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
Sure, I'll Talk To You!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on August 13, 2002 18:36:44 UTC

Hi Aurino,

Apparently you posted while I was composing my response above. I was eating lunch and returning calls during that composition.

****
Aurino: At the same time, because you don't think like them it appears to me that you are missing their point as much as they are missing yours.
****

No, on that point you are very definitely wrong. I am not missing their point at all. All I am saying is that, due to their insistence sticking to the common rhetoric of standard relativity theory, they are overlooking an alternate very simple solution.

****
Aurino: Unless I'm a crackpot myself, I might be in a privileged position for having been able to overlook your rhetoric and grasp the essence of your argument.
****

Unless one can understand the mathematics, understanding the defense of my position is impossible. Without the defense, it is so far from the common understanding that it very definitely does appear to be nonsense. I myself would say it is nonsense except that I can prove it exactly.

****
Aurino: I think your arguments are extremely solid, but the way you present them makes it all appear like nonsense. That's why most people ridicule you, and if you're honest enough with yourself you should take at least some of the blame for that.
****

Not really; the real source of the problem is that everyone wants to know my conclusions without going into the logic of my deductions. They ridicule me because they cannot comprehend the possibility that I might be right. Very few people think about anything. They all rely on their subconscious almost 100%. In my mind they are simply "unaware".

You are at least aware of the existence of the problem I have unraveled which is more than most. It was the unraveling of that problem which lead to the fact that most all of physics is a tautology. Now the interesting thing about that realization is that, once one knows how to deduce that tautology, certain simple errors in common physics (and the problems and/or inconsistency they cause) become quite obvious. Anyone with even a margin of intelligence should recognize that, if it is a tautology, the tautological approach is going to be much more accurate than the "guess and by golly" approach.

If you are truly interested in what I have to say and want to really understand it, we would simply have to take the presentation I have written one line at a time and discuss each line (in order) which you find difficulty understanding. Doing so would benefit us both. First, you would come to understand what I am saying and (I am sure) some errors in what I have said will be found. I found a number when I explained Chapter 1 to Paul but he gave up at the end of Chapter 1.

With regard to your rejection of "reality is a set of numbers", let us just talk about "a set of numbers" and what we can say about what kind of explanation we could create to make those numbers make sense. I am willing to talk.

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 1994-2024 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