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
To Tim And Yanniru/Yaniru Too

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on April 29, 2003 17:56:45 UTC

Discrediting Yanniru was never my intent.
Still for context:
Yanniru writes:
"I spent months reviewing his math very carefully and complained to him about many rather strange steps."

I complained to Yanniru about his many strange steps (illogical steps) in trying to discredit me. He answered vengefully and hastily more than 100 times.
There was a time on this forum when Yanniru and Dr. Dick were arguing. Dr. Dick was being called many names by several participants, including Yanniru. Though I do not know
much beyond simple calculus, my BS detector was not ringing with Dr. Dick, and I said so.
It is still possible Dr. Dick is a class A discussion leader with a sly sense of humor, but
I have seen glimpses of real substance in his discussion of relativity, such as the importance of universal time as a benchmark for discussion. (We draw all local time contexts from physical phenomena, so why could there not be a universal context somewhere?)
It was after my comments that my BS detector was not going off... that Yanniru posted an appreciation of some of Dr. Dick's math.
I do not claim to be the mathematician that either of them are, and in fact have fallen down in my promise to take the math to my local math department for a review.
If the archives do not reflect what I have said, they have been altered. But I like to think this is an honest forum. I would swear a proper oath to the sequence just stated. But perhaps the archives do show it.

Yannri wrote:
"The math was correct, but his interpretation was not."

Interpretation sounds like the domain of the
religious authorities. I understand they told Galileo that his astronomical observations were
not the problem -- it was the interpretations which bothered them.
Giordono Bruno, the foremost promoter of Copernican theory, was burned at the stake by religious authoritioes, not because of his astronomy education, but because of his teaching of theological ideas, the interpretation, which he felt proceeded from them.

Yanniru wrote:
"If Stafford would just publish his math starting with assumptions of those symmetries, he would get the recognition he deserves."

Do you mean to say the paper does not contain the math? He published quite a lot of math.
Are you saying he has a reservoir of unpublished math?


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