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
Hi Tim "again"!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on May 24, 2003 01:14:17 UTC

Hi Tim,

I was delighted to read your response to my last post. Once again I have posted to the top as "trash posts" (and that is an opinion only guys!) have moved it down quite a ways. For the most part I think you understand what I am doing quite well. Actually matrix algebra is not difficult at all; you just need to understand the rules and carefully carry out the indicated steps. (Once one becomes a master of matrix algebra, one can see the results without going through the details but then, from my perspective, you have turned the process over to your subconscious - which believe me it's not trust worthy).

If you are even half way competent in differential equations I don't think you will get bogged down at all. The important thing is the perspective itself. Once you begin to see it, believe me, everything falls out without any effort at all. By the way, I would really like to know your age and profession as I think the most important part of this is passing what I have discovered to someone younger than myself. To date, Paul is the only one who has even begun to comprehend what I have done and he is almost as old as I am. If you don't want to post your age or profession for the public, I will keep it to myself. I may be reached at

With regard to your restatement of my points on your statements, I will simply say that your interpretation is quite close to what I mean on every point so I won't comment on them. However, with regard to the other comments (where you ask for clarification), I will do my best to clarify what I said.

The existence of the fundamental transform mentioned in figure 2 goes to the issue of representing reality as a set of numerical labels and has nothing to do with explaining our "senses". The explanation of our senses is left open as an unanswerable question. Clearly, our senses can be regarded as a pipeline between reality and our mental image of reality. What happens in that pipeline is beyond investigation as we can only examine what we are consciously aware of. Thus it is that (from a conscious aware perspective) the pipeline includes our subconscious. And anyone with any sense at all should be able to comprehend that our subconscious is one of the greatest con man in existence (that concept being one taken directly from my subconscious model of the world I find myself in).

By the way, objective investigation of our subconscious is an oxymoron. Every publication of any investigation of subconscious phenomena is based on the assumption that every perception (not proved to be an illusion) is a valid representation of reality. That is sort of like trusting someone who we know has lied on dozens of occasions to tell the absolute truth about everything else. What kind of gullible idiot would make that assumption?

"so for example the speed light =c, that would be an entity that your fundamental equation would not deduce."

Yes and no! First, what you must understand is that I am taking an absolutely arbitrary set of data (that set of numbers I define to be reality) and performing a mapping into my mental image of the universe (the one my subconscious came to after acquiring the education I have endured). In the construction of that model (the one which maps into my mental image) I introduce the dimension tau for the sole purpose of allowing two numbers in the set of knowables to be the same. When I do that and require that the rule I am to deduce be as applicable to that dimension as to the original x dimension used to display my data, then I establish that measurements in tau are totally equivalent to measurements in x. By Chapter 3 it is shown that this is equivalent to establishing a fixed measurable value for c.

But we are really getting ahead of ourselves here; let us work towards understanding Chapter 1 (which is the universality of equation 1.27 under the perspective I have proposed). The solutions of equation 1.27 go to establishing what we can and can not see if we see the universe as representable as a set of numbers.

I really appreciate what you are doing.

Have fun (and I think you will) -- Dick

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 1994-2018 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