|
Dick,
I don't think it is necessary to pursue this line of digression, but for the record I want to respond to your post:
***Please refrain from your proofs that my attack cannot possibly work. Until you understand what I am doing, these proofs are completely meaningless.***
I'm not providing proofs, I am contesting your view that you have verified evidence for something that you do not have. I apologize if this bothers you, but I think I would be amiss here if I did not correct an invalid claim. When someone claims that their ideas are verified, this is a rather strong claim and should be contested if it is not true.
***H: 1) Your definitions are not the same as used within the physical theories - at least not explicitly. D: That my definitions are not the same is a trivial issue having no bearing on verification whatsoever! The fact that outcomes of the experiments concerning these defined entities are identical to the observed outcome is, on the other hand, extremely significant! Fundamentally, if you want to show an error, you must show that my mathematical deduction of the behavior of "tiggle" is in error.***
Not so. If your terms do not exactly match, then you talking apples and oranges. Anyone can take a physics equation and twist it to mean anything they want (e.g., spiritual energy), but that doesn't make it so. Your terms *must* be the same otherwise your results are not the laws of physics.
***H: 2) Your theory would be a metatheory where the physical theories are subtheories within your metatheory. However, you do not make any physical predictions in your metatheory that can be verified to confirm the metatheory. For all we know, your metatheory could be 'curve fitting' to known experimental results. D: This comment is purely a result of your lack of understanding of what I have done!***
If you claim for your model to be verified, then you have to predict observations not yet made which are distinct to your model. This is model verification 101. If you want to claim something other than verification (e.g., the model looks nice when printed on paper), then my comment is purely a lack of understanding of what you have said.
***H: 3) You are constructing mathematical equations that obtain verified equations, but the meaning of your variables is your own interpretation. You haven't justified why those terms are correct versus the million other definitions that one could plug into those variables. D: I am describing the neccessary behavior of tiggle. The meanings correspond exactly to what is being verified by the various equations. Again, your problem is that you do not understand what I have done.***
This is circular logic. If you want to show the existence of a tiggle then you must use concepts as they are defined in physics and be very specific as to which definition (e.g., there is no universal definition for some terms in science). However, you can't go inventing your own terms and then expect them to have the same meaning as they do in the popular physics equations.
***H: 4) It is not known what makes physical theories true, you may have accidentally stumbled upon a limitation of the physical world that requires nature to be mathematical. If you construct the equations close to how this principle, you might inadvertently arrive at nature's same results. D: No, again you simply do not understand. As my results are valid whether "nature" follows mathematics or not! In fact what they point out (once you understand) is that the appearance that nature follows mathematics is an illusion.***
You don't understand my point. I am saying that nature might be mathematical and that the mathematics you use to construct your model is true simply because nature is the way it is. If you attempt to use mathematics (that is, nature's way) you may end up with nature's way in mathematical form - simply by playing by the same rules that nature plays by.
***H: 5) You haven't reached other very important and even more fundamental theories of physics (e.g., QED, QCD, etc) which indicates that your approach isn't that fundamental since fundamental approaches tend to produce the most fundamental results. D: This has to be the fourth or fifth time you have brought this issue up; it is your most pointless complaint of all as it has absolutely no basis. It is actually clear evidence that you do not understand my model as my model in no way prevents any of those propositions! My work is much more fundamental than you have even begun to comprehend.***
Yes, it doesn't preclude new discoveries, but it doesn't necessitate them either. If it was a fundamental approach, then I would expect the fundamental stuff to 'come out' first. But, we don't see that.
***Why don't you stop trying to prove that what I have discovered must be worthless and rather spend a little time trying to understand what I have done?***
I am just responding to the words as they are sent over this electronic medium. When you say words I agree with I don't hesitate to agree. When you say words I disagree, well then...
Warm regards, Harv
|
