The flight of a ballistic missile is a good example. We can examine that and test our model for accuracy and validity. There is no way you can test something that cannot be examined.

And this following statement is idiocy:

"biological pipeline (Science) has shown that the model of reality it produces also conforms to the laws of physics. "

I have very carefully explained how science works by minimizing the biological pipeline effects. The pipeline does not produce a model. If it did, the model would be considered subjective and not scientific. Do not believe everything you hear.

And it is not a derivation from anything concerning biology. There is no biology in any of his writing or his derivation. His derivation is simply an assumption of various symmetries in data sets, plus the assumption that some of the data is not known, and then a clever derivation yielding laws that are already known to come from those symmetries. There is absolutely no biological basis for his work. Sorry about that.

Hot regards,

Richard

• Hang up the spikes - whomi - June 10, 2003 - 07:12 UTC
• Note that Mike has started again - yanniru - June 10, 2003 - 12:48 UTC
  • Respose to Mike's complaints - yanniru - June 10, 2003 - 13:14 UTC
    • Here he admits to seven names - yanniru - June 10, 2003 - 18:11 UTC
      • Bug off, jerk - whomi - June 10, 2003 - 18:14 UTC
      • Mike started it- He has to stop it - yanniru - June 10, 2003 - 18:19 UTC
        • Yanniru does not answer wrt science, ethics or courtesy - whomi - June 11, 2003 - 01:23 UTC
      • Jeez, did I say that? I was only thinking it. Sorry - whomi - June 10, 2003 - 18:30 UTC
      • I notice the webmaster has not emailed or addressed me - whomi - June 19, 2003 - 13:29 UTC
  • Accuracy is a joke to Yanniru? It's all a joke? - whomi - June 10, 2003 - 15:58 UTC