Howdy Preston Guynn, Thank you for your reply. It supplies an interesting piece for the puzzle I experience.

Your view of the structure of particles is quite clear as form against ground: we measure these details, dimensions, rotation, charge, spin, etc. - well, we measure and interpret our results in a formal arrangement of the data I would affirmatively label a theory - particle form against theory ground - but is that the large canvas? or only details that contribute to it? "Useful to physics" is well established in this arena and useful ideas allow calculation and guidance when using the results, but "change of position" does not explain the lack of overlap while changing position. To comprehend the nature of Nature that allows motion without overlap is my motivation, and while it may not be useful to Physics I hope it will be useful to understanding.

I was concerned about using the term "matter wave" because of its formal use in physics but it does open a door for discussion and I expect to learn here. Actually, I have thought that the treatment of matter as particles that may be experienced as points or waves depending on the detector was quite sound rather than a mistake: the absurd popular press version that seeks to mystify it all notwithstanding. However, I have become convinced over 60 years and thousands of often bewildering pages that electrons, protons, and the rest of the "particle zoo" have no significant "chunks" in them apart from wave alternation between potential and kinetic energy forms. They are as empty as the universe except for the fields that make one's toe quite uncomfortable when one kicks a brick! (Even stars are "just" complex waveforms for me.) In this view, the essence of each particle is a complex kinetic-potential energy waveform that manifests the many details we measure when interacting with our sensors.

I would still like to comprehend time.

I see that you also have a view in which you emphasize the Thomas Precession. It is good to know about it and we'll see what the future brings.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

You're incorrect with all of your statemen. 3

1st...what is particle? how did you measured particle? science does not have any description for particle.. when you measure, then it is not theory.

I'm sure you know, there is no equation can describe nature.

What is "matter wave?" or what is Electron? or proton? because science does not have any explanation for them...and what is time. at the end?

The whole statement has no scientific evaluation.

With due all respect...nothing is correct.

please go read some of my articles.

Howdy Javad Fardaei, thank you for your reply, it's good to have your thoughts in this exploration. As I noted with Preston Guynn, you also have supplied a piece for the puzzle I experience.

That I am wrong on all three counts may be open to discussion. I have accumulated over 300 semester hours of advanced education in residence and therefore I have extensive experience with "academics," with "it is known that," and with "it cannot be known that." They are "to make use of" and serve us well in that capacity. However, knowledge requires both right opinion and certainty according to ancient Greek philosophers, so I find it hard to believe we know anything. Confidence is not enough. Actually, I recognize no authority, no unquestionable truth, etc., whether Aristotle or myself. I do not seek truth, only awareness for myself and others so each of us have a larger canvas on which to create.

"Particle:" if you spend enough time in the literature of modern physics you will find that "particle" is jargon, that is, it is a special insider term used to avoid "wavicle" and other attempts to express that components of atoms like neutrons may be observed with wave characteristics or momentum characteristics. When you measure you get a reading from your equipment; what you assign to that reading is expressed by hypothesis or theory. Consistent correspondence between the readings and the theory is used until we find something better: "men would rather their broken weapons use than their bare hands" (somewhere in Shakespeare.) I think science has gotten further than you imply, but I also agree with the implication of your view that science is very young.

"Equation:" Reflect a moment, and you will find that several equations do describe nature to a degree that responsible users acknowledge. In turbulent fluid dynamics the Naiver-Stokes equation does pretty well. That it generally provides insoluble expressions does not prove it fails to describe nature, it only proves that humans are not very good at solving equations yet. Do humans know everything (?), well - no. But, if a brick is falling toward you or someone/something you love, even Newtonian gravitation is accurate enough to justify action.

"Matter waves:" this term could be restricted to the de Broglie wavelength one may calculate and in many cases it accurately predicts wave behavior like interference and refraction How can something "not exist" just because human science has not settled on a definition/description? This sense of what exists is something I believe you would prefer to avoid, because it says with many academics and performing scientists that nature is limited to what humans are able to conceive and prove. No. One must not buy that!

