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
Something New? Nah...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 22, 2003 00:45:31 UTC

Tim,

i feel that if i understand something then i'm qualified to assess it. i'm not asking 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. that may be an interesting question but the significance of it is trivial if you understand the idea put forth by Dr. Dick that: "At issue is the fact that any explanation of anything is essentially a made up story which fits the facts. It is the assumption of the scientific world that there exists but one such story, which they are sincerely endeavoring to uncover. Knowing what I have discovered (the essence of which is put forth in this opus) I am of the opinion that their position is actually quite obtuse and simple minded: I am myself fairly sure that the actual number of possible explanations (each of which entirely fit the all the facts) is probably infinite."

What you understand is a case where someone is developing a symmetry based on 'knowable data' and 'unknowable data', but not define these two states (in fact, if he were to really define those terms, he would need to rely on scientific descriptions of knowable and unknowable, in which case his thesis depends on scientific knowledge. Rather than admit this fraility, he simply hopes that a naive reader is simple-minded enough to just assume that there is something inherently rational about the two divisions. B. Roy Frieden creates the symmetrical situation by relying on the perspective of a physical measurement, and Noether (who all of these folks aren't even giving much credit) just recognizes the symmetry as a given(and not in whose head the symmetry is being considered).

Harvey: In Dick's paper I haven't seen this conclusion. Tim: from Dr. Dick's paper i quote:
"I will make much use of Mathematics without defense or argument. In essence, it is quite clear that mathematicians are very concerned with the exactness of their definitions and the self consistency of their mental structures. I suspect mathematics could probably be defined to be the study of self consistent systems. At any rate, their concerns are exactly those which drive my work; I am merely attacking a slightly different problem. I hold that the reason mathematics is so important to science is that we are attempting to map the real universe (which is assumed to be self consistent) into a mathematical system (which is self consistent by construction). In accordance with this view, I will hold that the fundamental mathematical relations require no defense by me. I will leave that defense to others far more qualified than myself."


Reread my response.

finally Harv, i must say with respect to your statement, "Dick has not provided a verified prediction. In fact, according to Bruce, the only prediction that Dick made happened to be wrong." that Dr. Dick has not claimed to to present a new theory. so why expect him to make new verified predictions.

Because, Tim, in a world where every .5 seconds someone is somewhere posting a 'model of reality', the only way we have to know if that model has any merit is by the predictions and their ability to cohere with existing confirmations. If all anyone has to do is cohere their results with 40% of existing physics (or even 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 100% of existing physics), then we would literally have thousands of models with equal claim to truth. The only empirically acceptable and final test for any theory is in their predictions. There's no room for Aristotles anymore. If you and a few people want to ride that train, that's fine, but this way is in error and the mass population of scientists will rightfully reject this path. It is given a voice on a small and obscure website and the only ones who must be tormented with the lunacy are the ones who continually respond to the errors (namely me, Bruce, and Richard). Richard, I think, actually gives Dick too much credit. Dick's approach is simply invalid, and he can only sell his views on certain naive laypeople who eat this kind of garbage up.

he has created a mental model in his paper true. your assertion that he must follow science 101 and make a prediction calls to mind your previous insistance that math must be used in a certain way and that ontology and epistemology mustn't be jumbled together in certain ways and heaven forbid any metaphysics be introduced. Harv it is as if you say you must color the coloring book with in the lines, you must think inside the box.

I'm talking about how to avoid errors, Tim. If all you want is freedom of expression, then please go right ahead and believe whatever any wants to tell you. These aren't rules, they are recommendations (by me) on how to avoid errors on how one thinks about math and how one thinks about models of reality. Of course a quack doesn't want any restrictions, that's why they are quacks.

but Harv that is not how things are created now is it, coloring with in the lines, thinking inside the box or even following the rules of science 101. if we are going to make something really new, then well simply put it is going to be something new and it wont look or act like anything you've seen before. essentially that is what Dr. Dick has offered, something new.

It's not new. This path of reproducing the knowledge of previous brilliant people is as old as Egypt. What Dick has done is copy what has already been produced and stopped with an arrogance that only he can feel comfortable with. Look, if the guy was really of any credibility whatsoever, he would have spent the last 3 years I've known him furthering his work into solving a theory of quantum gravity rather than waste it trying to convince skeptics. You don't convince skeptics by arguing with them. You convince skeptics by making predictions that the only way you could have made those predictions is if you have discovered some fundamental formula. Let me ask you, if Dick's work is in anyway fundamental, then why doesn't it produce results that are also fundamental? If he were really onto something, then he should have produced extremely fundamental physics and be able to show how that fundamental physics complexifies into the equations of physics that we are familiar. With that fundamental basis, he could determine predictions of things like dark energy that only his model would have known. About 5 years ago scientists discovered that the universe is accelerating in its expansion. Where was Dick prior to this point? Why wasn't he able to say in 1968 that the universe is accelerating in its expansion? I'll tell you where he was. He was completely unaware of the universe's acceleration. BUT, had he known that the universe is accelerating, you can bet your bottom dollar that Chapter 1 of his paper would be talking about a prediction of the universe as accelerating. This is why nobody in physics wastes anytime with this guy. He won't even read Frieden who has taken a similar approach. This just tells you how egotistic the man is. He has no interest in any similar efforts. That is just completely unbelievable. I would have ordered the books as soon as I found out about him. Dick's approach is to ignore it and pretend ignorance. Simply unbelievable.

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 1994-2024 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