<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi John Macken</div><div>Interesting - your priority in gravitational wave detection theory through polarization.</div><div> </div><div>You wrote <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> " I took an entirely different approach than everyone else in the group. Everyone else starts with what I call the "top down" approach to physics." </span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div>Not me! I tend to agree with you that important advances can hopefully be made by creating models from first principles, as I also have <a href="http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf">http://vladimirtamari.com/beautiful_univ_rev_oct_2011.pdf</a> . The trouble with this approach is that it assumes much of modern physics, like the concept of space-time or quantum probability or particle -wave duality even time as a dimension is 'excess baggage'. Most streamline physicists are reluctant to jettison their hard-won expertise in these fields and start on a new tack. The answer my friend is blowin' in the [ether] wind!</div><div>Cheers</div><div>Vladimir <br><br><div>_____________________<div><a href="http://vladimirtamari.com">vladimirtamari.com</a></div></div></div><div><br>On Sep 1, 2016, at 3:40 AM, John Macken <<a href="mailto:jmacken@stmarys-ca.edu">jmacken@stmarys-ca.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"> In fact, I would say that this article
fills the critical gap in the theory. I took an entirely different
approach than everyone else in the group. Everyone else starts with what
I call the "top down" approach to physics.</blockquote></body></html>