I like your enthusiasm, but I would appreciate an explanation of how you are able to move without creating a terrible mess: what enables you to "overlap yourself" in space without that result? Your view is what we want to read.

Happy Trails, Len

P.S. I also have articles on my "Whence Insight" project you are welcome to read. Learning is about persons becoming aware, after all, not about schools or disciples of a master. lfh

Dear Leonard Hall

You're absolutely correct about above statements, such as Particle, Equation and matter wave.

But at ending the day nothing is clear. What internal instructor a particle has, it comes to theory, which it is meaningless.

On the other hand, equation on nature is meaningless. There is no such equation exist for nature.

You mentioned, Newtonian. Newton is wrong in all his cases. The earth's gravity is working with Temperature, pressure and mass, not newton's absurd equation that it is working with weight.

For matter wave is the same thing.

Unfortunately we are following last century ideology for no reason. Example:

Atom is a good example. Why do we think atom must have electron(s)? or proton/neutron?

We are follow this non-sense for over 100yrs.

Article Quantum Mechanics Gravity, Mechanical Gravity of Newton is Myth

Most regards

Howdy Javad Fardaei,

It is clear we have a difference of perspective, which provides benefit to others who will have both views to consider when forming their own.

A substantial difference in our views is revealed in your statements: "But at ending the day nothing is clear. What internal instructor a particle has, it comes to theory, which it is meaningless." I am confident that a particle's "internal instructor" doesn't care what human theory may be used to guess what the particle will do next. In my opinion, Nature and natural processes were here long before humans sought to specify them, and if our theories are "meaningless" the particles do not care, they just go about their business doing it right without instruction. Imagine a clear mountain stream flowing through a field of rocks in a rapids or cascade. However you assign fluidity, I see the water as an astounding hybrid digital-analog computer simply calculating its way down to the pool at the bottom. It does not need an equation, although we do, and our computers are very slow compared to the calculations achieved in a rapids.

Well, that's part of my view. We discard different portions of what has been accepted in science. Fortunately we must have provided some food for thought to others.

But, I still would like to know how I can move without overlapping myself, Happy Trails, Len

“What is a time dimension?”

- to answer to this question is necessary before scientifically to understand – what are “time”?, and “dimension”?

- what is really impossible in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including mainstream physics, since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational;

- see also SS comments in https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/6393144e23e35630acd646f6.

The scientific understanding is possible only in framework of the really philosophical the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, and more concretely at application to the informational system “Matter”, in the informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, which is based on the conception.

Including though that

“…I have thought and written that a fourth time dimension is required to enable motion in space, else object motion in three dimensions would create an overlapping smeared mess. …. What is time in either process?…..”

- is, in certain sense rational, isn’t enough – the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Time” is actualized not only at motion, but at every case when something, including fixed in 3D space [really in the 4D space of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct)],

- changes, .including if something is created.

More see the links, to read SS posts, say, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_quantized2/111, and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_textbooks_that_refer_to_relativity_tell_us_that_time_and_space_should_be_given_equal_footing/2it would be useful in this case as well.

Cheers

Howdy Sergey Shevchenko,

"- to answer to this question is necessary before scientifically to understand – what are “time”?, and “dimension”?" Yes! and in fact that is my question, is it not? What are time and dimension?

Mainstream philosophy and science are appropriate to their place in human activity. They are about application of what we can use well enough to dig a little deeper into subjects of which we are aware, and for us to use in engineering and manufacture when getting along in our mainstream lives. They are not about comprehension, although there are always a few of us around who pursue it. After all, who needs to know why, when to know what to do fills their need? A world class violin performance is a matter of habit enabled by talent and the skill that comes from practice. The performer does not need to comprehend the nature of "habit." In fact, it is better that the performer not think about it while performing, and the same concept applies to "doing science" within present knowledge. That "everything in Matter" is "fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational" doesn't interfere with using the knowledge contained in the jargon.

