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
I's Jess Pullin' Yo Lage, Massuh !

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on July 21, 2002 21:57:52 UTC

Hi Paul,
Don't get me wrong...I'm not really offended...the whining was a sideways theatrical nudge for fun ...
Shall I assume my content-related questions were too unimportant or off-topic to address?
That it suited your mood more to be drawn off into another argument with Luis Hamburgh, anonymous Dick-basher of longstanding? Predictably content-free as he has been with Dick's topics, the arguing must be easier than if anyone responded on-topic to my posts. I thought you did masterfully respond to Luis...but have not yet done the same to my posts. Would it be "too much work" to explain to such a lowly mind as mine?
Not so? I must check your other responses today, which I haven't yet. Will my face ever be red!?

Two topic areas I hope you'll address comprehensively, even if briefly:

1) This is not an attack and I will not apologize for is not really confrontive, but I hope will surprise you positively:
I really don't think you have demonstrated any process to determine scientifically or mathematically who could understand the paper. In fact, I don't think you have the background necessary to make such a judgement. The ability to do math, itself, is not all that is needed in order to evaluate someone else's ability to understand. That is not intended as an attack...and certainly I'd welcome any good evidence to the contrary.

2) We ought to have a better abstract and or definitive restatement of the gist of Dr. Dick's paper...a better summary of the logic of the paper's main points...even if the math itself still would have to be confirmed.
IF, and only IF, we cannot clearly restate in words, say 250 or so, what (approx.) 1,000 math-squiggle marks of that article mean...then
either we are dealing with
a) "national security"
b) a big practical joke or
c) the parts don't add up to a whole and
his work probably contains only some interesting, useful math work whose philosophical derivations need not stem from the original grand thesis we've seen implied.

Unless you just don't see my points or have the time, I bet you're a great one to ask!

Mike Pearson

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