[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Science
> Subject: Re: [APD] Science
> Some things are not subject to revision.
New scientific theories are replacing older obsolete theories all the time.
I would imagine computer processing power is giving us the ability to do
this. At the very least we are able to refine or better understand the
precise workings of prior theories.
I have a very difficult time
> understanding why people have a hard time with this. There are some
> things that just are, and they aren't going to change. I suppose it
> ruins possibilities for some, I don't know. Gravity, for instance, is
> precisely predictable in all situations that will be encountered by a
> human. It's never going to change.
Never say never. The effects of gravity are clear but exactly where gravity
originates from is still a contentious issue. Einstein's general relativity
theory makes no mention of a graviton. GR is a classical, not a quantum
theory. In fact there is no evidence that gravitons actually exist, just an
expectation on general theoretical principles that there is a field boson
associated with gravity just as there is with the weak, strong, and EM
interaction. There is no working quantum theory of gravity yet! The fact
that Newtons Laws only govern Macro and not the Micro gives me strong reason
to believe that something is fundamentally wrong here, I'm sure with
*revision* and many years of experimenting the *truth* will be revealed.
> If people are going to put forth theories with no hard data or
> observations to back them up, and those theories contradict what is
> currently known about the Universe, they should be subject to the
> appropriate negative attention and summarily dismissed. Such is the
> crucible of empirical knowledge, and rightly so.
Of course in the scientific communities 'Peer reviewed' work is a must or
we'll never get anywhere. The theories have to be duplicated by fellow
colleagues with the exact same results. Having said that, Stephen Hawkings
String Theory gives us the closest we have yet to combining the Macro and
Micro worlds at this stage, but at this stage its just the 'answer' it
gives, we apparently are not smart enough yet to be able to do the
mathematical calculations on how the 'answer' was derived. Kind of Like Tom
who has given you the answer but with no 'tween'. You sound smart enough to
be able to figure this out on your own. (My karma tells me I need to
compliment you now in order to balance out the Doc Martin scenario *blush*)
> That's where you are mistaken. Some things are final. It is true that we
> do not know what discoveries will be made in the future, but we do know
> some of what won't be discovered.
See above, IMHO nothing is final, are you saying that there is nothing left
to be discovered or revised or re-invented?
> That has been my point all along. I have repeatedly and exasperatingly
> made numerous requests for more details about his experiments and he
> refuses to divulge them. There is no way to analyze observations that
> are kept secret.
But you certainly have not asked in a pleasant way at all. You were
downright rude and *your* knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing is what left
a bad taste in my mouth. I've been here for a number of years now and Tom as
well as others on this list have been a great inspiration to me, his methods
certainly do work and he's not shy to repeat himself time and again until
'it sinks in'. All you have done is shun the new findings and attack them.
Hence my wanting to insert certain items into certain persons ass. Bad
taste, apologies to you and the list members.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com