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
No

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 17, 2003 14:57:24 UTC

Alan,

I thought you understood's Dick's premise. It looks like you don't even understand his most basic premise.

***When you add so-called "unknown data": from where does this "data " come? I think I showed that in your lists of numbers version of your system that you once explained to me; that there was a complementarity required between the layers of "known " and "unknown data".***

When you add unknown data?? Do you even know what Dick is talking about?

***I haven't published detail yet;***

You haven't published details YET??? And where would you publish, the National Enquirer? Come on, try to think and talk rational even for a few seconds. No one of any repute is going to publish this kind of trash. Try to get a grip for crying outloud.

*** but although I have apparently found patterns that look like what you found (see recent posts for hints); one thing you seem to have overlooked is:***

What patterns would those possibly be? Patterns in the clouds? OMG, how come I cannot get through to you? You have very little technical knowledge of physics and it shows in your writing. It's layman knowledge (at best) and you want to make major discoveries in physics. Do you see the problem in that? Of course not because you are delusional. You have some major, major problem with delusions of grander. Go get a Ph.D. in physics, and then post your lunacy.

***If the combination destroys the definition of the parts (this example not so good as there appears room enough in the parts to postulate the possibility of their combination?) then what?***

Alan, have you even read what Dick is talking about? The whole point of his work is to try and avoid such presumptuous views as this. Although, this presumptuous view doesn't even count since it is the mad ravings of a crazy person.

***The ways these patterns are juggled to generate "unknowns" must be complementary and not contradict the knowns; or you will be destroying the integrity of the knowns in the process of adding alleged unknowns?***

Do even you know what you are talking about?? I sure the hell don't.

***It is said "as you judge, so you are judged"; writing a dictionary means writing down relative constraints among the entries?***

How about "you shall know them by their fruits". Judging from your fruits I'd say that you are off your rocker and then some.

Some people might want to know why I am so hard on your Alan. The reason is that you are losing it, and maybe harsher treatment will bring you back to reality. Maybe not.

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 1994-2021 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