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
The Reason For New Observables

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 18, 2003 14:45:15 UTC

i've not seen any indication in Dr. Dick's paper that he has implied that his work must be true simply because he has used mathematics in the creation of it. more so he points out that for the attack he is making on reality it is perhaps the best tool to use.

In Dick's paper I haven't seen this conclusion. He makes these kind of statements all the time in his correspondence with others. The point, though, is that if he approaches this subject with his equations being a tool to describe nature, then the burden is on him to show that he can predict phenomena that couldn't otherwise be accomplished.

your assertion that Dr. Dick assumes that because he has used mathematics as his basis and he has matched the laws of physics that somehow he has escaped the requirements to produce new observables seems odd to me. if he has truly matched the laws of physics which have already produced observables why should Dick's work be expected to produce new observables?

Tim, this is science 101. If you pose a hypothesis, then you must generate new observables that distinguish your model from hundreds of others. There are dozens of scientific models that also claim to explain the same scientific laws that Dick also claims. There's even 4 or 5 string theories that make this claim, not too mention quantum loop gravity and other models. These other models even go further by making new predictions (yet untestable). So, it just doesn't make sense for Dick to ask that we believe him because his model matches previous results. Much of what he does, as I understand from Richard, is taking advantage of Noether's theorem. Therefore, you have to ask if Dick's model works because he has produced something new, or is it because he has subtly introduced symmetries that are already known to produce the results he is saying. In any case, neither you or I are qualified to make these accessments, and the only thing we can access is science 101 which states that models require predictions to be verified. Dick has not provided a verified prediction. In fact, according to Bruce, the only prediction that Dick made happened to be wrong. So, on all accounts, there's nothing to pay much attention to his paper. If you want to read the real McCoy, then I suggest studying Noether's theorem.

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