Tom's theory

"The axiom that everything is fundamentally the same at all scales, differing only in detail, means yes, there is life at all scales. -|Tom|-"

Maybe this is for me fractality. But fractality is no axiom only a tool that could help.

How can you know it's so strong as a deductive axiom in an inductive science.

Fractality tells us at scales (LODs, level of detail) far from each other the patterns we can observe can be differ largely. The type of forces can differ for instance.

So Fractality is a more carefully tool.

All viable ideas should be presented to the world's minds for testing and other considerations. Humans will ultimately decide what they will accept and what they will not. But good minds need to know what *all* the viable options are so they can make informed choices. -|Tom|-

Should, maybe, But my experience is new ideas are seldom really welcome. I have already met many fighters against me.

And new things are often so large it's too much to tell in one time. We meet then an info arrears.

Please tell me if my ideas aren't welcome than I go to another place again.

Sleep well

Ed van der Meulen

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eenwerd</i>
<br />fractality is no axiom only a tool that could help. How can you know it's so strong as a deductive axiom in an inductive science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We were discussing the Meta Model, as described in <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. It differs from all other cosmologies in that it is completely deductive, not inductive. Hence, the certainty of the conclusions that follow from it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">my experience is new ideas are seldom really welcome. I have already met many fighters against me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Around here, new ideas are "welcome", but are normally quickly disposed of. That is what science does (with the exceptions of mathematics and philosophy) -- science falsifies hypotheses. Those not experienced with science at this level are sometimes not looking for criticism of their ideas, and may be resentful when they get it. Or worse, they may try to defend a falsified idea by adding ad hoc helper hypotheses to keep it viable. We don't do that around here, even though it is the norm elsewhere, even in mainstream science.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please tell me if my ideas aren't welcome than I go to another place again.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You would get more response if you read a bit of the web site, some of the in-depth threads on this Message Board in your areas of interest, the books we recommend, or our quarterly bulletin or research notes. It is simply exhausting to bring each newcomer up to speed. To engage others here, you should be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of your new ideas comparatively with those of the models already on the table. If you can't improve on what we already have, then interest will obviously be minimal. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eenwerd</i>
<br />fractality is no axiom only a tool that could help. How can you know it's so strong as a deductive axiom in an inductive science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We were discussing the Meta Model, as described in <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. It differs from all other cosmologies in that it is completely deductive, not inductive. Hence, the certainty of the conclusions that follow from it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I know, I only question your good reasons and your axioms for the MM. That's my only point. I believe you completely that you have worked out it correctly. It's great work

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">my experience is new ideas are seldom really welcome. I have already met many fighters against me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Around here, new ideas are "welcome", but are normally quickly disposed of. That is what science does (with the exceptions of mathematics and philosophy)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And if you knew how broad physics is.

I have a splendid contact with chemists. Also with the technical and CS world. With many physicists as well. I am broader developed than you I think. But of course you may underestimate me. These views are already known in this world. You will hear from it later. Philosophers don't like new ideas. Aren't you speaking for yourself.

So if you have this opinion I will leave here. That must be very clear.

I have posted to a lot of other scientists the same things. Also a posting of chemists who have made a better product than high tec instruments. They worked with soap-suds and got nano size copper strings so cheap and easy. In that high tec world they see to those scientists in the same way as you do to me. So you are clearly underestimating other scientist. My views have many Nobel prizes behind me.

I can put you a lot of nasty question, to explain to me and not referring to theories. You idea of time is already very strange. You can't explain to me what mass is. What is gravitation, what is Higg's field, redshift. What is an attracting force. Statistics you use but what do you know of it. What are these things more than a theory.

Suppose I am a child, please explain these notions to me.

I have already enough posted here so you can say if I am welcome here or not.

Because the not good start, I see your MM as weak, for different reasons. Google for layers and you'll get 5.5 million hits. Where are the real layers in your theory. We can only measure things with margins. Where are they in your MM. In fact your MM is very simple. I make a new E-math in all openness, everybody can see it, and that works with those notions. It's very complex.

How can a deductive MM now work while you have in normal life many surprises. So many people know reality is not causal, reality is non-deterministic, reality is contingent. Don't you know of these things.

But please be clear tell me that I can better go or react to my good postings. I have written them in an easy way.

