Thank you Mike.

Quote:

"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?"

I posted the stuff because it was taking so long to get around to typing the main initial set of discoveries and editing it all. Good idea to give a guide, an abstract.

Quote: "Is "rough-state" a physics term or does it refer to your having submitted a rough draft?"

Rough draft.

Quote: "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 demonstrated that a model of giving of gifts; and of every voice being given a hearing; seems to map physics; and that the laws of physics appear optional. I showed the idea of optional counting.

This seems to relate to ideas in Christianity: "God is Love"; "As you bind on Earth, consider it bound in Heaven; as you loose on Earth consider it loosed in Heaven".

I showed theoretical physics is child's play.

Regards,

Alan

• 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