Aurino:

I know Dick's equations are meant to be generic.
I know he is talking about necessary patterns.

My geometric, drawing, approach is rapidly obtaining each of his findings.

Even a refraction theory of gravity.

My guess is Dick hasn't fully read my recent posts so is blissfully unaware of the extent to which I've unravelled his "demonstration".

I'm aware it is a demonstration. However, people may allege that he has a theory that it is a demonstration!

And it CAN tell you something about reality: it can tell you that reality operates from a MAXIMUM FREEDOM BASELINE.

F. David Peat reminds us of the Sherlock Holmes mystery where a key clue was: "Why didn't the dog bark?" Why does quantum mechanics agree with experiment so incredibly well, to so many decimal places to be allegedly the most accurate theory known, you may ask?

Maybe some physicists are suspicious about this. Why are the experiments not "barking" at the theory? Why are the experiments so at ease with the theory?

In the Sherlock Holmes mystery; the dog didn't bark because the trespasser on the property must have known the dog!

So: maybe the physics experiments are already known to the theorists? That is, maybe the results are already implicit in the theory; that is; maybe the theories contain the experiments in a circular argument?

But if you keep finding this happens; Dick's paper may hint this about reality: MAXIMUM FREEDOM which means nature always spends the least effort and follows minimum paths which are the bedrock of any theory's NECESSARY PATTERNS- precisely those patterns Dick identifies!

(I am interested in what you say but lack of money means there can be delays between when I access this website; having to pay for public computer terminal use).

Regards, Alan

• I still think you are confused - aurino - January 11, 2002 - 14:27 UTC
  • I think I'm starting to get confused too ! - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:21 UTC
  • Aurino: But are you contradicting yourself? - dolphin - January 15, 2002 - 05:54 UTC