographical submission it omits quite a little; as a thesis statement it lacks even more. No, the only reason I included the biographical part was to defuse the idea that I am putting myself forward as a great theorist who was able to see things no one else had seen (a presumption I suspect a lot of people were making). I was trying to point out how this happened purely by accident. That it turned out to work so well at explaining so much was pure luck. The sole purpose of the post was to generate a little interest in understanding what I am talking about. I am glad you found it easy to read; people seem to have great difficulty with most of what I write and seem to misunderstand most of it. (I think they tend to read between the lines and get far off track with ideas which are not there.) :(

well, I think to give this proper treatment I will have to spend some time thinking about it.

Well, thank you very much for your attention. If you have any questions, please don't be slow to ask as I apparently don't do so well at communicating. I need to know what is being missed. :cup:

So, it may be a while before I post my actual reply to your theory.

One thing does bug me though and that is the fact that everyone thinks I am presenting a theory when I am not. Thinking it is a theory leads to misapprehension of what is important. What I am presenting is nothing more or less than a logical construct for representing an arbitrary theory (a theory being a possible explanation of something). It is more akin to the Dewey decimal system for creating a usable order for cataloging books. Would anyone conceive of the Dewey decimal system as a "theory"? :hihi:

 

The only possibility for error in the Dewey decimal system is that there exists a book for which a catalog number can not be generated (or that a specific logical error exists in the proposed procedure) . Likewise, the only possible error in my presentation is that there exists an explanation which cannot be so represented (or that a specific logical error exists in the proposed procedure). :cup:

 

The usefulness of the representation is another story entirely and one which cannot be logically discussed until the representation is first understood. Finding the solutions to my fundamental equation and then mapping those solutions into reality is a whole other story. And that is the one I would like to be discussing. It is a virtual wellspring of insights. :eek:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[questor]

Dr. Dick, i have read most of your posts and would like to ask a few questions.

let's suppose everyone understood your presentation of explanations as you have explained:

1. what void in human intercourse would this fill?

2. would your ideas be financially beneficial to society? if not how would they benefit society?

3. how would your methods affect normal conversation among people of disparate education?

4. what group of people would find the use of your ideas most beneficial?

5. what will happen to the world if your ideas never are adopted?

[InfiniteNow]

5. what will happen to the world if your ideas never are adopted?

He would die feeling alone, rebuffed, wronged, misunderstood, and unfulfilled. It's apparent. In each post he links to his work. "Please... read this. Please. I need someone to understand it. Nobody understands. They rejected my work. They are wrong. I am right." I feel a bit bad for him, as he's reaching out... he just doesn't grasp it when someone offers him their hand to pull him up. :eek2:

[Doctordick]

Questor, I read your post and all I could do was laugh. You have utterly no comprehension where this chain of thought leads and you won't have unless you go and look for yourself. The view from the other end of that tunnel is, from your perspective, beyond description; but I will try to make some comprehensible comments on your questions anyway.

suppose everyone understood your presentation of explanations as you have explained

If they understood the presentation given, "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself", then they would "know" that the answer to any question which could be asked can be expressed as a mathematical function I call Psi. Furthermore, they would "know" that Psi would have to obey the equation given in that paper. As I said:

Finding the solutions to my fundamental equation and then mapping those solutions into reality is a whole other story. And that is the one I would like to be discussing. It is a virtual wellspring of insights. :)

And that is the real route to answering the questions you ask.

 

First of all, once a solution to that equation is found (and that would be any solution), one would "know", with confidence, that the solution has to describe a required relationships between the elements of A (whatever it is you are thinking about). These solutions allow the possibility of "exact" definition of further concepts which, one would once again "know" to be valid representations of collections of elements of A. Step by step, the process yields exact knowledge of implications of those "exact" definitions. Not a word of it "theoretical"; every item of the deduction must be absolutely true.

 

Now such a thing should be valuable as it would be nice to know that, if a theory violated any of those implications it would have to be "wrong". Don't you agree that additional provable constraints on what might be true would be of value to theorists? Let's get down to what we seriously don't know; why should one waste their time thinking about things which they can prove cannot be so?

1. what void in human intercourse would this fill?

A void in their knowledge of what can and can not be! :)

2. would your ideas be financially beneficial to society? if not how would they benefit society?

Again I laugh! You should be aware that many budget decisions in chemistry are concerned with which is more expensive, computer time to calculate the answer or lab time to actually do the chemistry. It is always very valuable to "know" what has to be true! :)

3. how would your methods affect normal conversation among people of disparate education?

