posted on Mar, 28 2023 @ 06:42 AM
a reply to:
kwakakev
Your comments are starting to go in a direction that is not aligned with my intentions for this thread. For the heart of the theory, I am not
interested in a pitch, nor patents. Some additional coding could certainly be done with the aim of increased accuracy, but for the present purposes I
believe things are good there also.
Much of modern physics does not make any sense. It has infinities and contradictions within it that lead to a mental dissonance in our understanding
of nature.
One goal of mine is and always has been to understand the universe we live in at the most basic level. Whenever the story of that world reached a
dissonance I was quite disturbed by it. I would think about the issues until I achieved an understanding wherein everything made sense and was in
agreement with all experimental data that I was aware of. I am at the point now where everything makes sense to me. The flow laws still have an ad hoc
nature that indicates future improvement is possible, but even there they at least make sense. (The flow laws are not dissonant, they merely have some
unexplained complexity hinting at an underlying simplicity that is not yet found.)
A problem is that I, like everyone, am a limited human being. There may be experiments I am unaware of that have results at odds with my modeling.
Although I took great care, I could still have a math or logic error. That is one reason I wish to have others look at my work; to see if problems are
found. If problems are found I can work to address them. Secondly, I wish to share my understanding with others, as others might also find my work
interesting and they too may wish to move beyond the dissonance.
That is, this thread was intended to be about the science.
A third aspect of my work, which is also important, is that when we advance our knowledge of nature we can often advance our control of nature with
great benefit to mankind. That is the topic of my next thread, which I just put up.