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
I Am Getting Tired Of This!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on May 1, 2001 21:31:15 UTC

Marv,

You remind me of Alex. You have exactly the same problems reaching Alex that I have reaching you. Alex believes that his ideas are reality and simply cannot conceive of how you can question what he says. You believe your mental model of reality is reality and cannot seem to comprehend that it is a model generated by your subconscious.

I asked you to read my comment to Richard at the top of the page. From your comments either you had no comprehension of what I was saying or you did not read the post. You continue to refer to what I have done as a theory which it is not. I have deduced an abstract procedure for creating general model independent of what is being modeled. This is an analytical representation of the procedure indulged in by every scientist throughout history; however, where no one else has even pondered the possibility of laying down a defined procedure, I have actually succeeded in doing so.

>>>It can't be just that general relativity is wrong, you should be able to show how it is wrong.>(i.e., contrary to what GR predicts)>I have no problem saying that self-consistency is a requirement for rational thought. However, it is not the only criteria (correspondence is certainly necessary). In addition, no theory is entirely self-consistent with other theories (e.g., GR and QM), but that doesn't make either theory wrong. Sometimes we need bridge theories which can tie together loose ends. This is what GR and QM require (which is supposedly going to be a much more fundamental theory of nature).It should be able to do it in a machine-language way such that higher language commands can be translated into machine-language.> I don't think such a model exists since it should be able to reduce complex phenomena down to the most reduceable definitions (e.g., strings).> This is what postivists tried to do and failed miserably. Perhaps you can explain why you can succeed where Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, A.J. Ayer, et al. failed.

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