Hi Aurino,

my initial reaction was "maybe he sees my point" followed quickly by "he doesn't" followed by "he seems to have not understood my description of relativity very much say" followed by "what is this about?" followed by "seems nonsensical say" followed by "I'm being credited with a major insight on Dr. Dick's paper" yet "Aurino admited playing along with Dr. Dick pretending to agree with him; is he playing a game say?":

with "I do not follow Aurino's argument" !

See my reply to Mike re: lateral thinking.


It seems like you are so shocked at my "simplistic looking" take on the supposedly complicated world of theoretical physics; that your reaction is to try your hand at this style.

But you see; what I did was not any old silly talk on physics; I found apparently successful patterns. (See "lateral thinking" comments to Mike.)

A mathematician who looked at Dr. Dick's paper has already agreed with me that it can be seen as "intersecting categories".

I can model the double-slit experiment in a way that may shock by its simplicity but it seems to be of some relevance say?

Quote:

"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."

I haven't thought much about separating Nwtonian physics; but recall finding it reflected or something in Einstein physics.

I treated "quantum" not as "very small" (quantum can be any size if it is "meeting").

I treated "relativity" not as "very large", but as "meeting meeting", as "direction", as "three-ness"; a size-independent concept but which partially defines size perhaps.

If two objects move past each other (relative motion: Newtonian relativity") the very definition of their motion as "relative" locks them together as an "instant" in time say ("time" as self-referent reference like a pendulum).

Quote: "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?"

He I'm thinking generalised a geometery into a 3 + 1 form.

Quote: "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!"

I made a possible error here and re: interpreting Dr. Dick's geometry; running out of time to sort it out here. But the general idea seems to work.