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
I Have Learned A Lot In The Last Year!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on February 5, 2002 22:14:39 UTC

Hi Harv,

>>>We agree photons have velocity, so what about acceleration? ***

You tell me! If the definition of acceleration (for the sake of this discussion) is going to be a = dv/dt then can the concept of acceleration be applied to "photons"? Explain to me how you would do that and we could perhaps discuss its usefulness.

>>> but I think you bail out of the dialogue just when ***

I know you think that but it is not the actual reason I generally back out of the discussion. What happens is that you get me distracted from what I am trying to explain by bringing up some issue which has nothing to do with what I am trying to communicate. When I allow you to take the lead (hoping we will get back to the central issue eventually) we end up so far away from the point that it begins to be a complete waste of time. It really doesn't make any difference when I stop, you will always interpret it to be "when we are getting close to the crux issue". Only, what you think is the "crux issue" and what I think is the "crux issue" are far different things.

>>>mathematics requires empirical thinking prior to doing math***

I do not concern myself with this at all. I will leave the justification of mathematics to others much more qualified than myself. I am concerned only with a logical development of a very specific idea. In order to discuss that logic, there has to be communications as to what I am talking about.

>>>your assumptions and whether those are valid assumptions.***

In respect to the KISS policy, let us try once again to begin at the beginning. I will try my best to put nothing forward until you comprehend exactly what I mean by the crucial words.

The first word is the "universe". The "universe" will mean whatever is. Nothing exists outside the Universe because, if it exists, it is part of the universe by definition! It is very important that "nothing" be left out! It is crucial to the argument.


Back to comments on what you have said:

>>>Well, you make very strong anti-realist statements. Saying the physical laws are tautological ***

No, I did not say physical laws are tautological. What I said was that Classical Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were all tautological; that one should recognize that fact and perhaps approach scientific research with a clearer mind.

>>> the antirealists have a very good position. And, incidentally, there are antirealists (and realists) with respect ***

You see, this whole discussion of realists and antirealists has absolutely nothing to do with what I have to say. It amounts to no more than a side issue.

>>>Do you think you could convince Alex that the possibility that electrons don't exist but really can be reduced to something more primitive is likely to get any concession from him?***

I don't think Alex can be convinced of much of anything outside his personal view.

>>>I am on the edge of scientific anti-realism, but I refuse to step over that line. ***

The issue requires examination, examination which, as far as I am concerned, has never been carefully thought out. One needs to know, at least, what I have discovered.

>>>Most scientists I think are realist (unabashedly so).***

No, I don't agree with that idea. Most of the "Hacks" are but, from what I have seen and read, most who have seriously thought about the basic issues have taken the "anti-realist" escape (they find it very difficult to justify any other picture).

>>>If so, then isn't that anti-realist?***

No, it is not. What I am showing is that exactly the problems which push people to the anti-realist position, can be handled in a very exact manner.

>>> Am I not understanding your model in this respect?***

I do not think you have any understanding of my model at all.

>>>Isn't your position that you don't know what reality is?***

What I am saying is that my deductions are valid independent of what reality is!

>>>Any construct that could do that would still be a human constuct and just couldn't be identical to the full nature of what is out there. ***

If that statement is true, there must be an error in my logic. If that is the case, then someone should be able to show me that error!

>>>You weren't rambling, but I agree I probably didn't understand a word you said. ***

It's nice that we agree about something! Now, can we agree to use the word universe to denote absolutely everything. Or you can give me another word to use so long as the concept is clear.

I am still having fun, I hope you are -- 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 1994-2022 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