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
Harv- How Can We Hook You Into Staying?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on August 16, 2002 19:18:58 UTC

Here is my attempt.

I have been saying that Dick's results are correct- perhaps not his interpretation of them- for they have already been published.

I have just quarreled with his use of the delta function. But he finally convinced me- whether he knows it or not since he never replied- that "if" there is only valid and invalid data, at least where mathematical data is concerned, "then" since he samples with the delta functions over the invalid data, and then obtains constraints on the boundaries of that data, he is at the same time obtaining equations for the constraints on valid data. Hence his development is correct. However, he has yet to confirm this viewpoint.

But at the same time, as you more eruditely point out above, physics cannot say what reality is. The fact that physics works does not justify the assumptions: for vastly different assumptions and resulting theories can explain the same phenomena. Examples of this exist in quantum mechanics and relativity.



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