Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on October 17, 2001 17:33:23 UTC


Perhaps I should have said:

When you do ascribe any such pattern (particularly any simple symmetry *or asymmetry*) to A, you are essentially stating that you *know* that the patterns were *not* generated by the communications pipeline! Now just exactly how did you come to be blessed with that information (as you have way around that communications mechanism to check the issue)?

Again, explain to me how you know the symmetry or asymmetry in your observation is a real aspect of A and not an effect of the undefined pipeline! So long as the pipeline is undefined, the question must be left open: i.e., the model cannot specifically omit any possibility.

It must be held open that the pipeline could have added a constant to every number passed across. If you omit that possibility, by assigning the phenomena to A then you have constrained the behavior of your pipeline.

By the way, you keep calling what I present a Theory! It cannot be a theory as it is not capable of being invalidated! It is nothing more than a particular way of looking at totally undefined collection of information. Whereas your perspective is that your mental model of reality *is* reality, my perspective is: what exactly is it possible for me to know.

How did you come achieve that wonderful model you possess? I know -- God gave it to you! Wish I were so blessed with such absolute conviction!

By the way, if you and Alex know so much about my "Theory", please forget the opening and explain why the relationships I derive (from exactly the same symmetries assumed by you and Alex and everyone else) things that aren't derived anywhere in the literature to my knowledge. Oh that's right, I am wrong there too. Well in that case why don't you show me where I am wrong on those issues?

Have fun -- Dick

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