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
Lest Any Of My Honest Friends Are Confused..

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by H.S.Sapiens on November 7, 2002 08:01:42 UTC

Harv writes:
"1. Dick's paper is not peer reviewed, therefore it isn't even within our jurisdiction to accept or deny his mathematical conclusions."

Translation: Harv cannot do the math.

Harv writes:
"Most scientists who look at it are so turned off by the metaphysics that they immediately stop reading it, so we don't even have any real indication whether the math is correct or not."

Translation: Harv interviewed a scientific sample of all scientists who looked at Dick's paper, in order to find out their reasons for not reading it. Like CBS radio, he cuts through all the usual unnecessary steps that "scientists" get bogged down with, and gets right to the answer so he can be first to tell us the news.

Harv writes:
"2. Most of physics is derivable from symmetries of nature, so it isn't any great feat on Dick's behalf to obtain known physics equations. The fact that there are probably more physics equations in the future that will be obtained in this manner suggests that Dick has no knowledge of what those future symmetries are, and which is why we don't see those future equations in his paper (a good thing I might add since can you imagine how cocky he would be if he predicted future physics equations?)."

Honest laughter and applause. That was a truly
historic level of silliness in an area where silliness is too scarce.

"3. ...ultimately...."

That is the word upon which the whole paragraph rests. It is a doorstop of a word, propping the door open for more "assumptions." If you substitute "rilly rilly" for "ultimate," the meaning of the paragraph does not change.

"4. ...."

Truly historic.




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