Ed

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eenwerd</i>
<br />I respect you Tom. Please respect me as well.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I receive way too many messages every day to answer most. The long ones such as yours need to go to the bottom of the pile so I can answer as many as possible. I respond on-line less frequently as my available time allows, mostly on occasions when I see someone with new information or wishing to ask me a question. In the meantime, feel free to post, communicate with, and try to inspire others, or not, as you please.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">my views are not theories but true views on reality, so email me just that I am not welcome here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I must tell you, my friend, that such a claim is religious fanaticism to those trained in scientific thought processes. Every fanatic claims that his/her personal viewpoint is the one true way. Yet you have provided no reason why a scientist should prefer your ideas more than those of, say, cult leader Jim Jones.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you really think I know nothing of your cosmology?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, you have shown clearly by your posts that you know nothing of the basis for the Meta Model, and you have made several wrong assumptions about it. For example:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... deductive mathematical theories have holes where anything can happen. A deductive theory works from axioms. MM is also deductive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You assume incorrectly that all axioms are arbitrary assumptions. MM uses only first principles of physics as "axioms", which makes it immune from assumptions of any kind -- other than perhaps that logic is logical and a reliable guide to finding reality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is an attracting force? What mechanism under it gives that result?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is the subject of the book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>, which explains how to get an attractive force out of only pushing forces, then models all aspects of gravity from Newton through Einstein and on to "dark matter" (not needed in reality) and way beyond. It is difficult to discuss this subject with someone who has not read several chapters of the book because it provides so much common background.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My views have many Nobel prizes behind me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is another good example of what turns science-minded people off about your postings. Appeals to authority are a recourse for those with a failed argument. When an argument fails to communicate, try other approaches until you or another party finds a fatal flaw. Never defend a refuted argument, no matter how personally important it might be.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You idea of time is already very strange. You can't explain to me what mass is. What is gravitation, what is Higg's field, redshift. What is an attracting force. Statistics you use but what do you know of it. What are these things more than a theory. Suppose I am a child, please explain these notions to me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is what I mean. These things are already described on this MB and in our Bulletin and the books we recommend. Time is a measure of change. "Mass" is a measure of substance. Gravitation is the result of a field of tiny, ultra-fast gravitons flooding the visible universe. The apple falls because more gravitons strike it from above than from below because the Earth blocks some gravitons that would otherwise hit the apple from below. An attractive force is a partial blockage of an isotropic flux in a particular direction. Gravity has no inertia. Deductive theories without assumptions that happen to match observations without helper hypotheses are self-proving theories, in which a high confidence level is justified. (This will sound strange only if you have never experienced such a theory before. There aren't many around.) A child can understand these things, and books and articles have been written about them. Will you read these or insist that others teach you on demand?

I'm sorry you perceive my posts as negatively critical. I meant them to be constructively critical so you can learn how to communicate better in this group. As I say, you are welcome to browse or proselytize as you wish. But I did not detect any desire expressed on your part to learn about the Meta Model or our approach to doing science, not even to compare its merits with your own ideas. And you have so far not said anything about your "layers" approach or any other subject that made it sound like more than a subset of what Meta Science already contains. Hence, I have so far felt only minimal prospects for either teaching or learning happening between us. But that can always change.

If you get curious, read more, and then have questions, feel free to ask them. You are likely to get several helpful responses. But please be patient because most posters have day jobs and busy lives. And re-read your drafts before posting, looking for ways to shorten them. OTOH, if you don't care to read background material on what the others here are discussing, whether they agree with it or not, then you may continue to find much of what you write ignored because many folks now know that someone who already has all the answers is done learning. And teaching. -|Tom|-

Thank you for you reply

I get each day some 200 emails. But I combine a lot. Much what I write is reformulating.

I think when people have a good grip at physical notions they can explain things right away.

I could say in a few word what is in my ideas dark matter, or what is a field. I don't have to refer to other documents. I can say it right away. And I see that as normal.

And in our new trip we will reformulate it. Each time better.

I have read a lot about physics. But no one told me what a field is. Not in your explanations. No nowhwere. It's everywhere please accept it. But I am critical. What is mass?

Time? No good story yet found. People have ideas. Other people have other ideas. We are not alone in this world.

So I have read about your subjects. Yes your science is very interesting. Please read about my subject as well. I bring a real view, accepted already by millions of people. An obvious view of physical layers and with evironments and at each layer (LOD) a time notion or a number of them. This is also a big subject.

But always only a few will go on that discovery trip, and they will make conclusions for the others. An that in a very legible style. Before a trip everthing is unsure, chaotic. But we can stay quiet. On the trip itself it goes fast enough.

Most people print my urls.

You refer to the tradition. I present another way. I write also for the large public, in an easy way. Some people like that? In other work I also write compact stories. But always in versions. First rough then getting a good grip on the subjects and later precise and short. I like pictures and drawings, tables and lists. Yes structured documents nice to read.

I have also a reason to write in an easy way. Other scientists can understand me as well and they also can react to it. I have an initiative to unite the scientist. And the only common language is the easy one. And surely no one has time. We neither.

I like to go with a few members to explore this new country more. It's true I have been there before. But the second trip can be completely new as wel. Who knows?

I am always very curious to new things.

Have a nice day

Ed

Time is a concept.

We have several ways to quantify it.

I'm not yet positive, but suspect that ed is software.

Probably with some manual fine tuning.

If I'm right, it's not a bad example of such things.

I am usually curious about new and/or old things.

LB