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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on June 16, 2002 04:25:28 UTC

Interesting stuff;

quick note:

Any written material AGREED TO by two or more scientists, observers etc. might be subject to the following constraint:

Observer 1: has a network of relationships in mind
Observer 2: has a network of relationships in mind

How do they make sense of each other? There must be a 3rd network of relationships that maps at least partially into both observers ideas.

Stafford mapped out the tautological constraints of AGREEMENTS on networks of relationships (which involves communicability), and got the laws of physics. It's dissapointing when he seems unwilling to face argument and defend himself or refute others comments.

Tien D. Kieu seems to have added fuel to the fire that "mathematics is constrained by physics". When you consider what "number" is, it involves perspectives and changes in perpective. E.g. "2" is a perspective on 1 and another 1. Automatically you have QED, Relativity, and gravity: 1 is "attracted" to the other 1 in the "2" perspective. Virtual particle exchange occurs when you combine the "1 perspective on 2" and the "other 1 perspective on 2" so QED follows. The two 1's provide relativistically different perspectives via the 2 perspective (or something). (Just dashing this down quickly here).

Data: in the search for reality; one might as well admit all known data; whatever is IS; so all thoughts must be admitted as existing. This can lead to discovering false assumptions. The idea is, if one has any doubt or counter-doubt or tiny fleeting bit of awareness, these experiences are real, are data, their existence must be acknowledged- they might be the spanner in the works of a false assumption current belief!

Copernican theory was not abandoned despite the distant-star parallax test failing to confirm that Earth orbitted the sun (Later the supposed distance of the nearest stars was found to be assumed to be too short. Eventually more precise measuring equipment revealed the parrallax effect on the nearest stars from Earth's orbit-change-in-perspective. The stars were much further than had been assumed, the earlier equipment couldn't detect the smaller-than-expected parrallax.)



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 1994-2023 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