I too, am lopsided when it comes to theorizing. Like the mathmatician Ramanujin I somehow seem to be able to 'intuit' ideas that can become formulas and yet, unlike him, I can't provide the 'proofs' in math. I eventually find example somewhere, and that's how I came to Ken's site/work.
Prior to that, I had entered into discussions with the 'String Theory' team, through a leading member on chance meeting and then another discussion, and as a result, they changed the theory to 'String, drum or magic theory, depending on your perspective' which was stealing a quote i gave them. in fact they 'steal the whole concept as it allowed their incomplete String Theory to continue. The introduction of M as magic in the theory was misunderstood by them as it was intended to represent what the theology world calls 'spirit' and the psychology world calls nous. It also blows apart the String Theory, showing it to be a canard with an agenda I'll forego for the moment.
I didn't and don't want credit and didn't receive it except in a personal message. A passing reference was made about the discussion in Scientific American magazine, but my name is missing and I'm glad. It's missing because I lack the credentials and it would be embarrassing to admit a 'layman' had submitted it to solve the puzzle they'd created. It's still unsolved to them.
Here they are now, attempting to surgically remove the M from the theory after discovering it was a timebomb of truth.
I too, am lopsided when it comes to theorizing. Like the mathmatician Ramanujin I somehow seem to be able to 'intuit' ideas that can become formulas and yet, unlike him, I can't provide the 'proofs' in math. I eventually find example somewhere, and that's how I came to Ken's site/work.
Prior to that, I had entered into discussions with the 'String Theory' team, and as a result, they changed the theory to 'String, drum or magic theory, depending on your perspective' which was stealing a quote i gave them. in fact they 'steal the whole concept as it allowed their incomplete String Theory to continue. The introduction of M as magic in the theory was misunderstood by them as it was intended to represent what the theology world calls 'spirit' and the psychology world calls nous. It also blows apart the String Theory, showing it to be a canard with an agenda I'll forego for the moment.
I didn't and don't want credit and didn't receive it except in a personal message. A passing reference was made about the discussion in Scientific American magazine, but my name is missing and I'm glad. It's missing because I lack the credentials and it would be embarrassing to admit a 'layman' had submitted it to solve the puzzle they'd created. It's still unsolved to them.
Here they are now, attempting to surgically remove the M from the theory after discovering it was a timebomb of truth.