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

[MagnetMan]

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. :phones:

 

My Dear Dr. Dick, I sympethize with your predicament, for I too after many years of searching and suffering the indiginities of countelss rejections, have failed to find and regisiter my accumulated widsoms on the psyche of a worthy disciple. (It seems we are more or less the same age.)

 

Alas I am but a mere metaphysician with over-developed intuitive insights that allow me to see into an invisible state of reality. I have rather mediocre analycal capabilities - thus your physical equations lie beyond my range of comprehesnion.

 

I write because I too at a very young age come under the influence of Uncle Albert, via a riddle posed by my father. One day when I was nine, lying with him on our front lawn, staring up at the stars (the Southern constelations) I asked him how big the universe was. He told me that all the stars and all the galaxies, including the two of us discussing them, could well be just a molecule in the leg of a giant's dinner table.

 

Ever since that day I have been trying to get out of the table leg and find out what the giant was having for supper. I forego phsyics right then and there, for I reasoned in my young mind that no space ship would ever get me beyond the nearest star if that. What I needed to do was travel at the speed of thought, not light. So I became a metaphsyician and started to learn the disciplines of translocation that would allow me to surf the univserse at will - and have been at it ever since.

 

I came back in touch with Uncle Albert when I was 35, and like him I have spent the last thirty years of my life trying to resolve the problems of the unification theory. And like you you, I believe that I have surpassed the old master and have come up with a uique new view on the force that holds the universe together.

 

I am wondering if we can find common ground somewhere in between phsyics and metaphysics and see if we can help each other find worthy desciples. At the very least we can console each other over the same predicament and grumble over the same injustices

[Doctordick]

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

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.

I didn't comment because you made it quite clear that anything I could say regarding my equation would be over your head and I do not mean that disrespectfully. My equation offers only a few new things here and there. The central offering is a massive simplification of modern physics. All the things of importance to you remain essentially identical to what you already know. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be rude.

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.

I am sorry that a minor error put you to that trouble. It was a paste error from the clipboard which I have corrected. I was answering Tormod at the time and quoted something you said. I then forgot the clipboard no longer contained "QUOTE=Tormod" and made the erroneous paste. As I said, I am sorry my sloppiness to put you to trouble and I appreciate your concern for accuracy.

My Dear Dr. Dick, I sympathize with your predicament, ... I am wondering if we can find common ground somewhere in between physics and metaphysics and see if we can help each other find worthy disciples. At the very least we can console each other over the same predicament and grumble over the same injustices

Sorry, but I am not actually looking for disciples. What I am trying to do is shake someone's cage enough to get them into a serious discussion of my work, but that person needs to be well trained in modern physics or they won't be able to follow me. Hopefully, I would like to show it to a fairly young person as the only thing left for me to gain here is time (I think you are old enough to understand that).

 

With regard to metaphysics, I am afraid I only have one thing for you and I suspect you are not going to like it. When I say that all explanations of anything must satisfy that fundamental equation, the fact that I can prove the fundamental elements can be seen as the fundamental elements of modern physics implies that any metaphysical explanation must itself be interpretable in a manner consistent with the idea that the structures underpinning that metaphysical explanation are themselves based on the supporting pillars of modern physics.

 

Sorry about that -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous

[MagnetMan]

Sorry, but I am not actually looking for disciples. What I am trying to do is shake someone's cage enough to get them into a serious discussion of my work, but that person needs to be well trained in modern physics or they won't be able to follow me. Hopefully, I would like to show it to a fairly young person as the only thing left for me to gain here is time (I think you are old enough to understand that).

 

A student is a student by whatever name we wish to call one. In this day and age it is politically incorrect for an elder to demand respect as a matter of basic human courtesy. Sorry if I pigeon-holed you. But I am an Afrikaaner and I stand my ground with young pups - treating them with kid gloves simply leaves them as kids. A university degree does not give them license to be rude. I paid my respects up until I got the headring of an elder,(in Africa that is at 42) and they damn well better pay theirs. Not for my good, but for there own - or our culture will keep going downhill. I am sorry but the way you are shaking the cage, will awaken nobody.