Probably no more than modern science influences normal conversation. Not to any extent worth worrying about. :umno:

4. what group of people would find the use of your ideas most beneficial?

The intellectually civilized world. A lot of the ideas totally beyond their comprehension benefit them in many ways. :eek2:

5. what will happen to the world if your ideas never are adopted?

Never is an awful long time. I would imagine that someone else would stumble across it again before humans vanish from view. What would have happened to ancient man if no new idea was adopted after the idea of standing up? Life goes on anyway! (And it did, for a long time!) :hihi:

 

All I am looking for is someone capable of solving that equation. Though following the derivation of that equation should be within the capability of most of the people on this forum, I do not expect anyone here to be able to solve it. However, it is always possible that it might come to the attention of someone with enough training and interest to take a serious look; that someone on the forum might, by pure accident, ask someone competent to explain it to them. I am sure that once they start thinking about it, the world is not totally void of people capable of realizing the significance. And who knows, someone might seriously look at solving the equation themselves.

 

Since solving it is not a trivial issue and there are probably only a few people who have the training and/or time to carry out that project, it would be nice if I were still around to help them. (It took me five years to discover my first solution and I think there was a bit of luck in that.) At the present, I have found a sufficient number of solutions to realize that this thing leads far beyond anything I ever dreamed when I began.

 

If you are interested, my first question is, do you understand the proof? If you don't understand the proof, showing you a solution to the equation is a waste of your time and mine. :eek2:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

If they understood the presentation given, "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself", then they would "know" that the answer to any question which could be asked can be expressed as a mathematical function I call Psi.

Well Dick, if that's so maybe you could use your Psi function to express the answer to a question I desperately need the answer to: What 6 numbers, each between 1 and 90, are going to win this jackpot and on which date?

 

Possibly supply me the answer before it's too late for me to place my ticket. If you can do that for me Dick, we'll make it 50-50. Fair enough?

[Doctordick]

Possibly supply me the answer before it's too late for me to place my ticket. If you can do that for me Dick, we'll make it 50-50. Fair enough?

I'll tell you what, you give me an exact description of your expectations and I will give you a Psi which expresses those expectations. :)

 

I am sorry but you are giving the appearance of not having sufficient command of logic to comprehend what I am saying! Try reading this sentence carefully, "If they understood the presentation given, "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself", then they would "know" that the answer to any question which could be asked can be expressed as a mathematical function I call Psi. :)

 

If the meaning still eludes you, compare it to this sentence, "If they understood the presentation given in "A Course in English", then they would "know" that the answer to any question which could be asked can be expressed as a collection of words in what is called a "document in English". The sentence does not say I can provide you with that document; what it says is that, if the answer is available to me, I can express it in English. Now the two sentences are not quite equivalent because I can not prove all possible answers can be expressed in "English" because there may very well be concepts out there to be discovered for which there are no English words; but I can prove that any answer to any question can be expressed in Psi. And if you could comprehend that paper, you would know that also.

 

Sorry if it is still over your head. Actually, I don't believe it is over your head at all, from your statements I believe your real motive is to do your best to belittle and ridicule what you don't want anyone else to think about. To date you have not given a single whit of evidence that what I say is wrong. :eek2:

 

Have fun – Dick :eek2:

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Qfwfq]

Try reading this sentence carefully, "If they understood the presentation given, "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself", then they would "know" that the answer to any question which could be asked can be expressed as a mathematical function I call Psi.

I wouldn't be sure I could prove all possible answers can be expressed in "Mathematics" so I would be even more wary of such a claim for your tiny little subset of this language.

 

Now the two sentences are not quite equivalent because I can not prove all possible answers can be expressed in "English" because there may very well be concepts out there to be discovered for which there are no English words; but I can prove that any answer to any question can be expressed in Psi.

If English lacks a word for a notion, somebody soon enough comes along and coins a word, or defines a new meaning for some old word. It happens all the time. Math is even more highly based on this.

 

And if you could comprehend that paper, you would know that also.

When I look at your paper, your Psi and its conjugate appear to be lookalikes of the formalism of quantum field theory. I still haven't found the time to scrutinize enough to compare them more fully, not that it's at the top of my priorities. Would you care to point out more in detail what your Psi says, further to that of QFT? Does yours even provide for all that the other one does?

 

Please be breif, but you can refer to most of what may be found in classics such as Schweber or Bjørken-Drell, even Itzykson-Zuber wich I'm still able to consult.

