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
Paul, More Ravings; Sorry!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 15, 2002 04:18:26 UTC


Glad to see you are back. I worry about you and that mountain in the winter. You know I am still collecting all your journal entries. But this note in directed to other interests. I have followed your comments to Harv with interest and I think I know where you are headed; however, there is still a very serious problem I have not seen you approach.

The Maxwell/Boltzmann analysis of velocity distribution in a chaotic gas uses the idea that, whatever that distribution is, it must be statistically stable. Essentially, they imagine an unknown statistical distribution, calculate the resulting new statistical distribution obtained via statistically random interactions. Then set the final distribution identical to the original distribution getting an equation; the solution of which established a unique distribution.

Now the question arises, would mathematicians regard what they did to be a theorem? I only bring this up because I find your approach very studied, but (to date) you have failed to mention one of the most central aspects of what I have done. That is the fact that I use a very similar feed back analysis to yield my final result.

Looking at my picture from the perspective of "something A" (what is to be explained) and "something B" (the explanation), I use the idea that an isomorphic image of "something A" exists in "something B". In addition, "something B" (the explanation) also includes two other components: the mechanism by which "something A" (or actually, the isomorphic image of "something A") is transformed into the rest of "something B".

The constraint is very simple: whatever that constraint (the "Law")is, it must be universal over the entirety of "something B" (that is, the entire explanation). Since the remainder of "something B" (that part which need not be an isomorphic transform of "something A") and the mechanism of transformation are completely open, I prove that it is possible to create a set of entities (my unknowable data) such that a very specific "Law" (the universal Dirac delta function interaction) will constrain the isomorphic image of "something A" to absolutely any distribution desired!

This is a feedback issue very analogous to the Maxwell/Boltzmann problem. "Something B" is generated by completely circular means. What I discovered is, that if the "Law" is a Dirac delta function interaction, there exists one and only one solution. For all practical purposes, what I prove is that there exists no collection of numbers which cannot be so "explained". The issue then is, very simply, how do you propose to express the abstract idea "explained" as a mathematical entity. Being the central issue of my proof, it is part and parcel of any complete analysis of what I have done.

Essentially, what I discovered is: if the "Law" of the universe is a universal Dirac delta function interaction between point entities, absolutely any experimental results can be explained by the existence of a collection of proper point entities. And, as a matter of fact (not hypothesis) those entities must obey quantum mechanics, relativity (special and general), electrodynamics and QED (which is nothing more than addition "vacuum fluctuations" (more postulated entities). All the other modern advances can be seen as nothing more than additional "postulated entities". That includes the Higgs particle Harv!

It is even more significant that since any communicable set of concepts can be viewed as a set of numbers, any communicable set of concepts may be seen as obeying exactly those same rules. It is a choice of the viewer and has absolutely nothing to do with "reality". Now we can talk about the "facts" (if anybody is interested)!

Looking to hear from you -- Dick

Sorry about the attitude expressed, I just get tired sometimes!

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 1994-2024 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