Your Transformation Is Defined - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

God & Science Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


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

Your Transformation Is Defined

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on April 27, 2001 15:19:32 UTC

As soon as you use the shift symmetry and rotational symmetry, you are putting definition into your data. Why do you refuse to talk about thaT. or, why did you find it necessary to use these transformations, I think of them as assumptions, in your development. Can you make the same development without using shift symmetry or rotational symmetry? If not, then you have put definition into your data.

Regards,

Richard

Follow Ups:

Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
- Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
  - Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
    - Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
  - A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2025 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