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
HI EVERYBODY!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on September 27, 2003 11:41:03 UTC

HI! HELLO! ANYONE WANT TO TALK?

In defence of innocence:

PAUL: you once rated me alongside physics lecturer Alexander as able to understand Dr. Stafford's work (I didn't reply at the time because I saw your comment some time after it appeared).

Also: When I showed you how the patterns of quantum electrodynamics were already evident very early on in Dr. Dick'; paper; you conceded I made a good case.

Please may I draw your attention to recent material I posted where I map a lot of physics; just some of what I have done. Interested in your reaction.

Note: when Dr. Dick kindly explained his system of "adding unknown data" in great detail once; I exposed a serious error (involving a complimentary aspect) that he apparently overlooked.

I have apparently solved the relationship between maths and physics.

On helicity and the weak force: if it were not that I exposed the solution as optional; I might win the Noble Prize based on Physicist Vincent Icke's comment in his book!

But don't worry about prizes; advanced theoretical physics is child's play!

I have demonstrated that the laws of physics appear to be optional.

This is consistent with my awareness of the reality of what humans are; from my recall of when I was a newborn baby.

This is consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ ("nothing will be impossible to you; if you had faith as a grain of mustard seed; you could say "move" to this mountain; and it would move".

A mathematician who looked at Dr. Dick's paper agreed with me that you could do it without math; it is about "intersecting categories", about definition.

To "Just Dropping By": seek and you shall find. You assume too much? My arguments may well withstand proper investigation. You and Harv both seem to be blinded by the assumption that advanced theoretical physics is terribly important and complicated. Idea: do not limit yourself!

It is easy.

Regards,

Alan

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