I wrote you a note, apparently after you had left for the mountains:
Harv and Yanniru both decided to respond to it. Yanniru may have seen a glimpse of what I am doing but Harv has still totally missed the point. I suggest you catch up on those threads before you bother with this note.
Meanwhile there has been quite a heavy dose of posting to this forum, moving that thread quite a ways down. For that reason, I am posting this back at the top. For the most part, it is a response to Harv's last post to that thread but I think you might find some of it interesting.
As a general response to your post let me say, let's not get started down that same old worthless argument. Then to some particulars:
Can you give specifics? What equation reference are you pointing to?
I am not talking about any equations at all; I am talking about organizing data! If you want to talk about this, go read what I say!
But nature isn't scale invariant.
Oh, but it is! If you take everything into account simultaneously instead of looking at it from a piece meal perspective you will find that global scale invariance produces no problems at all and in fact explains some rather subtle effects! If it were not beyond you to understand my presentation, you would see that.
If it were, then the laws of physics would be the same. But, we know the laws of physics change depending on size. This is why ants don't become as large as humans and have enormous strength (regardless of the 1950 movies which saw the increase in size of ants, flies, humans, etc).
Simple consequences of piece meal perspective! That is one of the major breakthroughs in my work: I have stumbled upon a procedure for taking the whole universe into consideration at once; a complete reversal of the common scientific approach. Read Part IV of Chapter 1 up through the end of paragraph 11, "Most scientific attacks concern themselves with limiting the field under consideration; my attack is specifically concerned with not limiting the field of applicability of my model".
You never replied to this issue when Bruce raised it:
Because Mr. Bruce is just spouting standard conclusion based on complete faith in the current authorities. I think of his posts (and some of the others on sci.physics.relativity) as "The Attack of the Rabid Proselytes". That site holds itself forth as a scientific forum; however, most of the people (and Mr. Reany has agreed with me on this) on that forum fall into one of two distinct categories: those who simply cannot comprehend relativity and the pseudo authorities who argue with their obvious incompetence. The intellectual level is, for the most part, hardly above what one would expect of a high school student. I suspect most of the pseudo authorities who post there are doing it to maintain the feeling of competence their peers deny them.
Patrick Reany is one of the most rational people on that site; however, he has specifically told me that he does not have any contacts which would benefit me and that, personally, he does not have the time or expertise to go through my work. His suggestion is that I get it officially published (which, of course as you know, is of no interest to me). He has an interesting site. You might check it out
All the professionals are so sure they are right, they don't want to discuss the real issues! It's a religion Harv! If you notice, no one (Yanniru and Paul excepted) has ever even brought up my actual deductions. They all argue that my opening position is ridiculous and that obviously nothing rational can come of it. Or that the idea that I could in any way have a solution to any of the problems of modern physics is totally outlandish. Then, after totally defeating me (in their minds) they go back to worrying about the unexplained conflicts between quantum and relativity and what it all means! God, it reminds me most of a plot for a 3 Stooges movie!
Why don't you try thinking for yourself rather than depending on authorities! So long as you are going to be nothing but a spokes person for authority, we have nothing to talk about. I will admit openly that the authorities don't recognize what I say. Hell, none of them have seen it; they don't have time to listen to nuts! I know that. None of those people you refer to are competent to judge my work! If they were, they wouldn't be posting on the internet.
Back when I was a graduate student, it was very clear that my ideas were well over the heads of the faculty. I had hopes back then of someday getting a chance to talk to Einstein - but he up and died on me. Then Dirac came to Florida and I thought gee, I might actually get to talk to him - but he up and died too. Feynman actually talked to me and agreed to correspond - but God got him too. I wonder if Gell-Man is still alive only because I never tried to talk to him.
If all that our senses did was produce illusions, then we would have no concept of real things.
All your senses do is produce illusions Harv! And the remainder of that sentence is a non-sequitur.
It is only because of the consistency of our senses that we judge some things as real (and thereby base all our reasoning on this 'foundation').
No! It is because of the consistency of the mental model created by your subconscious with your experiences as represented in that model. All I am saying is that a very important issue is being overlooked. And it will probably continue to be overlooked for another thousand years. Unless by chance some young buck has his eyes opened by reading some of this and then goes on to become educated in the field! The academy has run it's course and cannot comprehend the possibility of an alternate view. No more than you can!
What happens if we simply leave the question open?
What do you mean? Just ignore the fact that your senses are part of your mental model of reality? And never consider any possibilities other than that your subconscious is correct? What will happen if everyone ignores that fact? Why, maybe by guess and by golly, in a thousand years or so, someone might actually propose some of the solutions I have found. A million monkeys pounding on a million PCs, who know what might happen!
That seems to be the attack desired by you all. As I say, to do that is to scuttle rational science! You are putting the issue clearly outside consideration. If you refuse to take the issue into account in your thoughts, how can you expect to be called rational?
Really Harv, I cannot find any reason for us to continue this conversation and I cannot comprehend why God keeps moving me to respond.
Have fun -- Dick