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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on April 26, 2003 00:08:34 UTC

Keeps insinuating that his model confirms 'most of physics is true by definition'. I'm still trying to get doctordick to tell me which 'most of physics' and 'true' by whose definition? BTW-If nobody can understand doctordick's model then it is 'pretty much useless' for doing any physics. I have to wonder about anybody using words like 'true' when discussing physics. Its a 'red flag' when somebody tells you somebody else modeled time wrong within a self consistent physics model which actually works and is useful. The red flag is not understanding that the author of a physics model can model time [or anything else] and way he chooses as long as the model works. Doctodick's mantra is 'you all' are just to dumb to understand how brilliant I am.

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 1994-2022 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