P3D Re: DIRDS not SIRDS

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 21:12:54 -0700
>From: Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: DIRDS not SIRDS

>>Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998
>>From: roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)  Writes:
>>...............
>>You seem to be implying that the mathematical algorithm for the derivation of
>>a SIRDS is intuitively obvious given the knowledge of the DIRDS, and that it
>>requires only a minor modification of the DIRDS algorithm. What are the
>>algorithms used for DIRDS and SIRDS, and how do they differ?

>****  I'm implying that the optical/visual phenomena of DIRD vs. SIRD is the
>same thing. The algorithm derives from the phenomenon itself. Seeing the
>phenomenon and trying to write an algorithm for it would automatically
>reveal both situations. 

Hold on! The fact that non-repeating SIRDS are *possible* is not
mathematically obvious. Somebody found a transform (inverse transform?)
that would perform the operation. You still haven't explained the 
mathematical properties of the algorithms to produce DIRDS and SIRDS.
I would assume from your posts that you understand both of them.

>...Unified field theories existed in the belief systems of some
>primitive peoples before a specific Western scientific version of it
>existed. 

You mean like the Norse mythology of Ygdrassil, the world-ash? I had something
with a little more mathematical basis in mind. Of course the Phoenicians
did pretty well in reconciling the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces,
but not even the Babylonians or the Incas, for all their mathematical
acumen, were able to combine the weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. ;-)

>Today's science is finding more and more support for the reality of
>an interesting number of *old beliefs* that had been denounced by some
>factions of science for many years. 

Like the atomic theory, Mendelian genetics, and the value of antisepsis in
surgery, just to give a few examples.

John R


------------------------------