|
Hi Mike,
I think I got your message, though it is always possible that I misunderstood. The message seemed to be that you were not interested in thinking about the things I brought up. That doesn't bother me a bit. When I used the word "flee", I was trying to express the abruptness of your act as seen from my perspective (having Harv and Mike Pearson hidden actually hides any thread continuing from their posts). I didn't intend to imply any criticism; I was merely explaining why I took the trouble to look at everyone's posts.
With regard to classifying people as "intelligent", I presume most people are intelligent unless they do a pretty good job of demonstrating otherwise. I certainly would never consider "lack of interest" to be an indication of "lack of intelligence". The world is full of very intelligent people who lack interest in a lot of subjects.
I would certainly agree with you that when it comes to one's own arguments, one is by far the most gullible guy around. In fact, that is the main reason I try to raise interest in my thoughts. From my perspective it is entirely possible I have made a subtle error which has eluded me. And I agree also that the skepticism of others and even their cynicism is of value in finding the kinds of errors a lone thinker tends to make. But the skepticism and/or cynicism serves no purpose at all if it is directed only to the issue of whether or not any attention should be given to the arguments.
Since I regard myself as a cynic of all cynics let me just comment on exactly what my paper is all about. I am not trying to raise your interests, I am merely trying to point out why I believe what I have done has not been carefully examined by anyone capable of following it and why I have no expectation that such an examination will ever take place in my life time though I would certainly welcome a critical examination.
I think my problem is a little more basic then just being weird and unusual. What I have done (unless of course there is an error in my work) is that I have proved physics (and thus, most of science) is tautological. Now no professional scientist is going to be willing to even consider that possibility. He will clearly regard the issue as impossible and not worthy of serious contemplation. Now, if you add to that fact the further constraint that only someone with an excellent advanced training in physics and mathematics can follow that proof, one has a rather impossible circumstance. Can this be taken as any evidence that I am in error? Certainly not. In fact, I wonder if physicists are even the right audience?
Consider astrology. Astrology was proven to be a tautology centuries ago and yet, even today, there are a considerable number of astrologers who make good livings in their chosen field. You cannot prove a field is a tautology to those who either cannot follow or will not look at the proof. Their failure to recognize their error is no indication at all of an error in the proof! I wonder how many of the early proponents of modern science were acquired through the conversion of master astrologers?
Who is my audience and how do I reach them? I have no idea of the answer to that question and I don't expect to find out in my lifetime. So why do I post? Very simple, I find it very interesting to listen to arguments as to why "science can not possibly be a tautology" as, by looking at emotional, "common sense", positions put forward, it improves my comprehension of the consequences of my proof. And I am very much interested in that issue.
Maybe I am being simple minded, but the only common element I can find between Alan and I is the apparent fact that no one understands what either one of us are saying. I hope I got your message.
Have fun -- Dick
PS, hensforth I will only answer questions which I deam worthy of serious attention. And, by the way, the missrepesentations of what I have said on this forum are rampent. In particular, those who claim I deny that relativistic phenomena are correct. What I claim is that physics can be developed in any coordinate system desired which is in fact the central tenet of relativity.
|
