I'll try and translate this into simple patterns say:
"thanks wanda. give link. never too old to learn. torn between the two schools."
Sometimes people say the answer to a puzzle in their offthecuff remarks?
I do not mean necessarily this will work.
"never too old to learn":
call "old" "(a + b) x c" and "too old" : "((a + b) x c) x d" ?
"learn" as: "make a fine adjustment to what you know (to a + b)
an adjustment of a + b would redistribute a + b so have (a + b) x c;
a fine adjustment would allow for a fine mesh of eachway tuning of "a + b" by "(a + b) x c x d
but where to put the brackets?
If "too old" is similar pattern to "too learn"
then "never too old too learn" gives "never ((a + b) x c) x d TO ((a + b) x c x d where put brackets
?
What does "never" mean?
Not ever? "Never something to something else" means?
Try: Not ever this for that?
Not ever a pattern with brackets (with ORDER, with a direction of operations, with timearrow)
for a pattern with timeflexibility...
This is very serious....?
"i have a hard time with dark matter. is just too convenient. i also have a hard time with symmetry. it is too pretty."
"Matter" I found fits pattern "unit meets group".
"dark matter" may fit "unit in a group" meets group; so which unit met the group?
Stunning comment on symmetry "it's just too pretty"? What I mean is; I don't mind symmetry but regarding "1 + 1 = 2" how can it if they were the same there would be only one....
They must be different; "2" is a label...
So mathematically you can ask is one of the ones "bigger" than the other? Or some other difference?
But how do you tell the difference?
So have an implied group "2" where the circumstances of 1 meeting 1 are unknown, are "dark"?
How know "dark matter"?
By including a meeting with another 1?
Now 1 + 1 = 2 with another 1 there somewhere so "hidden 3"...
"too convenient" means.... try:
"convenient" as "easy access" (e.g. already available"; "too convenient" as "doubly available so not really available but a shortcut that misleads if you don't look at the detail..?"
"dark matter" as a floating extra 1 in "1 = 1 = 2" that is doubly available but misleadingly seen as a hidden "1" not two floating ones?
" i like lorentzian relativity.. even thought it creates more problems than it solves."
Lorentz transformations: like holding a fixed 4 (spacetime) while making two of the ones doubly available (too convenient) by letting them swap places making them fuzzy such that you identify them by circumstances (you let mass decide which of the ones is which: but that implies a "dark matter" namely the other possibility you didn't take?
" but general relativity makes predictions that just do not not fit with quantum theory. one or the other must be fatally flawed. that bothers me."
"general relativity" involves straight trajectories and constant speeds:
but how do you know a trajectory is straight?
Minimum definition of "trajectory" involves "direction" involves not a bob each way (a,b) but (a,b,c) namely a third element. How know it is a trajectory? Need a fourth element that conserves the threesome?
How know "straight"? Need a conserved four elements over two other possibilities ?
Gives (a,b,c,d,e)?
Speed: a,b ?
Constant speed: a,b,c?
General relativity "makes predictions"?
But mix a,b,c with a,b,c with a d and e in there and you have a double dose of dark matter and the very definition of "prediction" as each type of dark matter must make space for each other (the d make room for the e or vice versa) in a,b,c space...
By definition you have "prediction" as the abc of d "predicts" the abc of e and vice versa... Dr. Richard Stafford's time stands still effect?
But this was mathematical minimum definitions: math stands still here?
Planck's constant: the scale of scale: reminds me of that socalled black monolith in the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey" except what black monolith? An illusion generated in mathematics?
Beyond the infinite: beyond numbers; beyon the assumptions of equal sized/ equal spaced numbers....
If "general relativity makes predictions" how can it if it IS already "prediction"?
It must DIVIDE; it must quantize into groups (called Lie groups); the abc becomes mixed up as a fixed view of abc (a string) in d,e space (so in a d,e partiallly mixed perspective on partly (to d,e view) differentiated abc space ) get 5 string theories with dualities (duality as somewhere in abcde is two specials)?
Some call these specials "two light cones stretching into the past (a version of abc in de that defines past via simplification of the spacetime arrow say?) and stretching into the future (a version of abc in d,e that defines future in terms of breaking up of spacetime arrow say? Breaking up into two versions of d; abc; e as 3 groups focusing the d,e space?
Confuse this whole issue by inventing quantum theory to describe the dividing of general relativity into special relativity + quantum mechanics: that is into "curved trajectories and accelerated reference frames...wait; I got general and special relativity back to front?
But I ws using logic: QED; if QED is like Quantum Electrodynamics then how can I analyse this?
Mathematics gives a mixing ground where another kind of dark matter can operate on this; the mixing of number and base in "defining" things via counting units?
" i think cahill is a bunch of bunk... his concepts of self referential organization infer a much faster rate of stellar evolution than what is observed."
whatever........
dolphin
