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
Let Us Presume Not To Assume

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tim on May 19, 2003 01:17:05 UTC


i had trouble with the 'known' and 'unknown' terminology but not so much because i needed to understand the nuances of their definition but because i could not understand how Dick was using them in developing his initial equation. admittedly it was not until he explained what he meant by the terms that i was able to understand how he was applying the terms in the development of the first equation. but now that i understand the reasoning through which the terms are used to develope the initial equation i can understand that development abstractly with only the common meaning of the terms 'known' and 'unknown'.

i can't currently discuss Dick's symmetry arguments as i've only skimmed his paper as a whole. i'm currently reviewing the first chapter in depth. i do however recognize the parallels between his paper and the results using Fisher sampling theory ect. i've read over some excerpts from a book that used Fisher sampling to elicit quantum mechanics and the assumptions were simply horrificaly complex. Dick's reasoning is much easier to follow . well at least at the point that i've currently reviewed.

it is reasonable to suspect a 'bible code' type of rigmarole might be going on in Dr. Dick's paper. for now i must give him the benifit of the doubt. i for sure believe he is making an honest attempt. what one has to wonder is how successful he has been at keeping his obvious broad experience and knowledge of physics from either consciously or subconsciously guiding the progress of his determinations. i can only assume he has made a mighty effort to avoid such a pitfall.
you may find this a strange slant on his paper, but i'm not so much interested in seeing that it may or may not result in new predictions (although i believe Dr. Dick may have surmised that time should be viewed differently than how we currently view it as measured by clocks) but what i'm more interested in is the alternate view that is afforded us with respect to the fundamental roots of the science that we already have.

i have trouble understanding the reason that you see Dr. Dick's presumption to use mathematics in his treatsise as a fallacy of assumption.

regards tim

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 1994-2023 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