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
Just Reference Kant

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on October 31, 2001 15:57:25 UTC

Kant understood the problem that doctordick has solved. He just did not use mathematics to elaborate on it. But the problem of what is reality and how we can know anything about it has been the subject of philosophy up to the time of Kant. My only argument with the good doctor is that we have to assume the axioms of mathematics and include origin invariance to get his solutions. I claim that these are assumptions that are likely to be true, but they are still assumptions. According to the cosmology creation theory people(not the biology types), there are points in the universe like in the singularity of black holes where these assumptions break down and creation of matter from nothing is possible. (In their original theory they proposed that that happened in free space, but they have since refined the theory). The matter creation people think that the created matter feeds back into our universe. People like Smolin think that it goes into new universes. I think it does both. We even observe jets of matter leaving what we think are black holes along their supposed axes of rotation.

But that is all beside the point. Doctordick says that we should use his theory or solution (he does not like the theory word) to examine the consequences of common assumptions. I say that the consequences of his assumptions is that matter cannot be created from nothing in his theory, and therefore where ever his theory applies there is no creation of matter or energy. Conservation of energy results from simple mathematical assumptions. But the assumptions may not be true in regions where string theory is important.

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 1994-2024 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