|
Dick,
***H: Can you give specifics? What equation reference are you pointing to? D: 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!***
Here you have me confused. If you assume symmetries then they should be in your equations without showing a proof of them. If you do not assume symmetries, they should either be proven (in which case there is an equation reference), or they are not used in any equation (which would be false). Hence, I can only conclude that you are assuming symmetries which make your results fallible to being a result of symmetries.
In any case, you're response about organizing data, I don't see as relevant. The assumption of how to organize data is the issue, and you do that by putting these assumptions in equations (as you have done). But, your assumption of that organization includes symmetries. How is this different than Emmy Noether? By organizing data using symmetries, she showed that the laws of physics can result.
***H: But nature isn't scale invariant. D: 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.***
Science rejects global scale invariance? The whole idea behind quantum cosmology is to show that the universe is scale invariant with respect to quantum laws. You have to be more specific.
***H: You never replied to this issue when Bruce raised it. D: Because Mr. Bruce is just spouting standard conclusion based on complete faith in the current authorities.***
Well, the point that Patrick Reany raised was that absolute time is not a necessary assumption for relativity theory. You seem to have a problem with not making this assumption. What is your response to that issue?
***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.***
Why do you focus on celebrities, when you don't make any new predictions? If all scientists thought the way you do, the religion of science would definitely come to pass.
***H: If all that our senses did was produce illusions, then we would have no concept of real things. D: All your senses do is produce illusions Harv! And the remainder of that sentence is a non-sequitur.***
Regardless if we treat all sensory impressions as illusion or not, there is a clear sense that the majority of us do not experience illusions on a typical basis. Even if we do, the experience is so consistent that to treat it otherwise would be meaningless. Besides, your paper is based on a series of assumptions that could only be valid if our sensory inputs are legitimate. For example, if I asked you to accept the assumptions of contradictory mathematics (which there have been people who have worked on this concept, believe it or not), then you would reject it. Why? Because it doesn't jive with our sensory impressions. You need a sense of what is valid sensory impressions and deductions from those sensory experiences before you can analyze sensory impressions.
***H: 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'). D: No! It is because of the consistency of the mental model created by your subconscious with your experiences as represented in that model.***
That's not a valid response. Consistency is based on a comparison of objects, and you need sensory impressions to even have a concept of objects. Abstraction is something that happens after we have a sense of tangible objects, and then we make abstractions with logical thinking (i.e., thinking that is based on our sensory impressions of the world). You seem to miss this basic fact.
***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!***
The reality is that the 'academy' flags those that don't know what they are talking about, and those individuals are no longer taken seriously. In so doing real progress can continue. Otherwise, we would have chaos in the intellectual development of theories where even the most non-sense concepts must constantly challenge valid approaches.
***H: What happens if we simply leave the question open? D: 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!***
No, why do we have to conclude in a positive manner that symmetries are due to one of the possible answers? If we simply leave the question open we don't feel a need to equate symmetries with some 'truth'. You conclude that symmetries are a result of our sensory impressions, whereas this is an unfounded conclusion. They may be a result of nature itself (which I suspect to be the case). You haven't provided a shred of evidence that this isn't the case.
***Really Harv, I cannot find any reason for us to continue this conversation and I cannot comprehend why God keeps moving me to respond.***
I find the need to reach those who I think are reachable (e.g., Paul). Aurino may be unreachable only because he treats all concepts as opinion unless they are his opinions (those he treats as facts). I don't think you are reachable because you are so sold on being right that you won't have it any other way. To this day I have never seen you admit to being wrong about some view that you hold. Not even once. That is odd for a scientist.
Warm regards, Harv |
