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
Once I Had Hoped You Would Be Reachable!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on May 10, 2002 16:33:45 UTC


I am so far over your head, you can't even hear the wind when I go by! Nonetheless, I will try to respond to your post!

***** Harv:
Here you have me confused. If you assume symmetries then they should be in your equations without showing a proof of them.

You do not understand the concept of symmetry and how the issues of symmetry arise in a problem! Symmetry arises out of ignorance. Lack of complete information always creates a symmetry of some kind! If you can prove some information is not available, that fact creates a symmetry in the problem: i.e., any information which does not exist in the problem, cannot exist in the solution (that's the name of the game)! But I suspect that is considerably over your head!

***** Harv:
In any case, you're response about organizing data, I don't see as relevant.

That is because you simply have no idea of what I am doing! You overlook the very essence of the problem and the essence of the solution!

***** Harv:
Science rejects global scale invariance? The whole idea behind quantum cosmology is to show that the universe is scale invariant with respect to quantum laws. You have to be more specific.

From that response, I can only conclude that you have no comprehension what the concept piece-meal means?

***** Harv:
Well, the point that Patrick Reany raised was that absolute time is not a necessary assumption for relativity theory.

Exactly where did I ever bring up "absolute time"! And exactly what does it have to do with the statement "clocks do not measure time!" I have clearly stated many times that "time is not a measurable variable"! That a concept could be useful and yet not be measurable seems to be totally outside everyone's ability to comprehend. Boy if that isn't a major constraint on thought, I haven't seen one.

***** Harv:
You need a sense of what is valid sensory impressions and deductions from those sensory experiences before you can analyze sensory impressions.

All I can say is that you have absolutely no concept of what I am talking about at all. It is totally beyond you and quit worrying about it!

***** Harv:
You seem to miss this basic fact.

Yes, I agree! I am missing the fact that you understand how your subconscious works! You got me there Harv!

***** Harv:
Otherwise, we would have chaos in the intellectual development of theories where even the most non-sense concepts must constantly challenge valid approaches.

Do you think me a complete idiot Harv? I am full aware of the necessity of ignoring nuts! The number of truly bright people on the earth is extremely small and if they bothered to listen to every nut which happened to come along, they would have no time left to do anything. So the wall serves a purpose! However, on occasion, that wall can block ideas that are significant. Particularly when they require an insight beyond the capability of the proselytes on the wall. I accept that my idea is one which is going to be blocked by that wall. But I hate to see it die. Because it works so well.

***** Harv:
No, why do we have to conclude in a positive manner that symmetries are due to one of the possible answers?

You simply have no idea at all what I am saying when I say your senses are part of your explanation!

***** Harv:
To this day I have never seen you admit to being wrong about some view that you hold. Not even once. That is odd for a scientist.

You remind me of my ex-wife who always complained that whenever I argued I always thought I was right! Harv, I do not argue unless I think I am right and I very rarely put forward anything I am not quite sure of! You can consider it a character flaw. My current wife (we've been together for about 20 years) has no complaints. She has the same flaw and I don't think we have ever had an argument.

As an interesting aside, when I took my Ph.D. candidacy exam, I flunked it twice (you only got three tries - at least when I was there). Now my thesis advisor berated me on what I had done. He pointed out that I got 100% on every question I answered but that I didn't answer all the questions. I told him I didn't try to answer a question unless I knew the correct answer. He said that by taking that tack, I was blocking the faculty from
giving partial credit. My position was "What? You want me to put forward guesses when I don't know the correct answer?" We never did agree on the ethics of that but I managed to pass the third time without compromising my position.

If that is a fault, then I guess I have a major fault! I have always considered it as the sign of a good citizen.

Have fun -- Dick

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