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
Interesting Post

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on July 23, 2001 11:26:35 UTC

I like this part the best.

"To fail to use any specific symmetry is to imply that that the undefined transformation cannot perform that symmetry!"

By using the symmetry ahead of time, it amounts to an assumption. To do what you claim the symmetries should fall out of the undefined transformation. You are building in the solutions by the apriori assumption of symmetry.

I got hung up when you assumed very specific symmetries in the first few pages of your work before you developed any equations contrasted with your claim that you were not making any assumptions. But now that you admit to using symmetries, even all possible symmetries, perhaps I can view your work in a different light.

So the next question in my mind is how does your equation account for nature's propensity to change symmetires midstream. For example how does it treat spontaneous symmetry breaking. Or on the other end of things, how does it account for the expected perfect symmetry of the unified field, and if it does so, do you claim to have found the theory of everything.

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