Hi Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your responses. I would be more than happy to send some papers along but I need your email address in order to attach (and I'm still finding my way around this forum). I would welcome the opportunity to debate these issues with a trained physicist. However, I would ask you to consider the thesis in its entirety before passing judgement. I cannot present all the proofs at once and in my experience theoretical physicists more than mathematicians tend to criticise before I have even begun.

For example, the theory begins by using the basic sine wave to demonstrate that space and time must be quantities that are defined in proportion to wavelength and period, the factor of proportionality being the number of cycles. Now if you were to say that this is idealistic from the start, that no one has yet found a medium that is purely linear and non-dispersive, then you will miss the proof which follows that it is the differential equations which are the non observable idealizations (only the solutions of a DE are observable). And is it not true that solutions to non-linear DE often rely on linear solutions before we can move on i.e. the ideal solution? So even if the sine wave does represent to some extent an idealistic starting point, it is still certainly less idealistic than the idea that by solving DE's we are somehow automatically representing reality. Besides, all waves by definition can be Fourier analysed into sine wave components and this
applies to all solutions.

My email address is <rick_ballan@...>. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Regards

Rick

Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail