So how do you get to a symmetry without making an assumption, and do not say by definition. It's the same thing. I would like to see a fuller explanation with the requirements for symmetries.

For example very early in your work you use the shift symmetry and later in these posts you say it is required. What required it?

Think of almost any substance. Take water and ice. One has one particular symmetry and the other has another. That is why a phase change is needed(opps, almost used the word required) to go from one state to another. And neither has shift symmetry. Shift symmetry only applies to a vacuum.

So if I think about water or ice, neither of which has shift symmetry,(shift symmetry means that my mathematical representation of the particles in those substances is independent of where I put the origin), then I cannot use your theory to describe my thinking, or the data or measurements by science of what these substances actually look like.

So since the first thing that goes into your theory is the shift symmetry, but matter does not possess shift symmetry, how does your theory apply to anything at all. It applies to a vacuum, which is to say it applies to nothing at all.

Still having fun?

Richard

• Boy you sure are hung up on this word assumption! - doctordick - July 30, 2001 - 17:23 UTC
  • You claim you make no assumptions - yanniru - July 31, 2001 - 12:09 UTC
    • A vacuum? - doctordick - July 31, 2001 - 13:34 UTC
      • Answer the shift symmetry question - yanniru - July 31, 2001 - 17:58 UTC
        • And what shift symmetry question is that? - doctordick - July 31, 2001 - 18:30 UTC
          • You do not read my posts do you? - yanniru - August 1, 2001 - 00:44 UTC