However, understanding, comprehension, seeing a movie of events with full awareness of process dynamics in one's mind's eye is another world. Such were the "pretty pebbles" that Isaac Newton found on the beach, and the will to explore the "ocean of truth" beyond is that world.

"- is, in certain sense rational, isn’t enough –" Excellent! There is a structure in meaning space that contains time and another structure for dimension. The axes by which we access such structures are language, but language is often inadequate. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Blue and Brown books that common language is not specific enough for philosophy: so, also, science. But the structures do form in our minds and the formation of such structures is performed by qualities of mind-as-a-whole after which our consciousness is informed: aHa! Our burden of communication is to enable the structures of which we have become conscious to occur in other minds through the use of the axes of language. It is not easy. I would like satisfying structures for "time" and "dimension" to form in my mind. Can you help?

I have found replies on ResearchGate often contain offers of extensive reading as answers; I hope for person's views here instead. Discussion, interaction are so much better. I have dozens of journal articles on my computer to read on other subjects I wish also to comprehend. Please, express your ideas in this discussion instead. I hope I have understood what you wrote here so far.

Happy Trails, Len

In ancient Indian Textes the word "kala" is referred for space-time fabric. This word literally means black and time at the same time..which is referred to as non-physical dimension that we can't perceive through our five senses. So, if you really want to know answer of your question I can suggest deep meditation.

Howdy Vidhya Movaliya,

Thank you for adding the sense that "time" and "dimension" in my question involve more than description of sensation. That sense also is present in Sergey Shevchenko's observation that "in certain sense rational, isn’t enough." For instance, to comprehend the concept in the Upanishads, "That art thou," one's mind-as-a-whole forms a structure in "meaning space" from what is written, but that structure remains beyond precise literal expression because the axes of language are too limited. (I have explained "meaning space" in a P.S.) What is an insect while becoming an adult from a pupa, a distinct metamorphosis that defies either literal meaning. Now, despite the case that "kala" cannot be caged by sensation terms, it turns out that meaning black and time literally is like being purple and happy - it is not conflict but enlargement of awareness of that structure in meaning space.

Food for other curious happenings is the fact that approximately when you were writing your reply, I had a waking realization of a strong parallel between the child's story "Tootle" in English and the "Bhagavad Gita" in the "Mahabharata." Affirming each in its value to others, I realized the common message for Arjuna and Tootle was embrace your self in your world. Arjuna must fight because he was born a warrior, of the Kshatriya varna, and the anthropomorphized young train engine, Tootle, was learning to be a streamliner when he grew up. In the stories, each resisted and was brought back to what others thought was his destiny, and like plants that must survive where they germinate (usually), these individuals surrendered their freedom to that destiny. I prefer, and preferred as a child, "Live as if someone had left the gate open" - a running horse with flowing mane and tail is for me; I also prefer not to kill and prefer to play in a meadow no matter how fast streamliners may go on other person's tracks.

This is relevant. Our minds are amazing. Someone, someday will see motion in three dimensions without making a mess because they have come to comprehend the nature of time and its action as a fourth dimension so each three dimensional state is independent of the others. Instead of killing as Arjuna must, or being trapped on rails as Tootle must, the image of time will become as clear as body in three dimensions. Please tell me as much as you can about it when it happens for you. In a sense you are right, Vidhya, meditation with a sound scientific result may provide the answer to my question even if one finds it difficult to pass along to others.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. "Meaning Space" Imagine an excellent translator versed in two languages who is a capable writer. There is a paragraph in a language that he will translate. He reads it. The words, phrases, idioms, nuances of meaning in the original are values on axes specifying a "volume in meaning space" which he comprehends as the original paragraph. As a capable writer, he expresses the content of that volume with values on the axes appropriate to the second language. It is rare that the second description be perfect because languages differ, and there is still comprehension in the mind of the individual reading the translation. However, the "volume in meaning space" is exact in my view. Of course, there are probably details of it in the mind of the original author that he could not express perfectly in his language, either. Communication is difficult. lfh

Kala, Mahakala and Kalabhairava are three different dimensions of time with different meaning. But I am not going to explain it. I would rather let people to find answers by themselves if they really get attracted by these words.

