Harv,

>>>Why do you get that impression? I responded to most of your comments did I not? >No, just tell me the section of your paper that describes QED, QCD, and electroweak (and possibly supersymmetric and string theory) equations, and I will be satisfied. > In fact, why is producing any physics equations important at all if it is not important to reproduce the more fundamental equations of physics (QED, QCD, electroweak, etc)? >Then why is physics equations in your paper if you see no relationship between those equations and the logical argument of your paper? >If so, then I can say that your model would definitely interfere with physics.> ... not just dealing with tautological definitions? >Definitions are theory-laden. They are only as good as the theory that created them. For example, the relationship between distance and time is a theoretical one. If the concept of distance is only an approximation assumed in Euclidean space, and time is an approximation assumed in nonrelativistic scales, then all is well. However, if the understanding of these assumptions are challenged, then the use of those terms themselves are no longer adequate. The results that follow from a definition are no longer 'tautological' since more conditions are placed on the term. In fact, the results of the definition may be seen as approximations and no longer as absolute results. > My opinion is that you have extended this term beyond its use in literature.>Dick, I don't understand your use of tautology. A tautology is a statement repeated twice or supported by its own statement. If you want to extend it to math, that's fine. But, not to physics.

• Maybe we should quit while we are ahead? - harvey1 - December 14, 2001 - 17:29 UTC