I usually can't make any sense of your stuff, but this is very interesting:
What if "quantum" basically means "meeting" (the idea of generalised "2" in math?); and "relativity" basically means "meeting a meeting" or "3" in math say?
That makes some sense to me. Would you say "2", being in the middle of the spectrum between "1" (the very small - quantum) and "3" (the very large - relativity) means "Newtonian physics"? I think it's a fresh insight into math and physics.
Einstein's geometry treated "time" differently from space; so was a 1 + 3 geometry.
So by introducing the concept of "spacetime", Einstein invented a view of the world which transcends relativity itself? Sort of "meeting a meeting of a meeting" or "4" in math say? Genial!
Having ALREADY separated quantum (meeting) from relativity (meeting meeting) by saying 1 meets 3 (quantum that is two-ness where "1" meets (is "two with") "3") so having used a geometry that seems to separate "three-ness" (relativity) from "1 meets something" (quantum): Einstein could not define these as fully separate in his geometry as that would clash.
Exactly! But I would say the problem is that both the "1" for quantum and the "3" for relativity are already embedded in Doctor Dick's fundamental equation F=0. If you define F = 1 + 3 - 2, in other words, F = ("quantum" + "relativity" - "classical physics"), you can clearly see that the problem with Einstein is that he didn't realize he had to remove the old notions of Newton from his own theory in order to get consistency between QM and his theories.
I'd say that is an amazing insight into Doctor Dick's paper!
So Einstein's geometry echoes the famous double-slit experiment: you cannot pin down a quantum theory with a relativity theory at the same time: as they are defined into his very geometry as different times.
Unless you see the double-slit experiment as a meeting between QM (1 slit open) and classical physics (2 slits open), which right away introduces the concept of relativity (1 + 2 = 3 (!)). Hence the problems.
Now how does Dr. Dick's simple 4-geometry achieve defining relativity and defining quantum mechanics without clashing?
I'd say it's the "-2" in F=0, which he treates as "unknowable data". You see, the trick is, even though "2" stands for "classical physics", "-2" would be Newton's "unknowable data", because "-2" obeys all the rules that apply to "2" but can never be measured directly. Sort of like, when you have 2 dollars you can see and touch it, but when you owe two dollars there's nothing "physical" about your debt.
So having CLASHED quantum mechanics and relativity ALREADY in his simple 4-geometry: Dr. Dick is able to DEFINE them at the same time (because they are free to share the same time in his 4-geometry?)
But you could also say that, since F = 1 + 3 - 2 = 0, the solution to the conflict between QM and Einstein comes from treating classical physics as unknowable data?
Stephen Hawking's work fits in neatly; the idea of "imaginary time" is a partial transcribing of Einstein's "3 + 1" geometry into Dr. Stafford's "4" geometry by using "3 + 1; alternative 3 + 1" geometry?
Yes, but see, there are several ways of expressing the "-2" in F = 0. For instance, by quantizing movement in the tau direction (which is also imaginary) and calculating the integral of the momentum of the universe as mvt, you get i^2, which in turn gives you the negative sign for Newtonian physics.
What do you think?
Fischer sampling: I don't know about this but my guess is the "samples" are "chunks of 4-ness" (layered 4-ness e.g. 4 to power of 4) taken from a geometry of "imaginary matter" where you have "4 + 4" geometry?
I see a lot of Christianity in there. Didn't Jesus say he wanted to be a Fisher of man, or something like that? The extra 'c', of course, has to do with Einstein's constant speed of light.
Lot of guessing in my comments re: Fisher sampling!
Your guesses are excused as they certainly led me to an insight into physics and God.
(Mississipi John Hurt: you heard him sing / play guitar? He sometimes leaves out words in the lyrics but keeps on going with the music. Maybe my physics style....?)
I'd say your physics style sounds to me more like the Teletubbies, since you have proved that physics is child's play anyway.