You claim to assume only math and logic. So which are you using when you argue that symmetry is required.

BTW, it's a step forward that you now admit to any assumptions. That was what originally turned me off so much.

My claim and I believe that of the other physicists on this forum is that your theory comes directly from your assumptions of symmetry.

You call them requirements. But I think the rest of us agree that the symmetries are assumptions.

The fact that you can get so much theory from just these symmetries is outstanding and deserves to be published in the same journals that Noether published. But you have to promote the fact that it's symmetry that is giving you the theory.

Do not claim that the symmetry is required. Just say that from these symmetries comes all this theory and you will get published.

• Get Published??? - doctordick - October 12, 2001 - 15:27 UTC
• By the way!! - doctordick - October 12, 2001 - 15:33 UTC
  • Logic requires assumptions - yanniru - October 16, 2001 - 15:49 UTC
    • For the last time! - doctordick - October 16, 2001 - 19:45 UTC
      • You used the shift symmetry - yanniru - October 17, 2001 - 14:21 UTC
      • Ok! - doctordick - October 17, 2001 - 17:33 UTC
        • Becuase you are smart - yanniru - October 18, 2001 - 14:13 UTC
          • Well Gee! - doctordick - October 18, 2001 - 19:23 UTC
            • Why don't you - harvey1 - October 19, 2001 - 14:22 UTC
              • I don't think you understand. - doctordick - October 19, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
                • Okay, then... - harvey1 - October 20, 2001 - 13:23 UTC