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
But, In That Case...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 9, 2003 19:03:14 UTC

***So my explanation as to why conceptual schemes change is bifold. First, not all of them change; schemes that are perfectly self-consistent, such as the scheme for adding apples, will never change. Second, schemes that embody a subtle paradox will only last as long as the paradox remain undetected.***

If our conceptual schemes contain a paradox, that means that whatever conclusions about the world that we construct from such a paradoxial scheme is bound to have discrepancies. This is my point with Dick. He uses an older conceptual scheme of mathematical statements, and as a result his conclusions contain a paradox. The paradox is that post-1960's physics is no where to be seen in his conclusions! This is answer has a simple answer: his conceptual scheme is based on 1960's math!!

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 1994-2020 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