Hi Mike,

I think rather that Harv's purpose was to support the idea that a large number of people "derive known relationships" from assorted starting points.

I looked at a number of those papers and what they show is the fact that there are many intertwined relationships not thought about by most professional physicists. Why not? Well because most of them provide little of value. They are all rather complex analytical views of the situation.

My position is, compared to theirs, quite simple (oh, I know Harv wouldn't agree since something one does not understand will seem complex even if it is simple). In addition to that, substatially more physics may be deduced from my "fundamental equation" than any of these people derive from their positions.

I am afraid I have it all over them by a long shot.

Have fun -- Dick

• Here is what Benoit Mandelbrot says - wandaqueen - December 21, 2004 - 17:36 UTC
  • You seem to be rational. - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 19:36 UTC
    • Paragraph by paragraph - wandaqueen - December 22, 2004 - 03:33 UTC
      • Thank you for your precision. - doctordick - December 22, 2004 - 21:02 UTC
        • You presume it's all complaints - wandaqueen - December 30, 2004 - 14:25 UTC
    • Shouldn't this be at the end - wandaqueen - December 30, 2004 - 15:00 UTC
      • That is very simple to answer! - doctordick - December 30, 2004 - 18:10 UTC
        • Dr. Dick, others may not agree w/ you and might be correct! - kantolfir2 - December 30, 2004 - 20:26 UTC
    • I do not understand this - wandaqueen - December 31, 2004 - 00:13 UTC
      • I appreciate your rationality! - doctordick - January 1, 2005 - 03:29 UTC
        • question for Dr. Dick - carefuluniverse - January 1, 2005 - 21:43 UTC
          • Long post for such a short question! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:27 UTC
            • No worries - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 07:21 UTC
              • Not exac tly means not exactly. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 17:31 UTC
                • Re: "That's life." - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 20:34 UTC
                  • I see no contradiction in what I said! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 22:05 UTC
                    • I'm just melting with the charm and sincerity of your logic ;) - kantolfir2 - January 4, 2005 - 02:18 UTC
        • Can a model be independent of the mapping procedure? - wandaqueen - January 1, 2005 - 22:44 UTC
          • Can a human brain ever produce unpredictable algorithms/outputs? - kantolfir2 - January 1, 2005 - 23:01 UTC
            • It seems you do not understand my post - wandaqueen - January 2, 2005 - 04:25 UTC
              • Let's see - kantolfir2 - January 2, 2005 - 04:52 UTC
              • Really? Is that a technical assessment? - carefuluniverse - January 6, 2005 - 05:53 UTC
          • C is defined to be ALL the relevent information. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:08 UTC
            • You are right - wandaqueen - January 3, 2005 - 02:29 UTC
              • So I've run you off have I? - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 18:02 UTC
                • Well you never answered my last question - wandaqueen - January 4, 2005 - 00:45 UTC
                  • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:13 UTC
                    • Seems contradictory - wandaqueen - January 5, 2005 - 14:31 UTC
                      • I really didn't intend to upset you. - doctordick - January 6, 2005 - 01:12 UTC
                        • Ahh- You defined expectation - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:45 UTC
                        • Here is a clear contradiction - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:50 UTC
                          • Thank you for your attention. - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 05:08 UTC
                            • A model of nature - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 16:24 UTC
                              • Harv???? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 17:24 UTC
                                • Someone else came to the same conclusion? - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 18:47 UTC
                                  • Are you serious? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 21:35 UTC
                                    • You said it yourself - wandaqueen - January 9, 2005 - 03:49 UTC
                                      • That is a worthless post! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:53 UTC
                                        • "phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:48 UTC
                                          • You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
                                            • You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC
                                • Dick???? - harvey1 - January 8, 2005 - 20:38 UTC
                                  • I already answered it! - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 22:20 UTC
                            • Everything means infinity - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 15:52 UTC
                              • Harv/Wanda and who else? Maybe Bruce? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:49 UTC
                                • I'm having fun - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:58 UTC
                                  • I don't think you have paid any attention at all to what I say! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:12 UTC
                                    • intellectual honesty is not your strong suit! - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:48 UTC
                            • Sorry- you said 'Theory of Anything" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:53 UTC
                              • And exactly where did I say "theory" of anything? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:17 UTC
                                • Explanation =s theory in my mind - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:53 UTC
                  • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:14 UTC