"phenomena To Be Modeled" Has To Be Specific Explanation" - an Astronomy Net General Forum Message

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


Home \| Discussion Forums \| Misc. Topics \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

"phenomena To Be Modeled" Has To Be Specific Explanation"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Rowanda on January 10, 2005 18:48:18 UTC

Here is the edge for you. The above quote from your post says that the model in short only applies to specific explanations. But elsewhere you have said that it applies to all explanations.

Who cares if it applies to only one specific explanation. Your work only has value if it applies to all specific explanations. That is exactly where consistency is required. You cannot model all explanations as some can be contradictory and inconsistent.

Your theory only applies to situations where the specific explanation is consistent, or let's say constant, in time and space. That's nature, assuming no intervention from god. Nature in most respects is consistent; and that is the most that you could be modelling.

wanda

Follow Ups:

You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
- You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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