Dick,
>>>”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. . . ”
In other words, the presentation of stupidity only becomes worthy of attention when it is a serious presentation of stupidity. Is this why your paper generates so much curiosity?
>>>”The fact that the trick exists is revolutionary in and of itself.”
Which trick – mine, or yours?
>>>”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.”
These statements are also true of the “Stick Dafford” post.
>>>”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...”
Of course we don’t worry about your predefined notions of “set,” “data,” or “organized,” do we?
>>>”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.”
But this is all familiar territory. You didn’t invent the concepts “tautology,” “proposition,” or “verification,” did you?
Your work is a way of boiling observations down to a prevailing mathematical structure. This result speaks volumes for the absurdity of the framework within which we build our observations, you say. We should all, you conclude, step back and take a hard look at the self-serving
o~ devices that reveal the same structure every time an observation is established within them.
But the system you use en route to your conclusion is itself one such
o~ device that reveals the same structure every time an observation is established within it.
You accept the whole of math “without defense or argument,” and until someone can come along and prove your math incorrect your findings are indeed mathematically valid. Let's forget Alex, Bruce, and Yanniru for a minute, I'll accept your math as valid (after all, I'm not just a regular old idiot, I'm a "mathematically challenged" idiot). . . but how are your results revolutionary?
If every non-mathematical definition is questionable, then the only value of your paper is the mathematical loop contained therein. And I don't recall you mathematically proving the more involved a theorem's explanation, the more important that theorem." So I think that “ ½[2(x + 5) – 4]– x = 3” is just as ‘revolutionary’ a theorem as yours! Indeed, I could move a few characters around;
½[2(x + 5) – 4]- 3 = x
stick in 13.6 eV, Planck time, or Avogadro's Number for x, and "prove" the same sort of "revolutionary" trick you have!
>>>“you need to show me where this great difference (in definition of time) is. . . 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.”
This is a far cry from what you say in Chapter 3. A sample:
”no one in the history of the world has ever been able to create a real manufactured device which will measure time.”
What time are you looking for? There is no time, in the sense you use, to measure! Indeed, Einstein said this, though you insinuate your results say the same thing because your results are built within some magical theorem. Hooey! All you’ve shown is that our observations suggest we cannot measure “absolute time.” Duh! We can no more measure absolute time than we can measure phlogiston.
If an 18th century chemist understood the philosophical revision of combustion Joseph Priestly demonstrated, would he find fault with Priestly’s conclusions that phlogiston is not the universal "stuff" of combustion? If, on the other hand, this 18th century chemist was incapable of grasping the paradigm shift brought about by Priestly, and instead thought Priestly had just failed to see the phlogiston that was really really there all along, he might be inclined to object.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
½[2({property of oxygen which refutes the existence of phlogiston} + 5) – 4]- 3 = {property of oxygen which refutes the existence of phlogiston}
"See? Phlogiston really exists! The problem is that our experiments are set up in a way that shows Phlogiston doesn't exist. It's all a big conspiracy!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>”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?”
Einstein demonstrated to the world that absolute time is an illusion, yet in Chapter 3 you bend over backwards to prove that no one can measure absolute time (”All so called clocks actually measure what physicists call proper time. . . (the physicist) is able to define time only in his own rest frame. . . It should be noted that clocks measure ‘proper time’ exactly, even when in an arbitrarily accelerated frame!”).
It’s like you went out of your way to survey the North Pole, and are eagerly reporting back to us that -- despite what the rest of the world’s parents really think (but are hiding) -- the flying reindeer named Rudolph with the shiny red nose cannot be found, not because he's an illusion, but rather because our satellites have been rigged improperly by a stilted scientific community.
”Although our clock was designed to measure time, it appears that what is actually being measured is inferred displacement in the t direction. . . I have always found it rather strange that (the fact that clocks measure their own time no matter their acceleration) was never pointed out to me during my graduate studies.”
In other words, it’s all just a big conspiracy to hide the inability of science to find absolute time.
>>>”no educated person can even comprehend that the trick I have discovered could possibly exist.”
I think, in fact I’d bet good money that the typical scenario goes something like this:
Stafford: “Hey, I’ve really got something special. Will you check it out?”
Another: “Sure, let me take a look. . .” Reads a bit. Comes across statements like “The algorithm we’re searching for . . . must be independent of time” and realizes, “This man doesn’t even understand time.” Politely hands paper back to Stafford, and declines.
Stafford leaves the encounter more assured that (1) there is some great conspiracy among ‘mainstream’ scientists to divert attention from science’s “dark secret,” and (2) he’s figured out a theorem that exposes this secret.
Give us a break, Dick.
(Had fun!)
-LH |