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
Including The "three Sentences"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on August 16, 2002 11:48:31 UTC


I was a bit roughed-up by your post Aurino; though Michael and Luis rowed the boat ashore somewhat. But today I was laughing as it suddenly seemed funny! Just think how hilarious our attempts at communicating will seem when we return to telepathy!

I didn't think my argument was very difficult to follow. I didn't specially think this applied in this case, but
sometimes I just post stuff to get it done as-is-where-is; maybe it might be ideas-in-progress and maybe its not easy to follow but I can always try to improve the presentation later.

For all the puzzlement my superposed traffic jams caused people; I could follow Dr. Dick's explanation about delta functions aimed at me and Yanniru, precisely; he was correct.

Three sentences:

1. You pull a ball on a string towards you constantly when you swing it around your head; centrifugal force is the previous to-the-center pulling, "displaced" sideways by new direction of the ball.

2. The more broad-defining categories you overlap each other to narrow down a word definition; the more that the older more broad overlaps definition of that word are squeezed together within the new definition from the perspective of the new narrowing category.

3. That squeezing together of the old categories overlap that gave the broader definition of a word, seen from the new; may be a model for gravity; and "mass" may be the new narrow version of the word times its frequency in all those old categories; possibly giving G = m1m2/ r squared as per Newton.

Thank you for getting this from me in 3 sentences!

(Ask for clarification if anything still comes over fuzzy!)

"Do you believe you have found a method to advance physics by dreaming about it?"

Actually some months ago I had seen some stuff in a magazine about Harry Potter; and later I was up late at night trying to understand "QED" by Richard Feynman; these and other patterns lead to a dream. I woke up after a fascinating dream during which a chess game raced away from me at the speed of light and the pieces started moving backwards in time and a dog barked at such a strange sight and: a simple formula appeared!

I woke up and wrote down that dream and that formula. I was going to post it sometime. As I recall the formula potentially was legit.

Feynman wrote that his lecturer would be discussing a problem, adding condition-this and that; while Feynman himself would be imagining all this visually as making a ball fuzzy (condition this) and so on. I think free-ranging thinking is good for physics discoveries.

"Do you believe you have discovered some secret to the universe?"

I thought I may have found a model for gravity.

"Do you think your posts make sense?" Yes; except that I often draw diagrams that show what I'm trying to say in words much more easily; so it's tough trying to use words.

"Do you enjoy writing that stuff?"

I like to let thoughts run free.

"Do you believe people read it? "

I put it there for the record; I suppose some people read some of it some of the time. Maybe if I'm lucky someone somewhere read something I wrote most times. Maybe I improve my argument and they see the mark 2 version.

"Aren't you bothered by the fact that everyone either ignores or makes fun of you?"

Being ignored is not nice; being properly argued with is better.

"Why don't you descend from the clouds and join us mortals down here?"

I am a free thinker and what I say is not so difficult as people think; talking to people in real life has shown me that.

"There's plenty of interesting stuff we can talk about without offending commonsense. It's a lot more fun and a lot more enlightening, I can guarantee you that."

Probably just misunderstanding. An ounce of argument is worth a ton of clarity? It's not hard to extract the essence of what I post.

I am astonished when people seem unable to follow very basic textbook philosophy like: how words are defined as described by John Hospers. Or that they have difficulty with the idea of "comparing and matching patterns"?

But Paul, Robert Garfinkle, and Dr. Kyle Paye all seemed to cotton on well to stuff I wrote. And you have at times to, and Harv has had sustained debate; and many others. I haven't fared too badly.

See ya,


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