 

With regard to metaphysics, I am afraid I only have one thing for you and I suspect you are not going to like it. When I say that all explanations of anything must satisfy that fundamental equation, the fact that I can prove the fundamental elements can be seen as the fundamental elements of modern physics implies that any metaphysical explanation must itself be interpretable in a manner consistent with the idea that the structures underpinning that metaphysical explanation are themselves based on the supporting pillars of modern physics.

 

Sorry about that -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous

 

I am sorry too. What I am going to say, you probaly will not like. The fundamental ethic in metaphsyics is that all physical phenomena are essentially illusional. What you think you see, depends on your state of consciousness. The reason why that is so is because the atoms you are observing are also consciously reacting with you. If that were not so, your own atomic being would not be conscious either. I thought that was what Heisenberg was trying to prove. Uncle Albert seemed to agree and told Bohrs so.

[Doctordick]

I am sorry but the way you are shaking the cage, will awaken nobody.

Well, than I awaken nobody and I go to my grave laughing as the whole thing is rather funny if you stand back and look at it. It reminds me most of that old adage "hear no evil", "see no evil" and "say no evil" so popular in bygone years.

The fundamental ethic in metaphysics is that all physical phenomena are essentially illusionary

I have no argument with that! My question is quite different. If you are going to explain anything, anything at all, you had better define what you mean by an explanation. Otherwise, how do you know what you are doing?

 

I have defined "an explanation" (what I mean by the term anyway) and deduced some very simple results. You apparently refuse my definition.

 

What you think you see, depends on your state of consciousness. The reason why that is so is because the atoms you are observing are also consciously reacting with you. If that were not so, your own atomic being would not be conscious either.

That appears to be an explanation: that is you apparently think that some important expectations can be drawn from it. But it is not a very good explanation as the proper expectations (conclusions to be reached) are not not clear at all. You use the word "atoms" so you appear to have some fundamental elements in your explanation which you presume obey my equation but your explanation of what you are talking about is certainly not what I would call clear. Please give me your definition of an explanation.

 

Or, if you have no intention of explaining anything, why are you talking to me?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[MagnetMan]

Please give me your definition of an explanation.

 

Or, if you have no intention of explaining anything, why are you talking to me?

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Physicist have such an easy time of it. You have something that appears solid and you give it an explanation - of course then you then have to go on giving explanations about your explanations ad infinitum. After which somebody pins a PHd on you and we have a professsor!

All of this is the reason why nobody will accept your thesis, simply because you have not succeeded in explaining your explanation enough.

 

Is that an accurate enough definition of explanation?

 

We metaphysicians have a more complex task. We are asked by physicists to explain that, which by definition alone is unexplicaable. We try our best, but we usually end up getting the same response you just gave.

 

I will repeat again. The atom itself is conscious. That is why you are conscious. (It has always been amazing to me how phsyicists have never realized this basic fact and assume what they are looking at is somehow different to themselves) Now if, even in this simple conversation I cannot explain my state of consciousness to your state of consciousness and find some base of commonalty, how am I to define an explanation that will satisfy you? I can only bend so far towards you - you have to reciprocate as well. Or is this getting a little too esoteric for you?

 

I asked in my first post, if you would agree to find some common ground for the two of us to begin a dialogue which might be beneficial to the young men in this forum. I thought it would be intersting for two old codgers, looking at the same Truth from diametrically opposite positions, to have a conversation about the nature of reality. Who knows we might have come up with some common conclusions. You rejected that proposal in a more or less derogatory manner, which was uncalled for.

 

I believe that there is an essential unity between matter and spirit. I have experienced that unity personally. But the only explanation I can give is subjective. Spiritual experieneces, and legions have been repiorted through the Ages, are all unque to each individual. So we cannot explain any one of them objectively. But if we stand back and look at the sheer amount of psychic reports, we have to assume that there is enough circumstantial evidence from enough credible individuals, to afford a serious investigation. That is how our civil code works - or is supposed to. So, in the interest of a common Truth - my hand is still there....:cool:

 

You have fun too Dick.

[Doctordick]

Is that an accurate enough definition of explanation?

No, not to me. It sounds a lot of rambling around but I personally wouldn't call it a definition.

We are asked by physicists to explain that, which by definition alone is inexplicable.

