Thank you for the reply.

Sorry I am severely handicapped at present: I have almost no money accessible and this internet cafe costs me so I can't say what I want to.

I can only say a few things now.

There is a whole lot of stuff I have written that I hope to type up away from the cost of the internet. I have a detailed model of axions that accounts for the so-called CPT violation (charge parity something else).

I have extensive mapping of physics written but not typed.

Thanks for the link earlier you gave to McCutcheon's book.

A brief look at the material quickly lead me to a tentative view that: he has done a mirror image on Stafford's approach.

I can show you why Stafford's system involves "orbit of sums" and leads to viewing gravitation as refraction. I can show you why McCutcheon's view may involve "sum of orbits" and leads to gravity apparantly vanishing.

I can show you why McCutcheon is correct re: gravity and scale relativity; if my map is correct it proves he is right. But it shows how many other people are right in their own way.

I have already found a super-map for string theory and probably loop quantum gravity.

A vast amount of difficult post-graduate mathematics re: string theory vapourises in a single instant: I can show you how. It involves a simple diagram of what "logic" entails. All that fancy stuff like "co-homology" and "fibre bundles" becomes transparently obvious.

Loop quantum gravity appears to be "set theory" dressed in complicated mathematical clothing.

I can show you exactly how Stafford's system works, I think; and why "conscious/unconscious" plays the role it does.

I agree Wolfram maybe hopes it would be all simple
but I understood he predicted it would be.

I do not think consciousnes has to exist in an invisible medium only; why shouldn't it be as Harv quotes from Saint Matthew, like "yeast in the dough when a woman is making bread"?

I do not believe only words exist. I believe that the Kingdom of Heaven involves a transparency of knowledge; where one can see how everything can exist in harmony.

When you were a baby you thought; words are not necessary in the conventional sense.

If you get very tired and notice the goings on in your head when you momentarily slip almost into sleep sitting in a chair; you can uncover each layer of consciousness from worded-thought through to sampled phrases through to an internal theatre of roles saying phrases through to a dream state.

Quote: "Why should quantum mechanics and General Relativity be so contradictory? The String Theory, or brane theory as it is now called, is so emmensely complicated that nobody can now claim to know it all."

Please allow me to demonstrate just how simple physics really is:

"Quantum mechanics" means what?

"Quantum" implies quanta, quantity, bits, more than one. So I replace "quantum" with "meeting" as it always involves at least two items (a quantity) which comprise the meeting.

"Mechanics" means what? A mechanic fixes your car. He changes a rigid structure. "The mechanics of the company's proposal need to be worked out" means the "nitty gritty", the interaction between the structure of the proposal and the outside world.

By using ordinary English usage of words I find it sheds light on technical physics useage.

So "mechanics" involves a generalisation of "meeting": it implies an overall collision of "worlds" (the company's plans and society) to talk about "work out the mechanics of the company's proposal".

So what would "quantum mechanics" mean?

"quantum" means "meeting" localised and "mechanics" means "meeting" generalised.

The quantum of action is a specific chunk of action; where "action" is localised.

A car with mechanical trouble hasn't got its act right; its "all over the place" it needs a mechanic; it is meeting out of sync, i.e,. "meeting" generalised.

Relativity: you sit in a train and think it's going backwards when looking at a train seeming to move ahead of you out of the station. Then you notice the fixed station background and see that you were not going backwards, the next door train was going forewards.

Einstein relativity: you don't solve the problem by looking at the station, but by looking at another train. But how do you know that that train isn't also drifting forwards at a different rate (differentiation!) and you might STILL be going backwards? (Integration!)

Diferentiation is MASS; integration is INERTIA.

Returning to quantum mechanics:

"Meeting localised meeting generalised".

That's Einstein relativity. IT IS CALCULUS.

*************************************************
Differentiation-integration IS quantum mechanics IS relativity.
*************************************************

If you try to solve one with the other you get contradictions (double slit experiment). If you try to solve both with math (wire grid) you get a split in math (Ashfar variation on double slit: wire grid where fringes are along the way)(brane-worlds: multiplication spaces: photons! alternatives-packets i.e. energy packets).

The more the scientists do difficult math, the more they think they are pulling qm and relativity apart; but the more they do that the more they re-invent math.

So Stephen Hawking's work is all about re-discovering mathematics, which is called "m-theory".

And "p-theory"? It's surely physics re-invented to cope with imaginary math (two maths).

Yanniru. I dashed this off but I hope you can see that a great deal of knowledge can go transparent to us.

Here is an idea:

The parables of the Gospel come true: it is in dying that you are born to eternal life: dying to number; to coercion, to counting; that you become more conscious, things become transparent?

One plus one cannot equal two or there would be only one. There must remain some difference.

Maybe the Kingdom of Heaven is here, now, a deep ocean of consciousness where we can all get along without having to tread on each other; where instead of tripping up over "number" we can go beyond infinity and experience the gift of free will in its fullest?


-Alan