Alan: "I would be interested in any comments you have re: seven posts further down where I posted rough-state info. from the physics / math investigation I've been doing; and more recent post on Hamilton's equations."


Response:
Hi Alan How about telling me why you think my responses might be helpful. Have you observed
over the past 22 months that I post helpful observations about physics and/or math?
Please, if you do value my thoughts, converse with me about the following.

Preliminary observations:
1) Your posts are "rough-state" in that they are not in a Theory Structure format. You seem to leave it to someone else to take on the task of organizing all the ideas into an easily understandable summary using familiar terms.
Would you briefly resolve this set of posts into one or two "abstract"-type of summaries to make it easier for us harried readers to see what reward there might be in taking time to understand them all?
Is "rough-state" a physics term or does it refer to your having submitted a rough draft?
2) When splicing together physics with theology,
I have found that theology must be precisely describable for the purpose of plugging it into equations. These descriptions need not be strictly quantitative, but they should be granular enough to ensure nothing is aboard the weighing scale without being accounted for --(equal sign is usually the balance beam in that metaphor).
I Will look closely at your answers and your posts.
Sincerely,
Mike

• Thank you Mike - dolphin - September 27, 2003 - 11:56 UTC
  • Thank you, Alan - carefuluniverse - September 28, 2003 - 04:10 UTC
    • Christmas - dolphin - September 28, 2003 - 10:00 UTC
      • Goo goo gaa gaa - carefuluniverse - September 28, 2003 - 16:21 UTC