If it's inexplicable why would you try to explain it? You've just told me you can't do it.

I will repeat again. The atom itself is conscious. That is why you are conscious.

It appears to me that you are trying to explain something so you can't believe it is inexplicable. Or do you believe you can do something which can not be done? Sort of like moving an immovable object. :hihi:

 

I cannot comprehend your position. What is it that you believe? That what is or is not an explanation is of no importance? If you cannot answer that question, what makes any explanation important? Or is it your position that explanations need not be internally consistent? If that is the case, how do you know whether or not the explanation makes sense? Or do you perhaps believe that requiring explanations to be self consistent places no constraints on an explanation? But again, if an explanation is not constrained in any way how does one determine if the explanation makes sense? :)

 

I can only conclude that you have no interest in what does or doesn't make sense. And I don't mean by my standards, you don't seem to put forward any standards. :hihi:

how am I to define an explanation that will satisfy you?

Well I certainly don't know. I have given you what I mean by an explanation and you apparently deny that is what you mean by an explanation. If that is the case, I simply don't know what you mean by the term. :hihi:

 

In my mind, the first concept which must be understood before anything else can be discussed is "what is an explanation". Certainly you can't explain anything unless you know what an explanation is! You seem to have no interest in the question. Perhaps you missed something in my definition. That it is a method of obtaining one's expectations from known information. It seems to me to be quite a simple and exact definition.

 

Suppose you explain something to me. How do you or I know if I understand your explanation? It seems to me that when, in the process of trying to clear up that explanation, I reach a point where any additional comments you make on the issue seem to me to be consistent with everything you have said, that is an indicator that I understand what you are saying. That would be when your comments makes sense to me; when what you say no longer surprises me. If I understand your explanation, I will have reached a stage where my expectation are in line with what I hear.

 

Likewise, how do you determine if I understand your explanation? When you reach the stage where my answers to your question are the same as what you think the explanation yields, don't you regard that as a sign that I understand your explanation? So the whole thing is: we have the same understanding of an explanation when that explanation yields the same expectations in both of us. Which to me is, "we have now acquired an equivalent method of obtaining expectations from known information". Our explanations are, if not exactly the same, they are at least equivalent: i.e., yield the same expectations.

 

In my head, if we don't agree on the definition of an explanation, we certainly can't communicate. That is the single most basic concept required to understand anything. As far as communications go, isn't a translation from one language to another no more than an explanation of what is being said in the first language?

I thought it would be interesting for two old codgers, looking at the same Truth from diametrically opposite positions, to have a conversation about the nature of reality.

What you don't seem to understand is that I have no idea of the nature of reality at all. What I have discovered something about the nature of explanations. Something of which everyone should be aware if they are seriously going to try to explain anything. Now physics is "an explanation of reality" and I am fully aware of how what I have discovered impacts physics because I pretty well understand most all of physics (at least the way they think, if not the exact details of a particular theory).

 

I do not understand metaphysics so I do not know how my discovery impacts metaphysics except that the same equation applies to the basic concepts of their explanation as well as it does to physics. If it does not, I can guarantee their ideas are not internally consistent. Enough said? If the field is inexplicable, it's inexplicable! So don't try to explain it to me. All explanations are based on some set of presumed truths. If you can explain why these truths are so than your explanation is based on something you haven't explained. I call that the Great Original Dilemma. And I am afraid neither I nor anyone else can eliminate or attribute qualities to that fundamental basis of it all.

 

I have no intention of being rude to you. I just don't think we have any interests in common.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous

[MagnetMan]

I have no intention of being rude to you. I just don't think we have any interests in common.

 

We do. Its called life. Science cannot explain what that is. It cannot be found in a microscope or in a telescope. It is something that lies beyond explanation. In this sense you are being rude. But thats okay. Metaphysicians are used to it.:hihi:

Keep peering

Regards Stuart

[Doctordick]

It is something that lies beyond explanation.

Now I don't know that you are correct there. It appears to me that it is an opinion. What I do know is that, if an explanation exists, the fundamental elements of that explanation obey my equation. Since I can prove that the fundamental entities of physics constitute solutions for the behavior of those elements, I know that the explanation of life, if it is ever found, will be based on physics.

