Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard  Dear Rascal .... I am, truly, impressed with your ideas. Without a Physics department and a budget of a few sqillion dollars or so, none of us is likely to come up with a theory of everything.
My understanding of Hypothesis, Theory and Fact is as follows;
IMO
An Hypothesis is, on the face of it, something that supplies an explanation for the known phenomena and is therefore worthy of investigation by others.
A Theory is an Hypothesis that is clearly demonstrated by Mathamatics to be acceptable and does not disagree with the known Laws.
A Fact or Principle or Law is a Theory that has been proven mathamatically and experimentally to be correct.
To be truthful, no one on this forum has a theory. What we call theories are hypothesis. Unfortunately this is all that most will remain. In a world of scarce resources, limited budgets, and numerous problems, only those of us that have managed to obtain political credibility, by fair means or foul, are likely to have their hypothesis taken seriously. Of course, rare genius may break thru these statistical obstacles occasionally. Who knows, they may even come from this forum. One thing is for certain, it won't be me.
In my opinion, your theory is up there. Your theory, along with Dave's and Lloyds are three that have honestly caused me to stop in my tracks, reevaulate what I knew, and forced me to the distasteful conclusion that I knew less than I thought I did. Not an easy thing to accomplish with a bastard like me. So this is not faint praise.
Whether you will get the political break, the lucky acknowledgment, the good fortune, so that it is picked up by those with the power and will to advance it remains to be seen.
I, who have no theory of my own, no axe to grind, have criticised yours knowing the obstacles you face, and that most likely you have taken it as far as you can humanly do so. I am ashamed!
The richer the booty, the thicker the parasites, and that definition alone shows that you have a worthy Hypothesis/Theory. Lets not dispute between these terms.
Unfortunately, I learn best by pulling things to bits. This of course is never appreciated when it is someone else's thing. However, Rascal, I am no more than a Devils Advocate, and as such you will benefit in the long run. You will face, and by the sound of it, have already faced, much worse than this.
I am still considering your most recent post. 
cool bananas ... greg |
_________________
Dear Greg:
You honor me with your humble boldness, hee hee.
Much of the experimental and mathematical fortification for my (hypotheoretical) work is already long done.
What my work does, mostly, is recognize and join what was previously unrecognized and unjoined. That is my forte. Non-mathematical
recognition of what's been there all along, in situ, unrecognized. That's what proffers whatever authenticity I may reflect.
Much of existing theory is mathematically and experimentally proven but the meaning of the math is overestimated, underestimated, misunderstood or forsaken altogether.
How many unrecognized things does E=MC2 prove, after all?
It's still an exemplary work - and an equation - in progress, and may always be.
And for all of its magnificent applications, F, for force, is still vaguely and narrowly understood; especially in terms of causation...
These are but few things to work with, and upon. Incidentally, to my knowledge, my translation of the field force origin and cause of wave mechanical QM has no equal anywhere. I do not know of any unsuccessful failures to non mathematically translate and account for why quanta are emitted always in the same value from all and everything that emits any and all quanta. (Please refer Pt VII of
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.
I encourage you to challenge others to disqualify my work en toto, and particularly my (predicted) accelerating universe (The Cosmological Constant is already in the desperately modified equations of the Big Bang theory).
Tell me why gravity, electricity and magnetism aren't the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions.
Tell me why the 'curvature of space-time' isn't the omnidirectional expansion of the entire physical frame of reference.
Tell me why I haven't explainded the so called universal rate of descent of test objects in free 'fall' (They aren't falling).
Tell me why the 5th element emitted from a 360o exponential quadrant isn't a quanta and how and why that doesn't - or can't- explain the uniformity of Planck's quantum h factor.
Tell me why I haven't reinstated Einstein's formerly abandoned cosmological constant unified field.
Tell me why I haven't explained the negative inertia of individual entities (omnidirectionally anchoring themselves with quantum emissions in all directions)
As for my work being pillaged by anyone else: they work for me. Far too many people, literally in the entire world, know that the work at issue here originated (however obscurely) with me...
The moment any given individual or institution claims and is ceremoniously rewarded for my work is the moment a deluge of information will arrive from all directions clarifying its origin. Ergo, my work can be stolen, but it can't be gotten away with...
(I'm already obscurely famous <enemies and all, and you may well believe there's plenty of them...>... Want my autograph? Hee Haw...)
It is an honor to correspond with you, Greg, my friend. By all means, attack my work in any way that you meaningfully can. Disqualify it if you can. I will thank you for unburdening me... I have everything to gain by learning another path...
(Good luck?)
Best regards,
- RP