alt.sci.physics.new-theories

Dear Mike:

"Mike" wrote in message
news:47abe06a$0$32486$6d2eeca5@news.sirus.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote
>
>>> Please take a serious look at it. Thank you.
>>
>> Wrong guy to ask. Clear as mud. Motivation
>> unclear. I am an engineer.

> Wow dude! What do you mean motivation unclear?

Why bother to draw lines between two points already well
understood? Not that there are not folks who enjoy such efforts.
As I say, try sci.physics.foundations.

> Is it not clear why you should read it to begin
> with? Or is it unclear why we might want physics
> to be derived from logic?

I explained myself above. As I said, s.p.f is the best place for
said discussion.

> If physics can be derived from logic, then we
> have a TOE since there can never be any more
> basic explanation than reason itself.

No, we do not have a TOE. We simply have (perhaps) a connection
between two places well understood. That does not unify quantum
chromodynamics and classical theories. Or explain the dichotomy
of the male and female minds. Or explain why I have to hear
about presidential elections for more than a year, from people
that are talking about last century's problems and "solutions".

> PS. I am an electronics engineer. So I wrote it
> with sophomores in mind, maybe even for
> advanced high school students who have taken
> first semester calculus.

I don't care for the journey. I am a mechanical engineer, and I
set myself up for a tough row to hoe...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/44abecea7cef4b1e
... first I get to remember vector math (and formulations), then
I get to learn gravitation with variable "central mass" mass,
then I get to learn gravitation as speeds get to a significant
percentage of c. And assign reasonable limits so my computer
don't run for *years*. But I really *hate* Dark Matter as
"stuff".

> I've not explained where the path integral
> formulation of physics originally came from. But if
> you accept this formula for the path integral, then you can
> appreciate my deriving it from logic.

No, I cannot "appreciate" it. But I have directed you to those
who can.

Seriously, just wade in. There are a half dozen people there
that a level headed, and offer good feedback.

David A. Smith