 

Sorry if it is still over your head. Actually, I don't believe it is over your head at all,

No, it certainly isn't.

 

from your statements I believe your real motive is to do your best to belittle and ridicule what you don't want anyone else to think about.

:eek2:

 

To date you have not given a single whit of evidence that what I say is wrong.

You haven't given any for it being true. The burden of proof rests on who makes the claim. I'll be waiting for the above comparison...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Can you dumb your equation down to 8th grader level. I have no clue as to what the symbles mean and could use a simpler numeric example.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Here is a better example oh what I’m asking for

 

You have to fabricate a box section steel support rod 4’ long that will permanently suspend a 100,000 lb sphere from an existing structure.

 

The steel you must use has a tensile strength of 50,000 psi and a distortion limit of 40,000psi

 

How many square inches must the cross section be?

 

The obvious answer would be 2 square inches but this is incorrect.

As the load excedes the distortion limit the steel stretches and therefore yields a narrower cross section in the center of the support therefore reducing the amount of weight it can support without failing.

 

The correct answer is closer to 2.5 square inches minimum with no other variables such as force exerted on the structure by wind etc.

[Tormod]

Does that look to any of you like the apparent retardation of that satellite heading out of the solar system; the one requiring the invention of Dark matter?

 

My eyes stopped on this sentence because I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the Pioneer anomaly caused the invention of dark matter? I am sure this is not your meaning - can you elaborate on this point?

 

As for your idea not being based on theory, but that it "can be directly deduced from an analytical truth specified by an exact definition of an explanation" is a worrying aspect of your thoughts. Even if you feel that you have been misinterpreted, even willfully so,having to build a different framework of logic in order to get a "better perspective" than Einstein implies that this is science turned upside down.

 

If your argument is indeed the final truth, then there is no need to discuss it further because eventually everyone will see that it is. If it isn't, then touting it as the ultimate truth does not make the bride look any prettier.

[Doctordick]

I would be even more wary of such a claim for your tiny little subset of this language.

And you think that I don't know that? What moves you to read my posts if you have no intention of thinking about anything I say? So far, I have never seen a single argument against what I say; I see only arguments against my right to have my ideas examined. :love:

If English lacks a word for a notion, somebody soon enough comes along and coins a word, or defines a new meaning for some old word. It happens all the time.

Possibility of success is not success! English is and always will be a finite construct and a proof that any collection of concepts can be expressed in English would require an infinite set of references. It is for this exact reason that proofs such as Godel's are almost always done in the abstract. Your comments are no more than additional meaningless "Charlie Brown" drivel apparently spouted in an attempt of persuade others that your authority supersedes thought and I think you know it! :umbrella:

You haven't given any for it being true. The burden of proof rests on who makes the claim. I'll be waiting for the above comparison...

The proof has already been right in front of you for a good length of time; however,

I still haven't found the time to scrutinize enough to compare them more fully, not that it's at the top of my priorities.

actually reading it is apparently not high on your priorities. It appears that you expect enlightenment to jump full blown into your head with out any effort on your part. As I said, "there are none so blind as those who will not see!" One has to at least look or perhaps I should say "read".

When I look at your paper, your Psi and its conjugate appear to be lookalikes of the formalism of quantum field theory.

That fact is somewhat intentional. But appearances can be deceiving, particularly if you don't look very closely. You won't find the final equation there in any publication. :rain: Considering the tremendous success of Quantum theory, do you really want to hold that that none of their notation is of any value in a truly fundamental proof? :singer:

Does yours even provide for all that the other one does?

Why don't you look at the possible solutions to my equation and see what it provides for? :dog: :D

 

Seriously, before one concerns one's self with solving that equation, (that being a long and difficult process) it would behoove one to first understand why the equation is indeed an analytical truth! If my paper is not over your head, why don't you read it once? Tell me what definition of mine you refuse to accept or tell me what deduction from those definitions doesn't follow from the definitions given and we can have an honest and open conversation instead of this childish exchange of opinions. :evil:

 

You appeared to be one of the few people on this forum who seem to have some education in physics. If you would take the time and trouble to understand what is presented in that paper, you might find it enlightening. Deriding it serves no purpose other than blocking thought about it.

 

By the way, to anyone reading this, I have recently rewritten that paper because of the fact that so many found the original so unclear. (If anyone still finds my comments unclear, I would appreciate knowing about it.) At any rate, it has come to my attention that some browsers, working off a cache copy, don't necessarily pull down the new version. To make sure you are looking at the current copy, use your refresh to reload the document.

