Harv,

i had trouble with the 'known' and 'unknown' terminology but not so much because i needed to understand the nuances of their definition but because i could not understand how Dick was using them in developing his initial equation. admittedly it was not until he explained what he meant by the terms that i was able to understand how he was applying the terms in the development of the first equation. but now that i understand the reasoning through which the terms are used to develope the initial equation i can understand that development abstractly with only the common meaning of the terms 'known' and 'unknown'.

i can't currently discuss Dick's symmetry arguments as i've only skimmed his paper as a whole. i'm currently reviewing the first chapter in depth. i do however recognize the parallels between his paper and the results using Fisher sampling theory ect. i've read over some excerpts from a book that used Fisher sampling to elicit quantum mechanics and the assumptions were simply horrificaly complex. Dick's reasoning is much easier to follow . well at least at the point that i've currently reviewed.

it is reasonable to suspect a 'bible code' type of rigmarole might be going on in Dr. Dick's paper. for now i must give him the benifit of the doubt. i for sure believe he is making an honest attempt. what one has to wonder is how successful he has been at keeping his obvious broad experience and knowledge of physics from either consciously or subconsciously guiding the progress of his determinations. i can only assume he has made a mighty effort to avoid such a pitfall.
you may find this a strange slant on his paper, but i'm not so much interested in seeing that it may or may not result in new predictions (although i believe Dr. Dick may have surmised that time should be viewed differently than how we currently view it as measured by clocks) but what i'm more interested in is the alternate view that is afforded us with respect to the fundamental roots of the science that we already have.

i have trouble understanding the reason that you see Dr. Dick's presumption to use mathematics in his treatsise as a fallacy of assumption.

regards tim

• Good for you, Tim! - pmartin - May 19, 2003 - 19:04 UTC
  • Bad for you, Tim! - harvey1 - May 19, 2003 - 19:43 UTC
    • heh heh - sagefr0g - May 20, 2003 - 04:19 UTC
    • In less than ten words - pmartin - May 20, 2003 - 17:00 UTC
      • Therefore... - harvey1 - May 20, 2003 - 17:49 UTC
  • for me its a worth while endevor - sagefr0g - May 20, 2003 - 04:17 UTC
    • Discovering America, 500 years after Columbus - aurino_s - May 20, 2003 - 16:01 UTC
      • a view of America, 500 years ago through our own eyes - sagefr0g - May 21, 2003 - 14:48 UTC
• Invalid Assumptions using Math - harvey1 - May 19, 2003 - 19:36 UTC
  • giddy up - sagefr0g - May 20, 2003 - 02:33 UTC
    • Yippy ki-aaa - harvey1 - May 20, 2003 - 16:56 UTC
      • whooa there - sagefr0g - May 23, 2003 - 00:11 UTC
        • Mathematics as a subjective tool? - stormcrow - May 23, 2003 - 00:26 UTC
          • loose science - sagefr0g - May 23, 2003 - 09:52 UTC
            • Loose Logic? - stormcrow - May 23, 2003 - 17:29 UTC
              • right you are - sagefr0g - May 23, 2003 - 22:11 UTC
        • Hello - harvey1 - May 24, 2003 - 02:00 UTC
          • i sense that.. - sagefr0g - May 25, 2003 - 21:02 UTC
            • An example of subconscious filtering - yanniru - May 26, 2003 - 11:13 UTC
              • we don't know what goes on in the subconscious - sagefr0g - May 27, 2003 - 01:46 UTC
            • More on underpinning - harvey1 - May 27, 2003 - 16:50 UTC
              • Correction - harvey1 - May 28, 2003 - 12:41 UTC