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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
This Whole Stafford Misconception Of Proof

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 26, 2003 14:19:46 UTC

Dick: Science is not a proof, my paper is a proof

Harv: Science is not intended to be a proof - it provides models that satisfy our observations. No other proof is possible.

Dick: How do you know a proof is not possible unless you look at my mathematics

Harv: Mathematics does not prove anything about the external world, it is a game played with certain rules

Dick: You are saying that mathematics is not about the external world? That's ridiculous.

Harv: No. In order to show that mathematics is proof of the external world, you would have to account for all the mathematical theories that have been wrong, which far out number the mathematical theories that have been right.

Dick: Not my model. It is an exception. I have derived the laws of physics from my model based on no external assumptions. No other mathematical model can make this claim.

Harv: Frieden makes this same claim. However, you cannot make any new predictions. Plus, you are missing QED, QCD, and it does not completely jive with general relativity.

Dick: I don't have to make any new predictions since I have derived a substantial amount of physics. Plus, if some new whipper snapper physicist were to look at my paper, they could derive all of this other stuff. If they couldn't, then these other theories are wrong. GR is wrong you know because I had different results than Einstein (who made high school mistakes in math, and only I'm smart enough on Earth to see this).

Harv: You do have to make new predictions since many models already derive physics from first principles.

Dick: This is not true!!!

Harv: Besides the fringe physics, string theories already derive far more of existing physics than your model, and in addition they try to predict and solve currently unsolvable models. You need predictions.

Dick: I am obviously talking above your head (as well as Einstein's head). If only Richard Feynman hadn't died before he promised to look at my paper, then I would be vindicated, then I wouldn't be talking to you scrubs. I would be glorified by all the great physicists of the world. I would be bigger than Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. In fact, if you understand my paper, you know G.O.D. (although I'm an atheist what I mean is that you would know the limitations of science and knowledge).

Harv: Show me a prediction.

Dick: I'm tired of your cavils. Prove to me that my math is wrong, otherwise you must accept my conclusions.

Harv: Show me a prediction.

Dick: I won't cast my pearls before swine. Have fun Harv, that's the only meaning in life that has any relevancy anyway.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
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