Are you implying that the Pioneer anomaly caused the invention of dark matter?

I did not intend to imply that though I can see how that interpretation of what I said could arise. I only brought it up here because it is one of the few places where I find a direct contradiction of conventional results and my equation. All the other differences are purely the general simplicity of my attack (the extreme simplicity of the fundamental equation) or the physical interpretation of results (now that gets subtle).

As for your idea not being based on theory, but that it "can be directly deduced from an analytical truth specified by an exact definition of an explanation" is a worrying aspect of your thoughts.

I think you are mixing two different issues here. I have posted a lot of comments concerning my ideas as to some of the implications of my fundamental equation and I have presented a paper which is a detailed derivation of that equation. It is that equation which is directly deduced from an analytical truth. I do not understand why such a thing is "a worrying aspect" of my thoughts. The question here is actually very simple: either that equation can be directly deduced from an analytical truth or it cannot. If it cannot, somebody please point out the erroneous step in that paper. :rain:

having to build a different framework of logic

I have no idea what you are referring to here. In what way is my logic any different from yours? And how do you come to the conclusion that what ever I did, I did it for the purpose of getting a "better perspective" than Einstein. Having uncovered what I uncovered, I realized the error in Einstein's perspective (that is, the reason his theory is in conflict with quantum theory).

If your argument is indeed the final truth, then there is no need to discuss it further because eventually everyone will see that it is.

Now here is where I differ with you. That "eventually" could be thousands of years off if I have any understanding of how scientific advances occur. What I have discovered will not be found by those uninitiated in advanced physics because solving that equation is quite difficult. On the other hand, it is not apt to be seen by the professionals because they will inevitably see it as far to simple a statement to be the governing relationship of the universe. Look at it; it's a linear differential equation! Such a thing could not possibly embody all the complexity of modern physics. Anyone with a decent knowledge of the field already has an unshakable belief that the claims I make can not possibly be true. It has thus become a religious issue not a science question at all! :(

 

So those who are competent to solve it will not condescend to look at it, much less make any attempt to solve it. Look at Qfwfq's reaction above; it is actually quite the common reaction of a professional.

I would be even more wary of such a claim for your tiny little subset of this language.

He is so sure that there has to be an error that he thinks examining the proof is a waste of time.

 

As of now (having rewritten the thing), I think the derivation of that equation is actually simple enough that anyone interested in precise thought could, with a little effort, follow it. I doubt they will be able to solve the equation but the fact that the fundamental elements of any explanation must obey it should raise some questions in their minds. It just might generate enough attention that a technically competent professional might be led into trying to solve it. Since I have solved it, it would be nice if I were still around to lend a hand. Do I really expect anything? Not really, but who knows.

...there is no need to discuss it further...

Does that mean you don't want me posting here anymore? If you want me to leave I will. I don't really want to disturb people.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

You keep bellyaching that noone will hear!!! I have asked you for your help to understand your equation! How about helping me understand?!?!?!?:D

Can you dumb your equation down to 8th grader level. I have no clue as to what the symbles mean and could use a simpler numeric example.

Here is an example of what I’m asking for

 

You have to fabricate a box section steel support rod 4’ long that will permanently suspend a 100,000 lb sphere from an existing structure.

 

The steel you must use has a tensile strength of 50,000 psi and a distortion limit of 40,000psi

 

How many square inches must it's cross section be?

 

The obvious answer would be 2 square inches but this is incorrect.

As the load excedes the distortion limit the steel stretches and therefore yields a narrower cross section in the center of the support therefore reducing the amount of weight it can support without failing.

 

The correct answer is closer to 2.5 square inches minimum with no other variables such as force exerted on the structure by wind etc.

see no funky symbols or letters just a realworld math problem. I barely understand the most basic algebraic problems...But give me numbers with meaning I can usually fill in the blanks.

[Qfwfq]

Does that mean you don't want me posting here anymore? If you want me to leave I will. I don't really want to disturb people.

In order to answer that question Dick, I would first need to find a post of mine in which I said: "...there is no need to discuss it further..." in discussing with you. Unfortunately a search on all posts by myself in all open threads of these boards doesn't help me. You see, I would need to know where I said it and what I was replying to and everything, otherwise I really can't remember what I had in mind when I posted it. If I did, that is. :hihi:

 

I'll be waiting for a link...