On Jun 18, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote:
> If you are only working for humanitarian purposes, post your
ideas in
> detail. Show us something that hasn't been around since Maxwell's
> time. Let's see your engineering, your numbers. Let's see some
> specific devices, and some experimental results. Show us how it is
> done. Teach.
On many occasions I have provided numbers & equations, described
the science and such methods in an detailed step-by-step process.
What information have you provided that hasn't been around for decades?
As far as mathematics, I've evolved beyond pencil pushing to
computer key pushing, as my mathematics is contained in the
computer in the form of software. I firmly believe computer
software algorithms, functions, and programs are the future of
science. Computer simulations are complex. It would be insane to
even attempt to write down an equation of such a simulation.
As a person who has written complex deterministic and stochastic
simulations for a living, I am compelled to waste the time to say the
statement "It would be insane to even attempt to write down an
equation of such a simulation" is total bunk, even though most
everyone on this list is probably keenly aware of the seriousness of
being incompetent to clearly describe a simulation method being applied.
> If you are working for profit shouldn't you be busy
> filing for patents and building demonstrators? Good grief, I can
> imagine how someone funding your efforts would feel about you
wasting
> your time debating instead of working diligently! Your objective
> appears to be argument and heckling rather than making a genuine
> contribution to the list, or the art. Prove me wrong! 8^)
>
> Hopefully we won't see the old "persecuted genius" scam emerge from
> you. It is so boring hearing from yet another genius who sets
himself
> up as an unappreciated persecuted martyr who's only need is an
> appreciative patron.
> It is so irritating to watch it happen while real
> genius, and true contributors to the list, like Ed Storms, work away
> diligently, without fanfare or adequate funding.
That indicates you still don't get it. How many times and in how
many ways do I need to keep telling you?
Talk is cheap. Repetitious talk is meaningless. Inconsistent
repetitious talk is ...
It's always been about spreading truth & logic and searching for
other capable individuals who may be interested in this research.
This list has been full of people with their own lines of research or
theory. Why do you think your approach is any better?
I could die tomorrow, and quite frankly I don't like the thought
that my research will go to waste.
Well, then, why not get busy documenting your research in detail and
distributing it? Why bother wasting time on petty debate and trolling?
Furthermore, believe it or not, sitting on the computer and typing
these emails is not only an attempt to find certain gifted
individuals to join this research, but also it's my break time away
from such research. Additionally, at this very moment I am running
a computer simulation in the background even though such
simulations have reached their present limit without a serious
upgrade. The other day an idea came to me that may allow such
simulations offer further assistance. ... let me guess, you don't
believe me. Here's a compressed gif screen shot of the present
simulation running in the background taken a few minutes ago -->
Why would I not believe you? So you wrote a computer simulation.
Not a big deal. Is it meaningful? Time will tell.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
