Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
DoctorDick's "The Foundation Of Physical Reality

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard Ruquist on January 28, 2001 23:51:34 UTC

Your claim for this work is that it is " a different way of looking at the universe designed to absolutely avoid assumptions" page 2 of the Preface of your book.

" I come to define reality to be a set of numbers", page 4 of chapterI.

"Let us divide that set into subsets...defined to be the information available to our senses", also page 4

page 5
"1. The subsets must be finite..."
"let us attach a parameter "t" to the ordered set of examined subsets"
"t must be a continious variable"
"Please notice that time is now defined as any conceivable reality"

Well, first of all there is an inconsistency in the finite number of subsets and making t a continious variable, so it then has an infinite number of values.

It is an assumption to make t continious. Please address this so that I can go reading your book. Otherwise, I will not find the rest of the book believable.

Also you seem to assume that t is time without really saying so, in the very next paragraph to where you assumed t was variable. I suppose that is no different than saying that all sensations can be ennumerated. You are really assuming that all the numbers in the finite number of subsets are functions of this parameter t.

So I guess you are assuming that each of these sense numbers can have an infinite number of continious values. Lots of assumptions so far, wouldn't you say.

All is fair on forums, right. You want us to read your work. Well, the price you is to get it criticized. This reminds me of another guy who kept insisting that we read the Lotus Sutra. So I finally and found out that Buddhism was sexist.

I wish someone would criticize my work.I usually come up empty.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins