James,
That's quite helpful. There's good reason for each more precise specification I give, but obviously I can't explain those each time. Perhaps you're right and some misunderstanding is inevitable so I shouldn't try to avoid it.
For instance; your main point on my comment; "To say "the speed of light varies" is wrong. The speed of individual LIGHT SIGNALS vary with respect to arbitrary co-moving frames, but is always PROPAGATION SPEED c in each local discrete field frame, so wrt an observer at rest IN that field."
The reason I clarify that is because I more than once made the mistake of NOT doing so in a description, which led to irretrievable misunderstanding. The way our brains work is to 'fit' concepts onto pre-formed neural patterns. So when most people read; "the speed of light varies" they connect and throw it into the 'VSL' bin. Once in there it can never be retrieved, and as to most that bin is in the 'nonsense' corner the situation is irretrievable. Any paper approximating that statement is then also automatically 'binned'. I had that on early peer reviews. You may not be that simplistic, but you're probably aware most are.
So I now take more care to express it as I re-phrased it for you (far simpler for me to write it than to 'correct' you). You couldn't see the importance but it's there.
Imagine the problem in physics as a complex tangled bit of string. The approach you suggest it the easy and common one; pull on one of the loose ends. LOOK! that bit's now not tangled. Brilliant! Except it's just made it almost impossible to untangle and rationalise the rest.
Any real solution must be at least as complex as the entanglement. It needs careful thought and study of each piece. You can't 'read over' without thinking; why? What IS the difference? Which is why I suggested mankinds intellectual development may not be adequate yet. We prefer simple 'sound bites'. The simplicity of the string emerges only once that work is done.
Then you also introduce the concept "fixed physics". All I did was list the anomalous effects that have become consistent and coherent, showing the way ahead on unravelling the mess. The full solutions for each are all described for inspection and falsification. Nobody has yet found falsity. But each requires a NEW and DIFFERENT understanding or assumption to rationalise, and even encompasses and rationalises (Godel) 'uncertainty'! To me this is the very 'ANTITHESIS' of some final 'fixed' answer.
Re; You say that you don't believe that "...ANY current mathematical description of how universes operate is precise,...". So who does?" That was all clearly defined and rationalised in my essay, which you said you'd read! I define the 'Dirac line' and logic 'A~A' in full living colour! it simply confirms Godel is correct, and maths can prove nothing with finite precision, the key to uncertainty being in the area we presently can only hear as 'noise', the inverse probability distribution between binary cardinalisations 0,1. That key provides the 'code' to untangle the knotted bundle.
Sure that solution can't be understood instantly, that is why we need intellect, and not to 'read over' the more precise specification required. But I can short cut that problem by demonstrating the mechanism's predictive and resolving power with actual anomalous effects.
You may join others saying you 'don't believe' it does so, but POINT TO ONE! this is not religion but science! There they are. Read them and find a flaw! Take KRR, or the LT for instance. DFM LT Mechanism. Do the mechanisms not successfully produce the observed effects? Nobody's identified ANY error! I wish someone would! I actually refrain from pushing it's successes as people just give up and revert to beliefs.
I do take on board what you say James, and thank you, but I've been down the road of careless oversimplification many times, always ending up in the mud of mis-understanding. As Einstein; 'It needs to be simple, but not TOO simple.' Very tricky! Even the maths looks 'too simple'! Perhaps only sensational coups get attention. But the territory is far from fully explored. P'raps I should just keep going till 2020?
Peter