Howdy Vidhya Movaliya,

I had checked out Kala and Kalabhairava earlier in my "The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion" and just now looked into Mahakala. I believe you are right to defer discovery of their deeper meanings to persons interested enough to find answers. After all, strong association with Shiva, Yama, death and dissolution must be involved if one is "in time:" only when a self is no longer "in time" do these associations fade. That awareness is appropriate to that aspect of being but it does seem distant from this question thread. The ideas you have expressed are also of great interest to me, thank you.

While insight as to the natural process of time and its association with a dimension may come to a person through any path, I expect the result to be expressed in more definite experiences associated with matter, motion, energy, etc. as used in science, including their redefinition when needed. I expect persons focused on science agree with that and I continue to hope someone will "enlighten" me.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Folks,

This is "fresh off the mind" offered in keeping with the value of exchanging and discussing ideas here on ResearchGate. It can be improved.

Perhaps there was more insight in the wave notion in my original question background than I had thought. A new sense of objects and motion has emerged today which involves essential vs. existential philosophies, existence vs. existing, and the nature of the content of three-dimensional space.

The new awareness is that objects in three-dimensional space do not exist in a form that could smear, thus the simple propagation of their complex waveforms in motion never overlaps itself – no smear! The content of three-dimensional space does not exist, it is only existing while becoming its next waveform details.

Background: This is description – discussion – explanation: not proof. Bear with me.

The contents of three-dimensional space do not manifest being, they manifest a process of becoming. The process of becoming is a complex collection of waveforms for the entire content of 3-space, some in oscillation in what appears to be a fixed location and others responding to inertia for motion and/or forces for acceleration. In the sense of a symphony or any musical form, the energy of the sound of music is propagating, becoming the next form of the acoustic waves in motion, never still. Even a standing wave in acoustic reflection or standing water waves against a pier have no particular wave shape that endures, it is just passing, so also the complex wave of what appears to be the present state of three-space that appears to exist is “just passing through.”

Time is the rate of becoming determined by energy oscillation between kinetic and potential forms which is the content of three-dimensional space. Figuratively, we experience three axes of a volume to contain the waveforms of energy and a single axis containing the states through which their becoming appears to exist.

It’s a thought. I shall continue working on how to express it. “It’s not worse than the others.” It is a foundling, needing input and care, not worth proving wrong yet,

Happy Trails, Len

“…There is a structure in meaning space that contains time and another structure for dimension. The axes by which we access such structures are language, but language is often inadequate. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Blue and Brown books that common language is not specific enough for philosophy: so, also, science….”

- that is indeed relates to that mainstream philosophy, and so really doesn’t answer rationally scientifically enough to any really philosophical problem – while really mainstream philosophy is a huge set of different and often opposite doctrines, schools, etc., which fiercely struggle with each other, attempting to prove each other that just this doctrine , etc., is true, while other are false,

- and this battle continues at least a couple of thousands of years, while last hundred of years the mainstream doctrines, etc., and philosophers , including “Great Thinkers”, are innumerous.

However what Wittgenstein points, i.e. that this strange and really unscientific situation in this philosophy exists because some “inadequate language”, is, of course rather strange claim – any language is composed from words, which are some notions, i.e. defame some concrete objects/events/processes in Matter and living beings societies, and any language is adequate to the reality completely depending on – what knowledge humans, including philosophers, have about objects/events/processes.

If a knowledge is adequate to the objective reality, then it is applicable be written using any language, if knowledge is transcendent, it is transcendent being written using any language.

That’s all, there cannot be principally any other criteria of “specificity” of any language for any society, including of scientific languages.

