sci.physics

On Feb 27, 5:05 pm, tadchem wrote:

Hello,

Thank you for your response. I've considered it carefully. I have some
points in response, and I hope that you consider them carefully.


> > My ideas have evolved considerably in that time. I've even come to
> > recognize it as being similar to many other important ideas throughout
> > history.
>
> This attitude is indistinguishable from megalomanic delusion.
>
> > In the interest of getting somewhere, I'd like to ask a favor of you.
>
> > Consider for a moment, that I'm telling that truth and am in fact
> > working on a new kind of hypothesis.
>
> As my fourth grade arithmetic teacher told me repeatedly, "You've got
> to show your work."
>
> > Consider that I've defined a problem, a conjectured a unique solution.
>
> Show us your definition.


"The Problem

In the Principia Mathematica, Newton defined his views on space, time,
and matter as well as powerful and successful laws of motion. Since
1687, the success of general relativity and quantum mechanics have
each altered the laws of motion in ways that are not entirely
compatible"

/



> > Consider that despite having no hypothesis, much less experimental
> > evidence corroborating, I am in the process of getting there.
>
> Do you know what a hypothesis is?


Yes, in physics, it is written in mathematics and makes experimentally
verifiable predictions.


> Do you know what your problem is?
> Do you know explicitly what characteristics a hypothesis must have to
> address your problem?


Yes. The problem I've defined requires that an appropriate hypothesis
mathematically expresses all classical, quantum, and relativistic
phenomena.


> > Is there anything I can I do, short of providing you experimental
> > evidence that we both recognize doesn't exist, to convince you that my
> > solution may have potential?
>
> Yes. Put up or shut up. Shit or get off the pot.


Ok. Please read through this paper and let me know if you understand
it or not:

/

I think it's nearly identical to Leibniz's Monadology.

But, just as very few people understand Leibniz, my paper seems
equally difficult.


> Epistemologists can't know anything until they know what it means to
> "know something".
>
> The most important part of any problem is to find out what the most
> important part of the problem is.
>
> You are hypothesizing about hypotheses, so you are hypothetically
> working on the problem. You will only produce *real* results when you
> start doing *real* work. Write things down. Separate them from the
> confines of your own head. Analyze them. Share them with well-
> informed analytical intellects.
>
> So far all you've done is tell us you know there's a great idea out
> there somewhere and you want to get a hold on it. I've heard more
> definitive claims from freaked-out hippies on LSD.

Here is one attempt. I'd be gratefully appreciative of any feedback
that would help me out.

/