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
Get Well Soon!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on May 4, 2001 02:29:50 UTC


Either I am getting delusional, or all my struggling to understand your discovery is starting to pay off, or you have recently become a lot better at writing. What you wrote above to Harv (spelled with an 'H' incidentally) turned on a lot of light bulbs in my head. One paragraph in particular seemed to clear everything up for me, and it seems to me that it should also clear things up for Harv, Richard, and Alex. I think it is brilliant:

>>> I take the position that I know absolutely nothing and am separated from "reality" by something I do not understand. I hate to keep harping on the issue of a totally undefined data set transformed by a totally undefined transformation but that is the very central issue of my presentation. This is a state of no knowledge at all -- twice removed! What I stumbled across is the fact that the ignorance itself requires that any rational analysis must allow for the fact that any and all symmetries can be generated by the "undefined" transformation. (Notice that I say can and not must - that is an important factor Richard can't seem to pick up on) One absolutely cannot prove that they exist in the original data, therefore any rational analysis must hold them as bogus. Furthermore, you can not prove such a transformation does not exist thus you must admit the possibility (magicians take advantage of such errors in your awareness all the time so you cannot deny them)!

To get to what is possible to know (which is very possibly nothing), we must first eliminate these bogus results. What I find astounding is that the "bogus" results turn out to be --Physics--.

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 1994-2023 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