 

But with regard to your position, I still cannot understand your interest in explaining the inexplicable. That appears to me to be a lost cause on the surface of it.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[MagnetMan]

Now I don't know that you are correct there. It appears to me that it is an opinion. What I do know is that, if an explanation exists, the fundamental elements of that explanation obey my equation. Since I can prove that the fundamental entities of physics constitute solutions for the behavior of those elements, I know that the explanation of life, if it is ever found, will be based on physics.

 

Since my own theory on Psyche-Genetics argues for an essential unity between soul and body,(metaphysics and physics) I fully agree that physics must help to give us an answer to the meaning of life if that can be possible - otherwise a hundred generations of empirical research would end up to be a futile exercise in meanininglessness. That cannot be, for if the Universe is Conscious, as I intuively believe it is, it does not waste energy for no reason. My argument is that unless physical energy is integrated with metatphysical energy, there can be no final answer. And as phsyical energy only constitutes a fraction of conscious awareness, and the vast bulk lies submerged in the sub-conscious as an emotional volcano, full enlightenment will surface from that base source.

 

I believe this reality is gradually coming to "light" as we explore the realm of Dark Matter.

 

Since I am not a physicist, I wonder if I may lean on your learning and ask you can tell me if I am on the right tack as regards my understanding of Dark Energy/Dark Matter. First. what distinquishes them? Secondly, if they are without atomic mass they can have no gravitational effect, magnetic attraction or weak or strong forces, so how is it that they exert seven times the force on the universe than all light forces combined? From whence does the energy come? I stand corrected on any of my assumptions here.

 

But with regard to your position, I still cannot understand your interest in explaining the inexplicable. That appears to me to be a lost cause on the surface of it.

 

Such is the enigma of metaphsyics. Lao Tse struggles with the same conundrum

He who speaks does not know

He who knows does not speak.

Or even better, the Zen koan, What is the sound of one hand clapping?

These thoughts frustrate the analytical side of the mind - and they are meant to, for the explanation to those esoterc puzzles lies beyond rational thought.

 

Are we having fun Dick?:(

Regards Stuart

[IDMclean]

The answer to the question is non, or mu. One hand clapping is a presupposition that is without basis. It presumes that one hand can clap in the first place. Which one hand can not clap, so the question is not even wrong.

[Rade]

...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)....

I have a question about this comment that antigravity is impossible. Is it not true that you reach this conclusion because you deal with interactions between two "matter" entities ? I would like you to consider what is predicted with interactions between mass asymmetrical matter plus antimatter entities--would not antigravity be predicted, if not, why not ? You indicate you worked on nucleon-nucleon interactions. Consider this situation. Would not your equation yield gravity plus antigravity forces when you attempt to combine a helium-3 nucleon cluster [PNP] with antimatter deuteron cluster [N^P^] where ^ represents antimatter nucleon ? If not, why not ? Thanks for your consideration of my request.

[Kriminal99]

Even though I think you are annoying sometimes, I can not help but sympathize. Here is my opinion not on your theory, but on your issues with other scientists (as matches the thread title).

 

Monkey's don't really care about special relativity

 

When you look at the Golden Gate Bridge, what do you see? A marvel of human engineering and intellectual prowess perhaps? You know what I see? Evidence that a bunch of DUMB#$@ MONKEYS wanted to get from point A to B without having to swim. Space Travel? OOOH OOOH WUT DAT IN SKY?!?! I WANT TO GO THERE!!! EAT SPACE BANNANAS!!!! Thats why people explore isn't it? For the possbility of finding something good... People don't really care about rocket science, it was just an obstacle between them and their space bannanas... between their point A and point B.

 

Different levels of intellectual

 

Who am I? Just some abused little monkey who got randomly shocked too much when pressing my colored food button in the lab - and as a consequence had to understand the nature of the entire world and those most likely to cause uncertainty (other silly monkeys) in order to categorize a now percieved infinite supply of random punishment as something other than a direct result of my existence.

 

You? Well I wont speculate on what drives you, seeing as I don't know you that well or read enough of your posts to get an idea. But I am fairly certain that if I were to associate different levels of intellectual drive with different levels of say Maslow's heirarchy of needs, you would be a lvl 3 or higher intellectual if you are one at all - indicating that your need to understand is driven by desire for affection from people who have always mattered to you or a need to achieve something.

