|
Luis,
Ordinarily I do not find your comments worth responding to as there is no depth to speak of in your thought processes; however, on this occasion I get the impression that you are serious so I will condensed to reply.
The fact that the trick exists is revolutionary in and of itself. What it says is very simple: it doesn't make any difference what collection of information one begins with, the deductions I produce are valid. They arise purely out of particular procedure I choose to organize the data and have absolutely nothing to do with the data itself.
A procedure for organizing data cannot be "WRONG"; it is nothing but a procedure. The only criticism applicable to such an idea is "is it useful" and you certainly cannot answer that question without understanding the procedure. Sometimes it is the simplest ideas which are the hardest to comprehend because they run so counter to what we are taught to believe. There exists only two very explicit possibilities for error in my work: First, there might exist a set of data which cannot be organized in the manner I propose and second, there could be a specific error in my deductions. Any other complaints just completely miss the entire issue.
Your complaint concerns my definitions. You continually tell me they are wrong! I think what you mean to be saying is that they are not the definitions used by the scientific community. As I comment in my paper, my definitions yield the greatest portion of modern physics as a tautology (the "trick" I have discovered). Near the end of Chapter 2, I comment "Even if you do not believe my model represents anthropomorphic reality, I have still shown that it is possible that classical mechanics is true by definition as my definitions have led to that result. If you consider your definitions to be sufficiently different from mine that they do not pre-define the results of your experiments, I suggest that you need to prove your case."
With regard to that comment you simply state outright that my definitions are not those used by the scientific community. Perhaps not; but you need to show me where this great difference is. In particular, you complain very strongly about my definition of time. My "definition" of time is very simple: time is nothing except a numerical tag attached to an observation and any observer is free to attach that tag in anyway they choose.
Now please explain to me how their definition of time differs from mine other than the fact that they have chosen a procedure for attaching that parameter? The fact is that my definition is much much simpler than theirs and yet yields all the measurable results they hold forth seems to me to indicate that they do not comprehend the implications of attaching such a parameter.
Finally, I have never commented about the lack of "brilliant" people. What I have said is that I have found no one both open-minded enough to consider what I have said and educated enough to follow it. Paul is the closest having studied graduate mathematics; however, even Paul has not made a careful examination of anything past chapter 1.
The single greatest problem I have is that no educated person can even comprehend that the trick I have discovered could possibly exist. This means that they all have supreme confidence that if they did bother to take the time to look at the logic, they would find an error. So why should they waste their time looking? You should understand that. I am sure that you are very confident that I could not possibly be right.
Have fun -- Dick |
