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
Ok Then, Lets Expand The Number Of Angels.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on May 2, 2001 13:38:50 UTC


I think you miss the point. In order for your procedure to disturb my arguments, every angel, not just one, would have to totally avoid such transformations. If you require that, you are in essence defining an acceptable transformation, thus violating my conditions that the transformation is totally undefined.

Let us shift the picture a bit, instead of 10,000 angels, god uses enough angels such that every possible coding is represented. I must come up with a procedure which yields exactly the same result no matter what encoding is happens to be used.

Is this a little clearer?


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