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
6AM Hypothesis Contrary To Fact

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Residential on March 27, 2002 19:32:34 UTC

At http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/15692.shtml

Harv wrote:
"(10) After translating the most basic interpretations of (2) into the game formulas of (7), you quickly formulate equation 1.1. Nanoseconds later you arrive at four chapters of equations until finishing at equation 4.31."

Response:
In Harv's essay, he proposes using one person's efforts in one day to model the process of arriving at Dick Stafford's conclusions.

There are reasons not to use this model.
1) If one person were that intelligent, he would use neuro-calculus, not written calculus.
2) These symbols are for persons to communicate with one another. They have conventional meanings only for the purpose of enabling that communication. They are not objectively true on their own, but in what they attempt to represent, they may approach truth.

Think you.

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