 

I would be a level 2 intellectual, and that does not make me some perfectly intellectual being. Rather people like you and I are aberrations of life. There is no such thing as a level 1 intellectual and it the concept of a perfectly objective being doesn't even make sense - what would drive such a being to do anything? I can't think of anything it might do other than just walk around looking at stuff. Not communicating with anything else mind you, just trying to look at as many things as possible.

 

So that's why they are so blind...

 

So in other words, your professors and counselors were not willing to help you because you failed to explain to them how your new theory was going to help them get laid. Chances are most other people you meet in your field are lvl 5 intellectuals, or are not intellectuals at all (ie havent met their lvl 4 needs since level 5 pretty much entails intellectualism) but rather people who just meandered into the field and just follow the rules of the discipline and of those in charge in order to get their paycheck. Mind you this isn't about biological ability, but motivation which many people identify as the limiting factor in understanding of just about anything.

 

So anyways, just find ways to put your theory between other people's point A and point B. Between them and their space bannanas. Step one of taking this approach might be to stop insulting people all the time... And if you are really an intellectual yourself you should be able to see that these people are not stupid... they just don't care despite what they may say.

[LaurieAG]

Interesting Doctordick.

 

Do any of the elements in your theory have a common integral calculus relationship like that between speed, acceleration and the distance travelled?

 

I feel that uncertainty could be a direct result of the incorrect application of the core integral relationship between the elements in theory, at the extreme boundaries, as Einstein didn't claim that infinite density was reached in a singularity (this would be very easy to do, and you would know you had an error because of this uncertainty).

 

Also, if you viewed a photon from the front (at high enough resolution) you would see an object going around in a circle while you would see a 'wave' if you resolved the circular rotation with forwards momentum from the side (90 degrees to the direction of motion). If you don't have high enough resolution you will see the circle as a point or a wave depending on your viewpoint relative to the photon and its path.

 

BTW all, do any of the other theories have a common calculus relationship between all of their core elements (i.e. within the same 'reality'). If your model 'saw' the photon going away (relatively) from the observer 50% of the time and 'saw' the photon going towards the observer the other 50%, wouldn't you expect uncertainty? You could certainly get an irrational number in an uncertain integral twist if you used electromagnetic theory (the only one that successfully uses i to my knowledge) and changed your viewpoint from the inside to the outside on a regular cyclic basis.

[jungjedi]

dear dr.dick and magnet man.i love how you two crack this joint up.ive only read some of this thread because im very schizo and have the attention span

of about 32 seconds.but,ill keep trying.as soon as i get off probation im headed again for tijuana.your welcome to come with,perhaps we could score some viagra and give dr. dick a new lease on life.

[Doctordick]

I was looking around at some of my old posts and I ran across this thread, “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”, which died over five years ago.
 

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.

 

Having posted on this forum over the last six years, it has become quite clear to me that people simply do not comprehend the underlying problem which I have attacked. That was certainly a consequence of my not understanding their confusion and perhaps I understand things a bit better now. My discovery has to do with the issue of language itself and the central arbitrary nature of the design of language and that should be an issue which can be comprehended by an 8th grader.
 

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.

 

Qfwfq even touched on the issue here. However he totally missed the entire import of his comment. The fact that “language is arbitrary” is the central underlying reason humanity has come up with so many different languages. The actual sounds, marks and/or any gestures used to communicate concepts are all invented for the sole purpose of communication and are of no significance in and of themselves. What they are understood to mean is the significant issue.

Any explanation of any issue which can be communicated can be expressed with a finite collection of defined concepts. If the required concepts do not exist, the explanation can not be communicated. If the number of required concepts is infinite, the language can never be learned. These two issues resolve down to a very simple fact. Once one has an explanation of anything, if that explanation can be communicated (if it can't be communicated there is little reason to worry about it) then one may list the entirety of required concepts and attach a numerical label to each of those concepts.

It follows that absolutely any circumstance can be expressed by the notation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. If all relevant questions can be answered then one can be said to posses an explanation. Since the questions themselves can be expressed by the notation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] one can see those answers as equivalent to some collection of true/false circumstances. So the explanation is no more than the probability a collection of circumstances are true or false.

