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
Once? A Baby . . . Did You Find The "mother Goose" Code?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Not On Your Life on June 26, 2003 04:54:57 UTC

Hi
Apologies to the Bible Code (for it does not impress me overly, though not underly either)

Alan writes several points with which I have empathy... where I diverge might be more use than accolades I might shower, esp. considering the value they'd bring you in trade.

All these authors were babies.
Do babies covet recognition for ideas?
Alan, you have rarely given an intelligible content-saturated reply to anything I've written about subjects other than a certain matter of civil rights you and I discussed.


Back to the universe...
In our time, we talk the talk of current writers. In 1,000 years, how many of these ideas will be current? Is it not strange that
in physics, some persons in Japan made such enormous progress in one century after Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Harbor in 1853 -- progress that was probably stimulated by contact with the West -- while there are many Japanese-Americans living in the United States who know very little about physics even today? The point is that knowledge of true physics is neither universal nor channeled like electricity. Sure, it is found in universities,
engineering firms, and places like this forum. But a means of evaluating the lasting value of an idea in physics, beyond the measurement of the very next " nut or bolt " --in the sequence holding together the universe-- seems to be mysterious. Furthermore, it is not for Alan, or Roger Penrose, or Richard Feynman, or Richard Stafford, or Stephen Hawking to say without excellent explanation, why a proposed is right or wrong, or worth discussing. But by
ignoring ideas I've posted, you have made such a statement. It seems like name-dropping to list books I've read, considering I cannot claim any of those folks would ever discuss my ideas.
"Let us now praise famous men" or published writers, for it is famous persons, as Harv has indirectly explained, who know who's who and what's what. On a forum, it seems very odd to
talk about those who are not present rather than
addressing, at least substantially if not comprehensively, the issues actually raised by persons on the forum. In retrospect, it appears that if one did not read it somewhere, one cannot regurgitate it on the forum! But I know you are correct that babies know something.

Alan, we have not even estimated (for algebraic use) the range of values a baby's insight might represent in a mapping of the total universe.
Do you know what I mean by that?

Comments?
Mike

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