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
To Harv!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 28, 2003 22:32:00 UTC

Hi Harv,

It is rather strange but your note to me set me to thinking about the performance of conventional science itself.

A) Your paper has mistakes and this conclusion was arrived at hastily.

When I was a graduate student, I had a bad habit (every time I had to look up a reference) of reading all the other articles in the journal containing the referenced article (I have always like to read and, Mike, it's a lot like reading science fiction). Now, when one does that, one gets a very different impression of scientific journals than one gets if one only reads the referenced material.

If all you read is referenced material, you get the impression that scientists are very careful people and only publish well thought out ideas. That's because it is only well thought out ideas stand the test of time. If you read everything, you get a very different impression: most publications contain a great many mistakes and seem to have conclusions very hastily arrived at. A little serious thought would have shown them as worthless before they were published.

B) The paper only has equations that look like well-known physics equations, but upon closer examination the definitions of variables actually have quite different meanings.

Newton's stuff took ideas where the variables had substantially different meanings (objects were falling, not attached to turning spheres) but, nontheless yielded equations that looked like well-known physics equations (the same orbital details yielded by the rotating cycles and epi-cycles). Did you know that the predicted results were slightly different from the old experimental results and that Newton himself presumed his work had errors because of that fact? Turned out, Newton's results were better than the currently accepted "experimental" data.

C) It makes assumptions that all physicists make when constructing a physical theory (e.g., certain symmetries), and therefore you reach the same conclusion.

Well, isn't it true that most new ideas make use of relationships already extant when they were conceived of? Most scientists make a lot of the same assumptions their predecessors made.

D) The paper was constructed as an 'after the fact' event in which you carefully constructed the equations to come out just so - which only makes it appear that physics is true by definition.

Wasn't Einstein's theory of relativity constructed as an 'after the fact' event of Michalson's experiments; carefully constructed to exactly produce the null result observed. In fact, didn't he "postulate" Michalson's result as a starting point?

E) Your paper captures the assumptions that actually restrict human perceptions, and since science is based on human observations, these correct assumptions restrict the kind of science that we can construct.

Now isn't it the central purpose of any scientific attack? To capture the correct assumptions which will yield what we perceive to be? What I tried to do was set up a way of looking at the information without assumption.

F) It captures assumptions that are actually true of absolute reality, and therefore all scientific results mirror what must be true of absolute reality.

That is exactly what all the scientists think they are doing. Without ever even thinking about how they would be able to capture these assumptions to begin with.

G) You don't know

If one "knew" the correct answer, what purpose would scientific investigation serve?

H) It's a complete and utter mystery

Isn't that the central issue of any scientific investigation?

I) We simply cannot comprehend anything so why even bother offering these options

Actually, that seems to be the attitude of most people ignorant of science.

All this brings up another comment you have made on a number of occasions. The idea of just making up some mathematics and then saying that the solutions to the equations are these things the other scientists are looking at.

Didn't Maxwell just add a term to the electric and magnetic equations produced by others? (The idea that a changing electric field would create a magnetic field just like a changing magnetic field created an electric field was just inserted for symmetries sake.) The result was that the electro-magnetic equations allowed a solution which amounted to a traveling wave which, surprise - surprise, traveled at the "speed of light". This was the thing which lead everyone to believe that light was an electro-magnetic wave!

You are apparently describing as unscientific most of the means science has used to advance our knowledge.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck; it's a duck! My work reproduces more known physics than any other simple set of ideas ever put forth. Maybe I am right! Apparently that possibility is uniformly dismissed by all as impossible without even a show of serious thought!

Have fun -- Dick

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