I certainly did not expect that response; however, I am afraid it will never be *officially* published. I tried to get help publishing back in 1982, when I first managed to solve what I called my "fundamental" equation. I went for help to the guy who was my thesis advisor on my Ph.D. He refused to even look at it and just plain told me "no one will ever read your stuff Stafford, because you haven't paid your dues!"
I tried a couple of other times, worked up various other presentations of different aspects of it and no professional entity wants to deal with it. At this point I am too old to care anyway. Nevertheless, I would like to have someone competent go through the math though. As far as I know no one has ever looked at it. There is quite a bit there; and that leaves quite a bit of room for error. If you can follow it I wish you would. I find it very difficult to believe it is error free.
By the way, I don't want to give you a hard time but I still hold that the changing the origin of my x axis on which I chose to display the information can not have an impact on the solution of the problem as, if it does then I have not found the correct solution: i.e., the solution I have found appears to be dependent on my acts? If that is the case, how can it be a general model of any possibility?
Another way to look at the situation is that, as the model of my senses (the pipeline) is (in the final analysis) part of this model I am making up to explain reality, when I am all done and finished, I am free as my last step to define my senses. At that point, I can ascribe any properties to the pipeline as I wish: anything which makes reality simpler is reasonable.
Remember, all I am doing here is constructing a mental model. Technically, I am free to model the universe any way I wish. In the final analysis, all that is important is that no universe (no collection of data) exists which cannot be cast into the model. The fact that my model can be mapped into the common anthropomorphic concept of reality is what makes it powerful. In particular (and an issue I would like to explore with someone) is the fact that this need not be the only rational model. There are far reaching subtle consequences of that fact once one realizes that the fact that most of physics is obeyed really tells us no more about the universe than the fact that it is self consistent.
I would like to hear from you again -- Dick