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
Science Is Not Simple!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 19, 2002 13:15:28 UTC

Hi Chuck,

I am very sorry but I believe you are out of your depth with regard to the subject you bring up. With regard to the issue of "superluminal glue", a hypothesis is a hypothesis and not necessarily a valid explanation. Bell's theorem comes directly out of the mathematics of Quantum mechanics. It is my thesis (put forth in my paper "The Foundations of Physical Realty") that the confusion found in the physics community is entirely due to their misunderstanding of the fundamental issues. They think that their model of the universe is reality; whereas, I have shown that the model is nothing more than a mental construct created in their imagination and designed to provide an explanation of what they know (essentially a very complex "how the tiger got its stripes" mythology so to speak).

The problem is that the hypothetical phenomena leading to the outcome of the Bell paradox isn't real at all; it is the outcome itself which is real not the explanation of the outcome. Look at it this way, is there anyway to examine a photon on the way from "A" to "B"? The change in state at A may be knowable and the change in state at B may also be knowable but that the "cause" is a "photon" going from A to B is an explanation, not a fact! One should always hold in mind that "explanations" are nothing more than rationalizations put forward by a human mind to make sense out of what they know (the past). The fundamental position of the scientific community is that, "if all their rationalizations are internally consistent with one another" (i.e., all the outcomes required by logic are experimentally valid) than those rationalizations are not rationalizations at all but are "true" statements about reality. That step is a massive jump in faith and is simply not logically defendable. Bell's theorem is little more than direct evidence of the fundamental error of making that specific "jump in faith".

I am of the opinion that all explanations must be held as little more than mythology. Remember, a good lie is one with no inconsistencies. But, more important, the lack of inconsistencies is not a proof of truth! Always remember that!

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