Quote: "Even without proof I could have figured it out by now if someone else posted it, that's what I don't understand. When I read something that makes sense I apply it. It doesn't matter who posts it. It seems that I have a difference in that department. Like 'The Game Of Life' for example. I didn't make that, but I wouldn't go to the mathematician you are crazy working on that."
The reason is because what 'makes sense' is purely cognitive. This is where trying to use logic fails. Yes, you might apply it to your interpretation of how you see things, to be honest 2 people can look at the same thing and see it in a different light. This is why the scientific method tries to be so thorough, to remove personal interpretation and weed out any conveniences or coincidences, to determine whether it's correlation or causation, to seek an explanation based on what can be measured and not what
seems to make most sense. What makes sense is merely a hypothesis. Science requires proof because logic alone doesn't give the answers it only give possibilities. Facts determine whether or not a logical statement is true.
An interesting point that should probably be made is that you say you're able to apply your theory. The theories you're claiming to be wrong or inaccurate can also be applied and have been done so and practically and has even been used in many technologies. For example, The Theory of Relativity is applied to GPS systems, without it, GPS simply would not work.
But these theories have been developed, have had a lot of evidence to back them up and their explanations have shown themselves to be sound vs challenges made against them. It is possible to look at physics in a different light and develop your own explanations and they might make absolute sense to you, but the point again, what makes sense is cognitive. To illustrate that point we live in a world with a wealth of alternative views, be it science, religion, philosophy or a mix. All logically sound and all apply it to how they look at reality.
Generally the person with that view will suggest they can apply their views to the real world (just as Plato applied his views on reality) and it may be perfectly logical and it may make a lot of sense to the person believing it. But just because they make sense and they're applicable in any way we sit fit doesn't necessarily mean they're accurate.
Quote: " Like 'The Game Of Life' for example. I didn't make that, but I wouldn't go to the mathematician you are crazy working on that."
If you stated your views as a hypothesis I am sure you would have got an entirely different reaction. Without evidence to present, it will be seen as a hypothesis. It's your lack of knowledge behind science and the scientific process mixed with your conviction that you are right and they are wrong has given you that reaction. It pretty much screams, "I don't fully understand you, what you say doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I have a better explanation, it is completely accurate, makes sense and proves you're all wrong".
Also, you're not crazy for working on your project. The actual simulation itself, that could actually be very cool and it's certainly a cool concept. Your hypothesis is cool as well and I can see you've put plenty of thought into it and by no means is it stupid. Sadly, through this whole ordeal you have missed the point completely, I'm not sure if it's because you don't want your critics to be right or you are just oblivious to it.
So I'm not sure how to make it clearer to you. I hope you do get it, maybe Jimpo's attachment will help things clearer as you sound as thought you're going to consider what he had presented as opposed to working against him like you are with us.
