I spent months reviewing his math very carefully and complained to him about many rather strange steps. I finally decided that the math was correct, but his interpretation was not.

My contention is that his results follow from his assumptions of symmetries. His response is summed up in the following quote from one of his posts:

"I show that the data must display a specific set of symmetries (because there is no information outside the data being examined)."

His demonstration is to assert that your subconsciousness is manipulating the data of your senses and thereby casting it into every possible symmetry, the two most important being shift symmetry and scale symmetry. In case you are not familiar, the first says you can add any constant to the data without changing it, and the second says that you can multiply the data by any number without changing it.

I do not know how he came to realize that your subconscious can do that, or if the subconscious actually does it.

But nonetheless, his resulting universal equation which can be reduced to both Schroedingers equation and special relativity, a feat first performed by Dirac who inferred the existence of the positron from his results, mathematically comes directly from the symmetries displayed by the data. This is a fantastic result that goes way beyond Noether's theorems about symmetries and conservation laws.

If Stafford would just publish his math starting with assumptions of those symmetries, he would get the recognition he deserves. But instead he makes unsubstantiated claims about the subconsciousness that make his work unpublishable.

I sent him my survey paper on non-local consciousness that includes the subconsciousness, but he has chosen to ignore it. If I have not sent it to you, (and you want it) just ask at yanniru@netscape.net, and I will attach it to the reply.

yanniru

• To Tim and Yanniru/Yaniru Too - quiet - April 29, 2003 - 17:56 UTC
  • He has not ever published in a peer reviewed journal - yaniru - April 29, 2003 - 18:10 UTC
    • Apparently_your_ peers cannot find his work with your help - quiet - April 30, 2003 - 01:06 UTC
      • You do not have a clue - yaniru - April 30, 2003 - 03:22 UTC
        • you have added this dimension to Science and God forum - quiet - April 30, 2003 - 20:02 UTC
          • You do not understand peer review - yaniru - May 1, 2003 - 02:59 UTC
            • You're a good guy but you're also an imbicile - carefuluniverse - May 1, 2003 - 03:36 UTC
              • Then why are you so stupid - yaniru - May 1, 2003 - 11:18 UTC
                • Hypothesis contrary to fact/stipulations absent/illogical - quiet - May 1, 2003 - 17:48 UTC
                  • Son, I know a peer from a pear - yaniru - May 1, 2003 - 18:53 UTC
                    • Don't feel bad - quiet - May 1, 2003 - 19:20 UTC
                      • Have you read Benard Fell's book - yaniru - May 2, 2003 - 03:32 UTC
                        • Yes or No. - quiet - May 2, 2003 - 04:22 UTC
                      • It's as relevant as your 3 million comment - yaniru - May 2, 2003 - 11:40 UTC
                        • Grammar, attribution, ethics = F for Yaniru - quiet - May 2, 2003 - 18:56 UTC
                    • Do you have a son? - quiet - May 1, 2003 - 23:23 UTC
                      • 3 - yaniru - May 2, 2003 - 03:33 UTC
                        • But you called me "Son" - quiet - May 2, 2003 - 04:24 UTC
                          • It's because you are younger than my oldest son - yaniru - May 2, 2003 - 11:42 UTC
  • Mike your post is interesting - sagefr0g - April 30, 2003 - 02:30 UTC
    • Tim, I think you are exactly right about that! - quiet - April 30, 2003 - 20:10 UTC
      • i got the message - sagefr0g - May 1, 2003 - 00:35 UTC
        • Shakespeare: "Innocence itself sometimes hath need of a mask" - carefuluniverse - May 1, 2003 - 03:40 UTC
          • heh, heh sometimes you amaze me... - sagefr0g - May 1, 2003 - 19:08 UTC
            • hope I can say the same - quiet - May 2, 2003 - 15:42 UTC
              • i'll name a few... - sagefr0g - May 2, 2003 - 16:28 UTC
                • you say these rights are deserved only by "dumb sluck" person? - quiet - May 3, 2003 - 02:53 UTC
                  • sorry to be so vague - sagefr0g - May 3, 2003 - 04:13 UTC
                    • Law-Dee -Daw, Law- Dee-Daw - quiet - May 3, 2003 - 17:10 UTC
                      • agreed - sagefr0g - May 3, 2003 - 18:21 UTC
• It is in the public domain! - doctordick - April 30, 2003 - 01:17 UTC
  • You have no mechanism for the subconscious - yaniru - April 30, 2003 - 03:30 UTC
    • By-By - doctordick - April 30, 2003 - 10:34 UTC
    • For anyone who is interested. - doctordick - April 30, 2003 - 11:48 UTC
      • Pardon me - yaniru - April 30, 2003 - 12:42 UTC
      • Regarding your math - yaniru - April 30, 2003 - 12:49 UTC
        • Yanniru is a good guy and has earned Dr. Dick's respect - quiet - April 30, 2003 - 20:08 UTC
• a mathematical understanding of symmetry - sagefr0g - April 30, 2003 - 01:22 UTC