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
Login

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on December 4, 2001 16:17:18 UTC

Hi Dick,

I'm a little weary of doing this (once bitten, twice shy). But, since I continue taking Alex's bait so why not try again with you?

>>>modern physics is a direct consequence of that definition: i.e., that it is true by definition. At this moment, the number of physics experiments who's outcome is not fixed by definition is quite small (and could probably be reduced further by additional careful study).>They are certainly directly required by my definitions and the fact that the recognized scientists claim that they are not required by the standard definitions (i.e., they claim these experiments tell us something about reality) implies either that their definitions are significantly different from mine or that the scientists do not understand the true consequences of their own definitions.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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