Transformation Dependence - 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

Transformation Dependence

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 3, 2001 11:30:37 UTC

you could not depend on my angel not using the non-addition rule because you do not apriori know what my angel is doing.

my angel is of course defining a transformation. that is what she is supposed to do. it is you who cannot define a transformation. my contention is that your use oc the addition and multiplication rule does exactly that, it defines a transformation, which is equivalent to assuming a symmetry, or two, the same that is used in most physics, and so you end up with the same equations as most physics. I would be surprised if you ended up with something different.

Follow Ups:

Consequences! - doctordick - May 4, 2001 - 00:30 UTC
- The crux of our difference of opinion - yanniru - May 7, 2001 - 22:57 UTC
  - Entanglement - aurino - May 8, 2001 - 13:22 UTC
    - Please explain - yanniru - May 9, 2001 - 11:41 UTC
      - Sorry, can't explain - aurino - May 9, 2001 - 12:56 UTC
        
        Wouldn't you have a luminal boom - paulm - May 9, 2001 - 17:29 UTC

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