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
You Really Think So?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 13, 2002 18:56:13 UTC

I think Dick is sincere. He really wants to demonstrate that he has made appropriate assumptions in light of his task, and wants his work to be taken seriously. His problem is that he wasn't subtle enough when he introduced it to his peers. If he would have just stuck with the mathematical model as per what Richard and Paul had suggested (of course, years later), then Dick probably would have been surprised how other physicists would have warmed up to his work. Dick's problem was his interest in metaphysics, criticizing Einstein's use of time, etc. This is a no-no. That's the fastest way to be labelled a crank in physics.

Warm regards, Harv

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 1994-2018 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