I think you misunderstood my reason for discussing these things with the various people. My discussion with Harv was supposed to be about the philosophical implications of what I had discovered. When it comes to the philosophical issues, Harv appeared to be knowledgeable; however, I could never get him to discuss the central point (all he wanted to talk about was that I couldn't possibly be right). Both you and Paul showed a grasp of my central conundrum which demonstrates that the issues could be discussed without understanding the math which implies that my attempts to talk to Harv were not entirely stupid.
Yanniru was a different issue. With regard to his philosophical ideas, he is pretty clearly off in left field; however, when it comes to physics he put himself forward as an authority. I am not sure he ever actually said anything but I certainly had the impression he had a decent education in physics. So my discussion with him was built on the impression that he was a "professional" and I would love to have a competent professional look at my work.
As I said, " What stopped my correspondence with Yanniru was when he convinced me that his understanding of mathematical physics was inadequate to the discussion". Not only do I question his expertise, but I also question his veracity. During our discussion, he made mistakes I would not expect of a first year student. In my opinion, the fellow is completely intellectually incompetent.
*****Aurino: I think what Mario, Harv, and others wanted to see was a knowledgeable person being convinced by your math. You may be right that Yanniru is wrong, but then again you may be wrong and we have no way to know the truth.
I also would love to see a knowledgeable person examine my math; but it isn't going to happen on this forum. With regard to the issue of Yanniru's expertise however, I don't believe it is outside your or Mario's ken to see him as intellectually untrustworthy.
Take for example his post in this thread: Yanniru says, "I pointed out the correct solution available in the literature. Statistical probability theory including unknown data, which is the basic problem in taking polls like the Gallop poll from small samples, were used to derive Schroedinger's equation. But inn the literature it was done using math correctly." At this moment Yanniru does not make it clear exactly what he means by the term "correctly". In an earlier post, he included the comment "rigorously without approximation".
Now, anyone with even a cursory education in physics knows that Schrodinger's equation is a "classical" equation: i.e., it is not relativistically correct. Dirac was the one who managed to present a relativisticly correct representation of the quantum relations. Thus, it should be intellectually obvious to anyone that Schrodinger's equation cannot possibly be rigorously deduced from fundamental principals without approximation! If one could rigorously deduce Schrodinger's equation from fundamental principals without making an approximation it would imply one could rigorously deduce an incorrect result. Yanniru's failure to understand that statement points to a severe inadequacy in his understanding of physics.
Alan recently asked me what Yanniru's error was with regard to the Dirac delta function. I will post my answer to Alan here:
With regard to your comment, "It would be useful to have your explanation of Yanniru's error", it is not an "error"; it is rather that he seems to have no experience with the delta function to speak of. The Dirac delta function is a function with very specific characteristics! It is "defined" by the fact that the integral of that function over any range not including zero is zero and that integration over any range which includes zero yields unity. That such a function can be rigorously defined can be shown via a number of methods; all using some kind limiting attack (check the books you have been reading).
Yanniru is apparently unfamiliar with the use of the Dirac delta function. The existence of such a function serves no purpose except when used within an integral (at which time it yields a very specific result). When standing alone, the function is, conceptually thinking, rather useless (one can show that it is infinite at zero and zero everywhere else and little more); however, when used under an integral, it has very powerful consequences (which are quite easy to prove). Yanniru appears to be ignorant of those consequences which implies he has no experience with application of the function.
A very clear example of the consequences of the Dirac delta function may be seen by looking at the integral of g(y) times the Dirac delta function of (x-y) integrated over all y. The answer is simply g(x). If you think about it for a moment, you should see that no other result is possible. First, the initial function is a function of both x and y and the final result (since you have integrated over all y) must be a function of x. That being the case, one may choose any x and look at the system as if x were a constant (do it for all possible x and you have the complete circumstance). At that point it should be clear to you that the integral of g(x) times the Dirac delta function of (x-y) must be exactly the same as g(y) times the Dirac delta function of (x-y) as the Dirac delta function vanishes everywhere except when x=y! If that is the case, what difference can it make if you use g(x) or g(y).
But the integral over g(x) times the delta function of (x-y) is trivial: you can simply factor g(x) out from under the integral sign as it is not a function of y and the integral over the delta function (integrated over all y) is exactly unity yielding a final result of g(x). It follows that the integral of g(y) times the delta function of (x-y) must also be exactly g(x). This consequence is fundamental to every functional use of the Dirac delta function I am aware of. Yanniru shows every sign of being completely ignorant of that fact indicating to me that he has never worked with the Dirac delta function.
This, together with his inability to understand the use of indices on variables, implies to me that the man is totally ignorant of advanced physics. At that point I see any conversation with him as worthless; particularly as he puts himself forth as an authority. I would not trust his opinion on anything.
****Aurino: In all honesty, and I tell you this as a friend, that sort of attitude is repugnant. Sorry for my sincerity, perhaps you think being uncivilized doesn't make one wrong, and you'd be right about that, but it certainly makes one's arguments uninteresting.
Yes, I understand that; however, I find Yanniru to be not at all what he pretends to be.
With regard to my comment, "That fact further indicates the level of mathematical comprehension on this forum and, without a decent understanding of mathematics, what I have done is totally beyond comprehension. Thus to try to explain any of it here is an out and out waste of time!", I did not intend that to be as rude as it sounds. Yes, the philosophical issues are still there to be discussed; however, without the rigor of the mathematics to defend my position, the discussion is more of a "what if" discussion which carries as little weight as a discussion of religious laws.
**** Aurino: "If all there is to your work is meaningless number crunching, then no one is missing anything important anyway."
That "meaningless number crunching" is a proof that my perspective is complete: i.e., that any information which is knowable can be so interpreted (understood as consistent with that perspective). I personally think that is a very important issue and it gives rise to some very interesting questions. But, until the defense is rigorously understood, I would tend to think discussion of the consequences can not possibly be held to be significant. I am interested in understanding and I think the rest of you should be interested in the same thing. To hold as true something you cannot understand is called religion and I have no interest in promoting a new religion; we have enough of those already.
If one does not understand it, my perspective becomes "just another story" along with all the other stories; and just as meaningless as all those other stories. With regard to my "helping the cause", there is no cause here to help. If you understood what I presented, you would see that the only truth is what you know to be true (your personal past) and quite a little of that is surely illusion. Everything else is just a story, made up to make your past (that part of it which is not an illusion) make sense.
I will continue to read some posts to this forum and answer any direct questions but, other than that, I doubt I will post much.
Have fun -- Dick