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
Just A Comment!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on March 25, 2002 16:33:59 UTC

Harv,

Please refrain from your proofs that my attack cannot possibly work. Until you understand what I am doing, these proofs are completely meaningless. You are incorrect and it serves little or no purpose at all for me to answer your complaints so long as you do not understand what I have done. I will answer your latest complaints only out of courtesy, not from any belief that they or my answers have any bearing at all on what I am saying. If you do ever understand you will see why these complaints are fundamentally meaningless. I have solved a very simple problem; your attempts to understand mostly fail because you think the problem is much more complex than what it is. The fact is that the fundamental problem is actually quite simple; nevertheless, the solution does turn out to have extremely very far reaching consequences.

*** So, my theory is that the universe is comprised of [whatever you want to call it] and it is indeed a hypothesis which is subject to verification by experiment. And, according to Yanniru, my theory has been verified! ***

I think it is a mistake to consider your theory verified. Let me list some reasons why that is so:

1) Your definitions are not the same as used within the physical theories - at least not explicitly.


That my definitions are not the same is a trivial issue having no bearing on verification whatsoever! The fact that outcomes of the experiments concerning these defined entities are identical to the observed outcome is, on the other hand, extremely significant! Fundamentally, if you want to show an error, you must show that my mathematical deduction of the behavior of "tiggle" is in error.

2) Your theory would be a metatheory where the physical theories are subtheories within your metatheory. However, you do not make any physical predictions in your metatheory that can be verified to confirm the metatheory. For all we know, your metatheory could be 'curve fitting' to known experimental results.

This comment is purely a result of your lack of understanding of what I have done!

3) You are constructing mathematical equations that obtain verified equations, but the meaning of your variables is your own interpretation. You haven't justified why those terms are correct versus the million other definitions that one could plug into those variables.

I am describing the neccessary behavior of tiggle. The meanings correspond exactly to what is being verified by the various equations. Again, your problem is that you do not understand what I have done.

4) It is not known what makes physical theories true, you may have accidentally stumbled upon a limitation of the physical world that requires nature to be mathematical. If you construct the equations close to how this principle, you might inadvertently arrive at nature's same results.

No, again you simply do not understand. As my results are valid whether "nature" follows mathematics or not! In fact what they point out (once you understand) is that the appearance that nature follows mathematics is an illusion.

5) You haven't reached other very important and even more fundamental theories of physics (e.g., QED, QCD, etc) which indicates that your approach isn't that fundamental since fundamental approaches tend to produce the most fundamental results.

This has to be the fourth or fifth time you have brought this issue up; it is your most pointless complaint of all as it has absolutely no basis. It is actually clear evidence that you do not understand my model as my model in no way prevents any of those propositions! My work is much more fundamental than you have even begun to comprehend.

Why don't you stop trying to prove that what I have discovered must be worthless and rather spend a little time trying to understand what I have done? I have learned a lot about how you think and it may very well be possible for you to understand without following the math. After all, if I am wrong, this whole conversation is completely worthless.

Have fun -- Dick

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