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
Richard, Re: I Look At Your Assumptions

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on July 19, 2001 17:09:54 UTC

The other thread is beginning to get a little long!

Richard,

I would love to know who (of those who understand math) you think has read it. They have maybe looked at it, but no one who understands math and/or logic has ever read it carefully!

I tried to explain to you why the symmetry was required by the problem but apparently the issue never penetrated your mental block. Of course, then again, it could be that someone else is posting under your name. I have no way of knowing who actually constructed that "demonstration" as to how the symmetry could be avoided. If it was not you, please go read the thread and comment.

>>>Mathematics without postulates is uncomputable. And your work is definitely computable

2. Has been transformed by a totally undefined process.

Now totally undefined "means", Dr Richard,
that any logical analysis must require
inclusion of the possibility that any
symmetry which is conceivable could have
been generated by that undefined process;
if you disallow any particular symmetry of
any kind at all, you are constraining the
process. It follows that your supposed
process is no longer "totally undefined".

And,

3. The total amount of data available to your analysis is finite!

Then,

4. There exists is a way of looking at that resultant data and its implied rules (a mental model so to speak) which can be "absolutely guaranteed" to obey a very specific equation!

When I first discovered that fact, it seemed to me to be significant but I found no one who had even the slightest interest. Chapter 1 contains the entire proof of that statement! The equation which must be obeyed is given as equation 1.27. I discovered that "fact" over 30 years ago; however, at the time, I was unable to solve the equation.

In 1982, I finally saw a way to approximate solutions to the equation. What I discovered as I proceeded to unravel those solutions (and define a few more concepts) was that almost all of modern physics had to be true: i.e., there exists no communicable chunk of information (that is, no communicable concept of reality) which my subconscious (the, to me, undefined transformer) cannot model such as to make 90% (if not all) of physics true by definition..

As I said at the end of Chapter 2, "Even if you do not believe my model represents anthropomorphic reality, I have still shown that it is possible that classical mechanics is true by definition as my definitions have led to that result. If you consider your definitions to be sufficiently different from mine that they do not predefine the results of your experiments, I suggest that you need to prove your case."

One of the problems is that people simply refuse to use my definitions as not representing what they are thinking. That position hardly sets them up to logically analyze the validity of my deductions. They keep trying to force my picture into theirs (as they "know" they are correct). It is equivalent to using arguments based on the logic of phlogiston to defeat the opening position of thermodynamics. Or like trying to make Newton's equations produce the old wheel picture of the heavens. (You do know don't you, that some of Newton's deductions differed from accepted results at the time.)

My results also differ slightly from the conventional. In particular, look at equations 3.29 and 3.32. As I comment there: "Again, except for the term in square brackets, the result is exactly the same result Schwarzschild obtains by setting his invariant interval to zero and resolving the problem. Here also, the term in square brackets can be seen as an energy adjustment related to that part of the photons energy which can be seen as due to it's radial motion. Clearly the deflection of star light by the sun does not test the existence of this term as the radial motion of the photon is only comparable to the angular motion for large r." Which was not the region tested by the classical experiment!

Right there, is a test of the correctness of Einstein's general relativity which has not been performed. If someone thinks they can do it accurately enough to see that the term does not exist, they should do it. But it has no bearing on my deduction at all! If you cannot comprehend that comment, you do not understand what I have done.

Does any of that make any sense to you at all?

With good intentions --- Dick

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 1994-2020 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