Really the existent - and indeed strange - specificity of language for mainstream philosophy is determined by two factors:

- first one is in that philosophy, as it was established ~ 2500 years ago has its subjects for study just fundamental phenomena – and so the philosophical language contains corresponding fundamental notions, first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, unlike to other “ordinary” sciences that study concrete observable and measurable objects/events/processes in Matter, tec.,

- and, what follows from the first, since in mainstream philosophy all really fundamental phenomena/notions till now remain be completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, so in the mainstream principally any really scientific language isn’t possible;

- whereas, if such language would exist, this language would be understandable not only for philosophers, but for any people, who is able to think logically, objectively, and rationally.

Real solutions of just philosophical problems – and really now of ordinary sciences, which are developed up to the level when the philosophical problems have became, though Meta-scientific, nonetheless already concrete scientific problems,

- can be, and in a number of cases are, solved/clarified only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where all traditional philosophical phenomena/notions above are really rigorously scientifically defined; and, besides, a number of other really fundamental phenomena/notions, which practically aren’t specific mainstream philosophical subjects for study now, first of all “Information” and “Energy” are scientifically defined as well,

- while all definitions, since aren’t transcendent uncertain assertions, are well understandable on any language for any science.

Note also, that all fundamental phenomena/notions can be scientifically defined only if are defined together, first of all at any definition it is necessary to have the definition of “Consciousness”, since just concrete consciousnesses study the world and define what they study, so say that

“…..But the structures do form in our minds and the formation of such structures is performed by qualities of mind-as-a-whole after which our consciousness is informed: aHa! …. I would like satisfying structures for "time" and "dimension" to form in my mind. Can you help?……”

- really cannot be answering till it isn’t clarified what is “mind” , and for what non-transcendent, not only instinctive reason and by what non-transcendent and non-instinctive way in some “mind” some “structures” appears?

The answers, including what really are "time" and "dimension" , which exist absolutely fundamentally objectively including when no any “minds” exist, and what is “mind” as well, see on at least first dozen of pages in the link above. In concrete application to Matter , including why Matter’s utmost universal spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), see .

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

Cheers

Howdy again, Sergey Shevchenko, your view is certainly an alternative and welcome in an open discussion. We engage in friendly disagreement and others have their own thoughts.

I believe philosophy emerged in living long before its recent recordings of ~2500 years - certainly the Egyptians wondered and "answered" issues ~7500 years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cave paintings of ~40,000 years ago had the rudiments of thought that are labeled philosophy behind them. A young chimpanzee studying a deceased armadillo in Jane Goodall's studies yields room for thought about doing philosophy at a quite primitive level. Mythology from longer ago attempted to answer wonder, also, whether one believes another's myth or writes it off as mistaken. Formal philosophy? - history of thoughts. Correct is elusive.

I find the inadequacy of language in phrases like – any language is composed from words, which are some notions, i.e. defame some concrete objects/events/processes in Matter and living beings societies, and any language is adequate to the reality completely depending on – what knowledge humans, including philosophers, have about objects/events/processes in which nuances of meaning require a multitude of words. Hamlet: "There's matter there if we could puzzle it out." And studies about which I have read establish that there are concepts in some languages for which other languages have no expression.

- can be, and in a number of cases are, solved/clarified only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko - Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see . . . ". . . only in a framework . . ." please, no. There are numerous universal answers in the history of thought, but only one is right?

The answers, including what really are "time" and "dimension" , which exist absolutely fundamentally objectively including when no any “minds” exist, and what is “mind” as well, see on at least first dozen of pages in the link above. What about smearing of an object? Explain how that is avoided using your source's definitions of time and dimension regardless of whether the process is being watched. How does your "time" prevent the overlap? That's my question. – the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Time” doesn't answer that question.

Happy Trails, Len

Oops!

Erratum: Hamlet: "There's matter there if we could puzzle it out."

I checked on this memory and cannot find any confirmation online. Sorry.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall,

“…I find the inadequacy of language in phrases like

- [SS quote] can be, and in a number of cases are, solved/clarified only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko - Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see . . . " [end quote]. . . only in a framework . . ." please, no. There are numerous universal answers in the history of thought, but only one is right? ….”

