vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>>>I HAVE DONE SOME OF THE MODELS MYSELF ON THE COMPUTER!  
>
>>With all due respect, I don't think you have the mental capacity to
>>even understand how the NASA computer models are done...
>
>With all due respect, the method of science indicates one should
>observe and test.  And I don't need to take their complicated models
>blindly.  You are already blindly assuming that what they say is
>beyond my mental capacity!  So how do you know they are right???

I'm not blindly assuming that it's beyond your mental capacity, it's
what scientists would call an educated guess: since you displayed
ignorance about the basics of physics and mathematics, it is not very
likely that you would be able to understand the most advanced works in
computer modeling of the orbital mechanics.

>>but now it's pure SF for me. The thing is damn accurate, practically
>>flawless. If a comet hits Jupiter, they can tell you how this will
>>affect the orbits of every known object in the solar system...
>
>As I said before, if phenomena A occurs and you assume explanation B
>and then conclude, if B then A, it follows that B is still a
>hypothesis.  Right???  That is, I can say if C then A and it's quite
>possible that C is a better explanation if it takes into account more
>phenomena more so than what some scientists have observed.  You have
>not proven B by explaining some observation A!  There can be unlimited
>explanations of A.

It's a standard deduction vs. induction argument, and induction
already won so it's actually nothing to discuss; induction goes from
the reality and forms conclusions made from observation, and deduction
goes from fixed premises and attempts to apply them to an individual
case. So deductive method deduces particular from common, while
induction observes the particular and derives common rules from that.
Since induction is based on reality, and deduction is based on the
mind, deduction remains a sterile mental speculation, while induction
can give us a clearer image of God's work.

>>That is not completely true, it was true before Einstein and those
>>after him, but it's not true now. Today's physics and mathematics are
>>much more flexible and dependent on the circumstances.
>
>But it's impossible for them to take all circumstances into account by
>means of observations because they have no time or capacity to
>consider all possible circumstances of the universe.

So what? That would be a problem if there was a better method around,
but there is not.

>>the constant, and lots of other factors; I can't calculate it, but
>>there are people who can...
>
>See but this is not the scientific method.  

I already explained what _is_ the scientific method, I don't intend to
repeat.

>We say you go to a person
>WHO HAS SEEN THE TRUTH.  

And that is supposed to be the scientific method?

>And for one who has met such people, this is
>no myth.  As far as your procedure goes, unless I can observe for
>myself, why should I blindly accept that someone else can calculate
>it?

Why should you blindly accept that someone knows the truth?

>>but it is even more true for you when you read Srimad Bhagavatam.
>>First, how do you know who wrote it and why? You don't know. How do
>>you know that it isn't just a sophisticated lie...
>
>Certainly, you can say this about anything equally well.  

My point exactly.

>the Bhagavatam to be truth which initially seemed hard to believe.  I
>can explain all of the phenomena in the universe just using the
>principles of the Bhagavatam.  

:))))))))

>>tunneling microscopes that can see and move individual atoms (and
>>write "IBM" with them), radars and computers. It's all still
>
>First of all, both sides have things that are observable and things
>that seem far out.  We offer a method of verification, but you don't.

And your method of verification is...?
How do you verify that what is written in SB, actually happened? How
do you prove that Pariksit really existed?

>>of mass. The theory is just wonderful, it is simple, very universal
>>and poetically balanced, and that's why the scientists love it...
>
>Sorry, poetry doesn't have to correspond to reality.  How do you know
>Einstein's theory is reality?

It is not the reality. It just tries to explain what happens in some
cases, and it does it better than any alternative theory.

>>Einstein's theory is proven hundreds of times every day in the
>>accelerators around the world; his concept of the energy turning to
>>mass is the basic foundation of those experiments; his anticipation of
>>the relativistic time shift was also proven experimentally. 
>
>You keep speaking of someone else having done the experiments, but
>that does not prove the model!  All the genuine gurus have also
>realized God and how His creation works by following the method of
>Bhakti.  You quote your authority, I will quote mine.  

Science does not consist of quoting the authorities, that was done in
the dark ages and abandoned, since it resulted in total collapse.
Scriptures do not give the ultimate reality, the ultimate reality
gives the scriptures; the reality is always bigger than Srimad
Bhagavatam or any other scripture, because there is always more and
better where that came from. The scientific method is about exploring
that ultimate reality, understanding it as far wider than any piece of
literature. Those pieces of literature can help, they can inform and
guide, and that is their purpose. They are meant to help people
experience the spiritual realms. Honor them as such.

>>No, actually those theories are both correct but they aren't
>>interested in the same aspects of the reality, Newton's theory can be
>>seen as a special case of Einstein's theory applied to the isotropic
>>timespace.
>
>Wrong!  If Newton cannot explain particles at high speed, it means it
>is imperfect WHICH they thought was good for all particles when he
>first came up with it.

As I said, "Newton's theory can be seen as a special case of
Einstein's theory applied to the isotropic timespace", and you would
understand the implications if you had any scientific education,
because it's the 1st year of college stuff.

>>Of course, that's how it works. We have something less perfect and
>>then we improve it, or reject it for an entirely different approach.
>>It's the learning curve, we don't claim to know all the answers, we're
>>trying to figure them out gradually.
>
>Okay, you don't know.  But how do you know that the Bhagavatam is not
>the Absolute Truth?  Unless you follow the process/experiment, you can
>never deride it.

That is completely non sequitur - what the hell are you talking about?
What absolute truth? We were talking about astronomy, what absolute
truth? I already told you that you should differentiate between
science and spirituality - in spirituality Srimad Bhagavatam is
probably the highest scripture ever written; in science, it is
completely worthless. That's what I'm saying. It's a holy scripture,
not a scientific text. 

>>rejected. It can thus be said that everything that can be
>>experimentally proven is based on reality.
>
>But you don't know what ACTUALLY has been experimentally proven.  You

I can experimentally prove that a brick is hard. I can't
experimentally prove something that is beyond my intellectual
potential, like the information that Sun's spectrum is G2. I can only
take someone's word for it because I'm stupid and I can't read the
spectral analysis. 

>are taking their word for it.  Bhagavatam is also saying that many
>great sages and saints have REALIZED this knowledge as FACT.  You just
>have BLIND FAITH in your authorities.  

:)) 

>It's also possible that some
>experiments are just false (like cold fusion) and they may not know
>about them.  But we are actually following a process that is gradually
>revealing the Absolute Truth.

You are following something that you think will bring you somewhere,
but it doesn't, and instead you are getting screwed. There's nothing
that resembles the Absolute Truth in you; you are the exact opposite
of the real spirituality. The real spirituality is not inferior to the
common sense, it is superior. The real spirituality does not oppose
the science, because science is based on the reality and explores it;
instead, it acknowledges it and expands it with new horizons and
previously unknown views. The real spirituality does not attempt to
limit the reality to fit into some scripture; instead it understands
the reality in its vastness and expands the views of the soul beyond
the limits of the previously known, and sees the scriptures as the
guides on the path to the goal. The path and the goal are enormous,
and all the milestones and signposts are precious, but they do not
limit the path and they do not limit the goal, they just show the
direction.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net