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
Some Times Barking Wakes The Neighbors

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 9, 2003 20:11:45 UTC

***" This is my point with Dick. He uses an older conceptual scheme of mathematical statements, and as a result his conclusions contain a paradox. " You should be careful with that statement, as it seems to imply that newer conceptual schemes are free from paradoxes, which is probably far from being the case.***

Didn't mean to imply that newer conceptual schemes are paradox free. I only mean that his older conceptual scheme is inadequate for today, as our current conceptual scheme will prove inadequate for tomorrow.

***" The paradox is that post-1960's physics is no where to be seen in his conclusions! " Come on Harv, you're smarter than that. If he got 1960 years of physics, you can be sure that nothing stands in his way of getting 40 more. That is not the problem with his position.***

Come on Aurino. You know that's not possible. Newton couldn't derive Einstein's equations anymore than Einstein could derive Hawking's equations. You need new conceptual schemes that were unavailable to them, and it takes a great deal of scientific development before we know which conceptual scheme to select. Any ole conceptual scheme will not do. Einstein needed global symmetry principles and Maxwellian science before Lorentzian symmetry made any sense. Newton wouldn't comprehend it without those 'advances' in the classical conceptual scheme.

***To be fair, I think the only problem with Dick's position is that it has no problems. His paper is completely meaningless and adds nothing to our knowledge of reality. Since it doesn't tell anything about reality, no fact can invalidate it. Arguing with him is a waste of time as he's absolutely right and he knows it. The best argument you can offer him is silence. If he's not saying anything of any significance, why should anyone bother?***

Well I agree, it is completely meaningless, not because he reproduces our knowledge in the 60's, but because his terms are ridiculous. His whole paper is nothing but a condemnation on science and does nothing to answer the problems that he supposedly trying to solve. He doesn't realize it, but ego prevents him from admitting he's wrong.

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