- that looks as rather strange claim. If there is some concrete problem/question, then, quite logically evidently, only one solution/answer can be true; while there can be infinite number of false/erroneous/ senseless/ absurd, etc., “solutions/answers” . If there exist a number of solutions/answers, then either only one is true and all other are false/irrational/senseless; or, what mostly happens, all existent solutions/answers are false/etc.

In mainstream philosophy all, indeed numerous, if innumerous, “solutions” of any really fundamental problems really are irrational/senseless/absurd ; and in this case even the notion “false” isn’t applicable, since it is applicable only if an author of his solution/answer understands what the problem/question means,

- while in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena/notions, and so corresponding problems/questions, are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so the numerous mainstream authors really don’t understand what is they “answer” to, using in questions and answers words “Matter”, “consciousness”, “mind”, “thinking”, “space”, “time”, etc., etc., etc., having at that only really fundamentally transcendent, including scientifically senseless, imaginations about what these words mean.

Again, the real understanding is possible only in framework of the SS&VT conception above, where most of the fundamental problems in real philosophy are really philosophically either solved or at least essentially clarified so, that possible ways of solutions are well determined. And a number of non-existent in the mainstream really fundamental problems are formulated, of course as well.

Including the problems of “ontology of space” and “ontology of time”, including what are space and time “dimensions”, are solved.

So for any normal human, who really wants to know what really (s)he and her/himself is, and what is really her/his external World, it is necessary to read the corresponding SS&VT papers; on the RG to read also SS posts,

- and don’t waste senselessly time on reading of really senseless innumerous mainstream philosophical publications, including of very intensively PR-ed for populace “Great Thinkers”, “High Intellectuals”, etc., which wrote/write as a rule rather thick famous/eminent/etc.,

books,

- in the mainstream philosophy the rule “the thicker book – the greater thinker” is obligatory,

- while, say, the real scientific ontologies of “Space” and “Time”, and concretely how these absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions are actualized in the informational system “Matter” as well, can be, and are, written on a few pages A4, MSWord font 12; see the two papers that are linked in the SS post above.

Cheers

Howdy Sergey Shevchenko,

Your points have been addressed in one way or another in earlier posts so I need not repeat what may be reread.

Your confidence that anyone's current answers are the complete and final word is surprising in view of the freedom with which you dismiss past answers, which were then the best available and only now have become the nonsense of mainstream philosophy. That persons as sincere and brilliant as your sources are now dismissed is a forecast for present philosophers who look so good in the present state of human ignorance. That they will have added valuable wisdom to mainstream philosophy 2500 years from now is worth hoping, but that they are better than Socrates, Siddhartha Gautama and Lao Tsu as sources of insight into our selves is unlikely - given each era and area. Correct is elusive.

I am content in the value to others that you have informed us of your views, but I would still like you to write from your views why you do not make a terrible mess in three-space when you walk. What is a time dimension?

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Folks,

I'm not very quick at this stuff. Often decades pass before realizing two favorite anecdotes or philosophic observations are different views of the same sense of being. Sigh... (Like others in 5 blind men and an elephant; multiple string theories -> M-theory, etc.)

From my 15 December 2022 post: "The content of three-dimensional space does not exist, it is only existing while becoming its next waveform details."

There is no "time dimension" in fact, there is only "now," the state of becoming of the Universe, including us and our insights. The energy exchanges of the waveforms which are the Universe are the process of becoming in "now."

(Yes, this idea has been expressed by others, but as Michel Eyquem, Sieur de Montaigne points out in his essay "On the Education of Children," in print the ideas belong to the author, but once read and thought upon the ideas become one's own - I'm often slow to comprehend significance in what I read, hear, or see.)

Current knowledge is not violated by this concept, especially the products of Albert Einstein's genius and the many great applications and extensions of natural philosophy by others before and since he clarified "invariance" in nature for us.

Well, it's a thought, Happy Trails, Len