Understanding anything is totally equivalent to knowing [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] for all relevant circumstances represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. Interesting mathematical consequences follow directly from the arbitrary inherent nature of that numerical assignment. Now the mathematical consequences may certainly exceed the mental facility of an 8th grader but comprehension of such a representation should be at their level.

And Qfwfq (who should be able to follow the mathematical arguments) seems to confuse knowing an explanation with representation of an explanation; two quite different issues. As I said in the opening post of this thread, “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”

Have fun guys -- Dick

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[SaxonViolence]

Doctordick,

 

If I understand you Correctly you are offering a new mental scaffolding to support one's understanding of Theoretical Physics...

 

Nicht Wahr?

 

I am a Mathematically Challenged, Very Left-Brained Individual of an age where my attention span and memory are both Shorter than they once were.

 

I always wanted to understand the full nitty-gritty ugliness of Physics when expressed in Rigorous Mathematics...

 

Hell, I wish that I understand Rigorous Mathematics.

 

 

Now tell me:

 

If I take the time to understand your complex and convoluted system—Will it help me Master Advanced Physics concepts more easily?

 

If you say so, I'll give it a try.

 

If not, I'll go watch some more Anime or Nollywood...

 

 

 

Saxon Violence

 

 

BIG PS: Dude, It is Like: Your link is Deader than Judas Iscariot. :( :blink:

 

Give us a Live Link to your Magnus Opus! :angry:

 

Please. B)

Edited August 17, 2013 by SaxonViolence

[Doctordick]

If I understand you Correctly you are offering a new mental scaffolding to support one's understanding of Theoretical Physics...

Not really, I am actually attacking a problem scientists have laid aside as insolvable. Inventing a language is coming up with defined words or gestures to communicate. This is the first problem presented to any infant and the infant must come up with a way of associating concepts with words or gestures. Of course, the child will use sounds and gestures available to them. That is why they all speak the same language as their parents; that is they guess as to what is meant by those sounds and gestures they find in their surroundings. That is also why languages change with every generation: i.e., they don't always guess the same thing their parents did.

 

The process of inventing that language is chock full of assumptions. Read Sir Arthur Eddington's “New Pathways in Science”; his Cambridge lectures of 1934. Eddington makes it quite clear that all science is chock full of assumptions. You have nothing to think about unless you make assumptions as to what your experiences mean. According to Eddington, these assumptions are impossible to avoid and thus become an issue of philosophy and not science. Essentially, he justifies the scientific position of avoiding the question as necessary and thus acceptable.

 

I have simply found a way around the problem; it lies in the invention of the representation itself (the language).

 

I am a Mathematically Challenged, Very Left-Brained Individual of an age where my attention span and memory are both Shorter than they once were.

If you cannot follow differential calculus, my proofs will be impossible for you to follow. I am sorry but that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

If I take the time to understand your complex and convoluted system—Will it help me Master Advanced Physics concepts more easily?

I would not call my attack “complex and convoluted”. It is actually quite straight forward. The issue of avoiding assumptions is to create a representation (a language if you like) to express the facts you know no matter what assumptions are made. The arbitrary nature of that representation yields relationships which must be true (if they are not true, the representation is internally inconsistent).

 

When I first began this exercise close to fifty years ago, all I was interested in was, “what kind of constraints could be deduced?” It never dawned on me that those constraints would generate the whole of modern physics. If that were true, science would be a tautology. Certainly no modern scientist will accept the fact that modern science is a tautology -- that would make it no more than a complex religious belief.

 

BIG PS: Dude, It is Like: Your link is Deader than Judas Iscariot. :( :blink:

 

Give us a Live Link to your Magnus Opus! :angry:

Yeah, my web site created in 2001 vanished long ago. The internet isn't really a very stable construct, things vanish all the time. Publication on the internet has a life span roughly the same as those old proclamations kings use to post on walls in the middle ages. I could give you some other interesting examples but it isn't worth the effort. Being old, I have decided to self publish. A book will be available on Amazon sometime this fall. The final version is with proofreaders at the moment.

 

The title will be “The Foundations of Physical Reality”.

 

Have fun -- Dick