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
You're Kidding?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on September 16, 2002 04:57:02 UTC

Hi Harv,

Denial of what?

Polite request: please remind me you can debate still! More detail please!

By the way: I'm sure you are aware of the usefulness of analogies in physics explanations.

Example: Richard Feynman's very good analogy about entropy. He talks of imagining you tried to dry yourself after swimming; with several towels that were all damp. After a time there would be as much wetness being transferred from the towels back to you, as from you to the towels. The wetness would be deistributed fairly evenly.

Now consider this:

Here is a well known metaphor:

"The game at the sports stadium is about to start; the atmosphere is electric".

The word "electric" is used metaphorically to refer to the tension of anticipation.

It also happens to be that; clothing on the crowd brushing against plastic seating; rubs off electrons into the air (just like charging up a biro with static electricity by rubbing electrons off with a cloth.) So the atmosphere may be literally electric.

A curious case of independent uses of the term "electric" (one metaphorical, the other literal) applying to the same event.

Now, have you heard of Edward de Bono and his lateral thinking books? I know you said you have "An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hoffstedter; the ideas in that book are pretty free-ranging.

If I propose a model of physics based on negotiations; remember that John Gribben has already described John Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics as "handshakes" with the universe. I am trying out an idea that goes further.

And when I wrote of a person and a dog; these are more interesting words than "a set" and "another set". Get real!

I am horrified if you are fooled into submitting to fear of the modern thought-policemen; and the circular arguments that characterise their fantasies!

Please do not succumb to the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose foolishness of psychobabble!

So what am I in denial of? Of some theory that claims I must be crazy because I dare to think for myself? Suggest re-thinking: I think you misunderstood my ideas on physics.



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