The math is beyond me although I remember a lot of the individual functions from Calculus.

Please tell me if I understand at least part of your hypothesis (it seems to relate to a lot of the bickering on this board), you are stating that we (Human scientists) are theorizing about things from an impure sensory (and existential?) perception and as we continue to build on our theories we are going down a road of futility and need to start over with a clensed perception (shown in one of your diagrams) as a foundation. not to say a lot of the existing work couldn't be used as a guide (maybe some findings were right and others were wrong, probably the case anyway). You also back a lot of this up with advanced math, which again is a little beyond my background.

It seems to me one thing is for sure, our perceptions are very screwed up because they are designed for our species survival rather than understanding physics and existence. We see in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with all the waves around us, we hear in a similiar way, and of course our perceptions of space and time center around our tiny (or huge!) existence of 80 years if we are lucky and our just so "normal" size (Earth is big and a molecule is small to us, but are they really?.........).

HD

• Exactly what do you "know"? - doctordick - April 17, 2001 - 04:36 UTC
  • Algorithm Assumptions - yanniru - April 17, 2001 - 12:39 UTC
    • I think you have missed something - doctordick - April 17, 2001 - 13:01 UTC
      • This is the problem. - alexander - April 17, 2001 - 16:12 UTC
        • What do we know??? - doctordick - April 17, 2001 - 18:42 UTC
      • Assumptions - yanniru - April 18, 2001 - 11:32 UTC
        • Space and time! - doctordick - April 18, 2001 - 16:51 UTC
          • Here is where your shift symmetry assumption comes in - yanniru - April 19, 2001 - 12:35 UTC
            • I do not understand what I have assumed. - doctordick - April 19, 2001 - 17:32 UTC
              • Shift symmetry is still an assumption - yanniru - April 19, 2001 - 22:28 UTC
                • You misunderstand the issue here! - doctordick - April 25, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
                  • Not totally undefined - yanniru - April 26, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
                    • You are looking at the problem incorrectly. - doctordick - April 26, 2001 - 20:39 UTC
                      • Your transformation is defined - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
                        • Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
                        • From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
                        • Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
                          • Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
                            • Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
                              • Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
                            • A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC