Thank you Aurino....
"Honestly, Alan, I think you should wake up and smell the coffee; physics is not about that childish stuff, and the more you insist it is, the more it shows you don't take the subject seriously. I may have my weird opinions now and then, but as an engineer I know physics is not child's play, it's a very complex subject. Only ignorance may make it seem simple."
BUT you openly admitted NOT reading my stuff; so you do not know what I wrote!
I observe and I report. What you make of it: well you need to read it surely?
Or are you just assuming that since I said it was "child's play" I must be wrong?
But: one of the world's most respected hot-shot physicists, Stephen Wolfram; has been reported suggesting something like it will turn out to be gobsmackingly simple!
And HE KNOWS the complex stuff I would think! So that raises questions about your argument.... an expert is saying it'll be really simple.....
I do not deny that physics can SEEM complicated; I once had to do assignments at University so I know about that.
But further evidence that FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS could be simple comes from www.emmynoether.com where they want to teach kids about the symmetry that they used to introduce at post-grad level but which is simplifying the subject so much now they want to tell it to kids.
"Then again, if you don't take physics seriously, no one is forced to take you seriously. Dick has some crackpot ideas about physics, but at least he's serious about the subject. His posts bother me because he's spreading misinformation, while your posts have no content whatsoever. I don't know what Harv sees as a big deal; I'm sure he has his reasons, as we all do."
Who says I do not take it seriously? What do you mean by "seriously"?
Is heavy use of mathematics a sign of "seriously"?
I do not claim my posts to have heavy mathematical content; but they have plenty of content and an expert mathematician has looked at Dr. Stafford's work and has agreed that my non-mathematical "category intersections" approach informed by John Hospers explanation of how words are defined by a broadening and narrowing process IS A VALID WAY OF MAPPING DR. DICK'S SYSTEM.
Also: if you do not read my detailed mapping posts; and if you do not discuss them with me and seek clarification on them; how can you judge them as "no content"?
Ironically my map IS ABOUT THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE ALLEGED LAWS OF PHYSICS, THAT "CONTENT" IS VOLUNTARY: AS YOU MEASURE SO YOU ARE MEASURED.
In a way you are right; they have no content, because they show FREEDOM; my posts might help release you from the math-laws of physics, release you from mathematical death...