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
Luis,do You Live In A Van?Can You Afford Rent Something Better?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on November 19, 2001 19:04:08 UTC

Does US government allow to live in a van? It is way below average level of living in the USA, so government MUST do something to help you. Did you try to apply for housing? How about church? Community support programs? Social security? Some of my tenants sometimes pay rent by checks from housing administration, or from church, ets. I think, you should apply - even in russia people do not live in cars - government helps poor to have decent life.

Einstein (and no other serious physicist) never claimed time coordinate to be similar to space coordinates - in all SR, GR and QM textbooks and publications time coordinate ALWAYS has little "i" (imaginary 1) in front of it.

Populists usually do not have much of math/physics background and thus do it all the time (call time a dimension with SIMILAR to space dimension properties). That is why general public does that too - general public does not read textbooks/publications. Same with film producers - they are not physicists and are in money making business - they sell whatever uneducated general public buys. "Time travel? No problem - we sell that, ail 5. Superluminal travel? Ail 7. Life after death? Eternal in ail 9, reincarnation in ail 11. Miracles? Zombies? Vampires? Ghosts? Gods? Supermans? Well, there is no special ail for that because we have them all over the place. And don't forget a popcorn, sir".

Goedel shown (contrary to what general public and some specialists claim) that math is RICHIER than the set of original postulates (given rich enough set of postulates) - it can produce logically correct statements (=resulting from original postulates) which need MORE postulates to be rigorously proven.

I would NOT call it "incompleteness" of math, but rather "redunancy" or "richness" of math. It produces MORE than the original set of axioms implies by itself.

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