Re: Ultimate Reality is both simple and complicated!


"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:927c5b86-c7cc-4fcd-a567-81fa47bc014f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Vision of our reality!

Preliminary introductions:
Is there anyone who would like to understand our
reality? Of course, any physicist would love to
understand the base to our reality. And right here,
in this very article, you are going to have the base
to our reality presented to you. Will anyone believe
it? No one has yet!
But this is a good question. Why am I not
believed? I have a past history that should allow
you to believe what I say.

That depends on what you say ;-)

I am even a West Point
graduate. Why would anyone think that I would not
want to know the truth and tell the truth? I have a
Master's degree in Physics, and a minor in Math. I
might not know everything, but at least I do
understand the basics. And all the things I present
here have been verified by computer calculations
using the math equations that come from the
assumptions being used in this article.
I was a physicist for General Dynamics for 29
years. Should I say I have never made a mistake in
physics for all these 29 years? Well, in full
honesty, I cannot say that. There was one time when
I held up a test for several hours because we were
receiving some unexpected data. I assumed that this
unexpected data was due to an error in the test
equipment, and I would not allow the tests to
continue until these errors were corrected. But the
error was actually due to improper test conditions,
and when the proper test conditions were achieved,
everything was perfect.
So it was my error in attributing the incorrect
data to a failure in the test equipment, and not to
the test conditions. And it took me a few hours
before I came to realize this error. So I have at
least made one mistake in my life.
But you better also believe that I was most often
correct. Not only correct, but I have 5 patent
disclosures that General Dynamics was willing to
accept. Now the only reason to actually mention
General Dynamics, they thought enough of me and my
ideas on this subject (which had nothing to do with
their direct interests), that they prepared a report
for me to publish this work, but no one would even
read it, let alone publish it. Isn't that
interesting! And it was a professionally prepared
paper, with full internal reviews! And not one
single thing has been in need of being changed since
it was approved.

You trust the peer review process too much...

Now no matter what I say, such talk is not and
should not be convincing to anyone. Talk is just
talk. The only facts (or data) really needed are
those that are found in the presentation itself, and
in any direct check of the work being presented. And
today, with our modern computers, anyone who can
compute will be able to make direct confirmations to
their heart's content.

Formal Introduction:
The very base to our reality is, in one sense,
very simple: Our reality is the simplest possible
reality, consisting of only matter and space.

IMHO that's already too complex: the simplest reality consists of only ether
(or "space"), with matter some kind of wave phenomenon that takes place in
it. And nothing guaratnees that our reality *must* be the simplest
possible - probability law allows for the possibility of something existing
that is slightly more complex than the simplest option imaginable.

Thus, already your first sentence I don't believe! And that you are a
physicist doesn't give you the authority to tell us what is behind our
observations.

[snip spall theory]

In conclusion: I may agree with your title but not with the contents.

Regards,
Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Life has no intrinsic interest in information...
    ... Or rather, different ideas about fundamental physics, ... In the past you also seemed to put some reality behind mathematical or ... Let's look at the old saw "every rule has an exception". ... mathematics, a statement demonstrated to exist by Godel. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
    ... reality were also known, then the change in state of reality over time ... build of the robot, or the known laws of physics which the robot isn't ... the known laws of physics is sufficient to explain the behaviour. ... functionalism isn't the only theory, and how they would expect the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: how good are class D amplifiers?
    ... You point being that anything we observe in reality and then have a word ... Why are you assuing that enthusiam and enquiry mean wilifil ignorance? ... in physical science and engineering 'unfounded' does not simply mean ... An 'unfounded' claim is one which clashes with established physics ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: how good are class D amplifiers?
    ... of something which arises in physical reality. ... Why are you assuing that enthusiam and enquiry mean wilifil ignorance? ... Ideas for which there is no evidence one way ... An 'unfounded' claim is one which clashes with established physics ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
    ... The narrative of an external reality violates Occam's razor. ... think physics shows anything of the kind. ... territory becomes conflated with its map. ... is a way to distinguish maps which directly represent 'real' territory from maps ...
    (talk.origins)