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
Re: To Harv

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Harvey on May 4, 2003 17:29:09 UTC

Hi Dick,

I was away last week, so I wasn't able to attend to your post...


***H: 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. D: 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?***

Are you suggesting that Einstein didn't produce a theory that didn't produce observables that could possibly falsify SR?

***H: 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. D: 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.***

Your answer is a little vague for me. Let me give you choices on how to interpret your statement and you tell me which you meant:

1) You wrote a paper that had zero assumptions about the world. You based your paper on objective facts that are not to be considered assumptions in any shape or form.

2) You wrote a paper with some assumptions, but these are so fundamental that without at least assuming these as 'true', there's no point of reasoning altogether. By the phrase 'without assumption', you mean "without any scientific belief based on theory or experimental evidence".

3) By the phrase 'without assumption', you mean that you avoid those assumptions that tell us how the world actually 'is' versus how we can best pragmatically take advantage of nature.

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

Does this mean that you think science is mainly concerned about absolute reality?

***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!***

Are you suggesting that Maxwell didn't produce a theory that didn't produce observables that could possibly falsify his EM theory?

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

Notice how my questions to you (above) answer this objection to your work.

***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.***

So, are you saying that it is impossible for an alternate (mathematical-based) theory to be thought up "after the fact" that doesn't determine the data with the appropriate interpretation that is in fact observed? Are such 'theories' valid simply because they can accomplish such a feat?

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