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
A Mathematical Theorem!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on September 18, 2003 03:27:10 UTC

Paul,

The explanation of the behavior of any collection of things must consist of two very different categories of concepts. First, one must define all the things whose behavior is to be explained. Second, one must provide the rules which yield the behavior to be explained.

The common scientific procedure exercised to explain any phenomena is to dream up something which can serve as the cause of the unexplained phenomena and then deduce the consequences of the dreamed up thing existing. If all of the phenomena required by its existence are found to be consistent with what is observed, the dreamed up item is deemed to exist! (i.e., if the entire collection obeys the rules the scientist believes are correct then he says that all the items are real.)

Example: electrons, mesons, neutrons, neutrinos even dark matter.

In addition to dreaming up things which are to exist, the scientific procedure also allows the scientific community to change the rules the things which exist are required to obey so long as the result of the new rules is exactly what is observed (or at least somewhat close, as they may end up dreaming up additional things at the same time).

Example: introduction of gravitational forces, electro-magnetic forces, the weak force, nuclear forces or even "dark energy" or Einstein's curved space time geometry.

You have long held that I have proved an important theorem. I have always held that I have nothing to present but common logic; however, if there is an important theorem here it is as follows:

***************************

If, *******
in order to explain the behavior of the defined things,******
one is given the freedom to add any thing to that list of things whose behavior is to be explained,*****
under the constraint that the behavior of the entire collection must obey all the rules which yield the behavior to be explained,*****

then anything can be explained through the rule F=0 as defined in Chapter 1 of my paper.

****************************

That is, I have proved that one may trade rules for items to be explained. My F=0 is perhaps the simplest rule conceivable.

When I examine the behavior of a collection of things obeying F=0, I find that the individual items in the collection must obey common modern physics for the most part (there are a number of subtle differences, but they are all outside the accuracy of current physics experiments.) In view of the theorem stated above, one can conclude that modern physics has no more to offer than astrology. (There I have upset the authorities again!)

Does anybody out there understand what I just said?

Have fun -- Dick

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 1994-2020 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