ER potential and Ca release

kkollins at kkollins at
Mon Nov 23 18:37:27 EST 1998

I stand on what I've posted... where do I send the "shirt". K. P. Collins (ken)

Walter Eric Johnson wrote:

> kkollins at wrote:
> : Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
> : > Tapered Harmony?  I've never heard of that field and I thought I'd
> : > heard of the vast majority of fields in Physics.
> :
> : "It's a long story". Tapered Harmony (TH) is a theory of Physical Reality that
> : extends from what has been referred to as "sub-nuclear" to Cosmological
> : dimensions.
> That says absolutely nothing.  It's just a rather dubious and hollow
> claim.
> I'd definitely hesitate on calling this a "theory".  At best, maybe a
> "conjecture".  More likely, it's a "halucination".
> : It's going to replace "'quantum' mechanics, and Unify Physics...
> : when I write of "what's described by 2nd Thermo (wdb2t)", I'm invoking TH.
> : What's referred to as "gravity" is already Unified in TH, and what's referred
> : to as "time" is reduced to the one-way flow of energy that is wdb2t. And so
> : forth. I know of no experimental result that can challenge TH, and TH points
> : to stuff that had not even been dreamed of prior to TH.
> So far, your words are "content-free".
> One mark of a good theory is that it makes new predictions which can be
> experimentally verified or disproven.  What predictions does TH make?  If
> it is as good as you claim, it must make quite a few.
> : > I'll ask my roommate about it.  He's working on his PhD in Physics.
> :
> : I've a Formal Challenge before the Physics Community, asking that they submit
> : any replicated, published, experimental results to TH as a test of it's
> : Veracity. Perhaps your roommate will come up with something.
> My rommate was amused.
> : When I found my Obligation with respect to "Prejudice", that led
> : to Neuroscience, which I went at as I'd been trained to go at Physics... seek
> : Mastery.
> Just what training in Physics have you had?  Where, what courses,
> how many courses?  Any degrees?
> : So, when the Disorder in Neuroscience
> : threatened to "cave me in", I took up my old Physics texts, and read them like
> : novels... "just" to "drink-in" the Order inherent in them.
> A rather worthless pursuit.  If you're going to read them, read them
> for understanding.
> : But to my delight, my studies in Neuroscience "fed-back" to my studies in the
> : Physical Sciences, and, then, vice versa... =both= endeavors "became
> : "Great-Friends". I like to  try to get Tapered Harmony's point across by
> : saying, "I looked in the brain, and Saw the Universe."
> If you want to get the point of Tapered Harmony across, why not explain
> what it is?  Making some kind of cryptic comment about it like that does
> nothing to explain it -- it only leaves the listener puzzled by what
> you mean.  The point of communication is to convey information.  That
> comment fails miserably.
> : When Mathematicians "calculate", for instance, what
> : they're actually doing is =all= "Thermodynamics", and their "calculations"
> : =all= reduce directly to wdb2t.
> By the way, the goal of Mathematicians is not "calculation".
> : In my own work, I "cut the overhead" and do
> : all my Calculations via wdb2t.
> Whatever that means.
> : As a result, I've been able to do things on PCs
> : that still remain only "dream stuff" for machines and folks who still
> : Calculate in the old-long-Familiar way.
> Such as ...
> : I've named this Mathematics "Galois
> : Analysis", after Evariste Galois, in Tribute to him because he and I are
> : "Brothers" in-Spirit.
> Are you claiming to be an algebraicist, too?
> : I've asked folks in Mathematics to help me translate
> : this Math into terms that're Familiar to them so that others can have access
> : to it, but never received any responses.
> I'm not surprised.
> : I used a simple form of this Math to
> : do a Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT), that's been widely-circulated, but
> : as far as I know, not formally-published.
> You've proven Fermat's last theorem, too?  Why not post it, but in a
> mathematics group, please.  Or on a web page.
> : Nothing of my work in the Physical Sciences and Mathematics has been
> : formally-published... at least not by me.
> You should submit it.  Editors and reviewers enjoy a little humor
> on occasion.
> : I'd like to get on with that, but
> : for the last 29 years, the Neuroscience Stuff has always been the
> : more-pressing need.
> Just what "Neuroscience Stuff" have you done?
> : I expect some folks now Understand that it's been a
> : very-High-stakes =Race= to get the Neuroscience stuff Communicated (which is
> : Why there's so much "desperation" in what I post, and Why I so-often discuss
> : "Savagery", and how it arises in the Biology).
> I don't think that's the reason for your despiration.
> : I've only discussed Tapered Harmony's stuff in online places, mainly, in the
> : Hope that folks in Physics would See it's stuff, and that that would win a
> : Hearing for the more-"Difficult" stuff of the Neuroscience theory. (They Saw
> : it, and "borrowed" it, it seems, without giving anything back to the Children.
> : It's a Sorrow.)
> Who has borrowed it?  What have they done with it?  Have they published
> it?
> Children?
> : :-) ...good-grief... I need no "invitation"... when I see something that needs
> : Doing, I just =Do= it. The Qs to which I responded are not so consequential.
> : I've resolved the general solution to them all in TH. It's just that folks're
> : always posting such Qs in whatever online "place" I "habituate"... right or
> : wrong, I've come to see them as =possibly= constituting "probes" with respect
> : to my understanding, and that's how I treat them... I'm Willing to do the work
> : =iff= doing such will win a Hearing for NDT's stuff.
> Are you saying that your pollution of this and other newsgroups attracts
> people who've never heard of you to come here to ask you questions?
> : ... <snip> ...
> : The other thing is that I'm writing for folks who've been following the
> : discussion for decades... first via phone calls, conference-stuff, snail-mail,
> : then via online discussion groups.
> Can't find anyone who will listen to you?
> : There's a =lot= of "ground" to cover. The
> : concepts are, I'm told, "difficult", I've got to work around the fact that the
> : Biology is inherently-Blind to the Understanding that I'm working to
> : Communicate... and most-importantly with respect to your point, I must work in
> : a way that will not induce folks to "go off half-cocked".
> Hmmm.  To pun or not to pun, that is the question.
> Nah.  It's much too obvious, anyway.
> : ... <snip> ...
> : Honestly, my jaw is hanging-down that I've not been able to find any small
> : Academic Community that will give all of this work a Fair and Dispassionate
> : Hearing... and it seems to me, because of what I've experienced, in this vein,
> : that Science, itself, must be NonExistent. Otherwise, how could it be that one
> : who's given everything that a man can give to Science not be Heard-out by
> : folks in-Science? Such doesn't compute, does it?
> There are areas in science which attract more attention during a period
> of time than others.  It can take a while for new ideas to become
> mainstream.  But the way to get them there is to get them published
> in peer-reviewed journals.  If your material is not worthy of that,
> then there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to it.
> You've made a lot of claims about what you've done in many fields.  But
> you've said nothing to back up those claims.  Where's the beef?
> Why not put up a web site and refer people to it rather than cluttering
> up the newsgroups?
> Among the things that you could put there:
> 1) reasons we should consider you an expert in Mathematics, Physics,
> and Neuroscience
> 2) convincing explanations of your various conjectures (term used
> politely)
> 3) your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
> 4) whatever you've done on a PC that is "dream stuff" to everyone
> else
> Eric Johnson

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list