God & Science Forum Message | |
| Forums: |
Atm ·
Astrophotography ·
Blackholes ·
Blackholes2 ·
CCD ·
Celestron ·
Domes ·
Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||||
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.
|
|
| 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 |