rebinator
The Force is Strong With This One
In retrospect, rather than jumping the gun, I sincerely wished I had just recommended this be put to the C's as a session question, instead of anticipating. Doh! http://cassiopaea.org/forum/Smileys/default/embarrassed.gif
That being said, I noticed Ouspensky's proposed number of dims according to Ark was congruent with DBL's, but I have yet to dig into that further.
As far as Larson's notable dearth of tensors spinors and matrices (oh my!), I suppose that either this is a case of someone skipping class and showing up late in the semester with poorly conceived questions, or perhaps his field of effort (mining engineering) was a sort of 'patent office', if you will, from which the freshness of outlook could flourish (eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation?) - the classic 'crank' dilemma. In the introductions to his works, he seems to reference a common awareness amongst physicists of the need for a fundamentally fresh outlook, quoting the heroes (Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein, et. al.) quite extensively.
It should be noted that none of his premises/postulates are falsifiable (possible red flag to student, teacher and theorist alike), but in light of that, I have recommended to my (quite incredulous) physics friends that they look at at his work strictly as a logical construct, and see where the conclusions line up with observation. As for me, every time I visit the web I am reminded of how much reading and thinking I have yet to do... http://cassiopaea.org/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif
That's pretty much it from my end.
That being said, I noticed Ouspensky's proposed number of dims according to Ark was congruent with DBL's, but I have yet to dig into that further.
As far as Larson's notable dearth of tensors spinors and matrices (oh my!), I suppose that either this is a case of someone skipping class and showing up late in the semester with poorly conceived questions, or perhaps his field of effort (mining engineering) was a sort of 'patent office', if you will, from which the freshness of outlook could flourish (eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation?) - the classic 'crank' dilemma. In the introductions to his works, he seems to reference a common awareness amongst physicists of the need for a fundamentally fresh outlook, quoting the heroes (Dirac, Heisenberg, Einstein, et. al.) quite extensively.
It should be noted that none of his premises/postulates are falsifiable (possible red flag to student, teacher and theorist alike), but in light of that, I have recommended to my (quite incredulous) physics friends that they look at at his work strictly as a logical construct, and see where the conclusions line up with observation. As for me, every time I visit the web I am reminded of how much reading and thinking I have yet to do... http://cassiopaea.org/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif
That's pretty much it from my end.
