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
Two Cents

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on April 5, 2002 06:41:30 UTC

O.K., my two cents:

Aurino: "For the most part, I think the greatest value in his work is to force people to think, and I can probably say he's been quite successful at that."

I agree that he has got people thinking, me included! I have thought before though, it wasn't the first time I did some thinking! Still, thank you Dr. Dick. I discovered some new stuff.

Aurino: "I think it's quite possible that the reason relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics is simply because relativy is wrong. Not blatantly wrong, and certainly not wrong according to its own premises, only inconsistent with some basic premises of the rest of physics."

Dr. Dick in his paper does claim to have found something to do with the conflict between relativity and qm. My solution is this: qm is about "the density of action". Gravitation is about "the action of density". Relativity is a mirror through which gravitation-theory and quantum theory form reflections of each other.

Aurino: "As far as I can tell, and despite all the noise and outrageous claims, I think Dick is absolutely right in demanding that physicists be as rigorous with their definitions as they possibly can. I think he's far from being alone in that regard." Yes, his idea of being rigorous about physics definitions is excellent!

Harv: "As far as we know, truth may only be able to be roughly approximated."

The question is, approximated by who? Truth itself is definite. What, who; exists IS ALL that, who EXISTS. Truth is all there is.
However, as far as Tarski's theory of truth goes; 'does a proposition correspond with the facts?'; that presents approximation difficulties if information is incomplete.
Incomplete data may lead to mis-matching patterns through mistaken guesses.

Harv once referred to Dick's work as "philosophy 101". That is just what it is, a math version though. Phil 101 solves physics, and that was his discovery.

What do people make of Harold Aspden? See www.energyscience.co.uk for the work of another rebel physicist! Interesting what happened when he tried to publish!


regards,

dolphin

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