sci.physics

On Feb 27, 9:37 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
> 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.
>
> /

You want feedback? Learn some physics instead of tooling around on
newsgroups for years getting fuck-all done.