THE END OF SCIENCE?
Pentcho Valev
"Are we witnessing the end of science?.....Progress in science needs
researchers who are not afraid – or who are encouraged and rewarded –
to ask awkward and difficult questions of theory and of new data. It
is easier to question mainstream views if you are independently
wealthy, as many scientists in previous ages tended to be. But I
wonder how many of us would do so if we were employed by the state and
our career progression depended on the validation of our peers?"
Two scientists "employed by the state" who "question mainstream
views":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes: The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
In the era of Postscientism questioning mainstream views is useless
because nobody cares about questioning mainstream views. In other
words, the death of science is IRREVERSIBLE:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090316/deresiewicz?rel=hp_picks
"The most striking thing about the way we talk about science these
days is just how little we talk about it at all. No large fundamental
question focuses our attention on the adventure of discovery; no grand
public project stirs our reflection on the perils of technological
control. Nothing for decades has approached the imaginative impact of
relativity or the double helix, the moon landing or the bomb."
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
Lee Smolin: "Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last
time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental
physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model
of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was
proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a
theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was
proposed in 1981....A growing number of theoretical physicists, myself
among them, see the present situation as a crisis that requires us to
reexamine the assumptions behind our so-far unsuccessful theories. I
should emphasize that this crisis involves only fundamental physics
that part of physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead
of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a
dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school.
The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15
years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next
few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a
lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state
schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home
of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-
class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and
electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing
extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so
who cares if we disappear?"
http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
"La science souffre dune forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme
au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa
réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave."
http://dogma.free.fr/txt/EK-ScienceQuiestion.htm
"Par ailleurs, on remarque quaujourdhui, les thèses « relativistes »,
par exemple celle de Paul Féyerabend, ont un impact très fort,
notamment dans les milieux étudiants. Même si leur diffusion
saccompagne de contresens et de malentendus, elles servent de socle à
des critiques de plus en plus vives adressées aux professionnels de la
recherche : Votre science dit-elle réellement le vrai ? Comment osez-
vous prétendre quelle se réfère à la rationalité alors que les
jugements esthétiques, les préjugés métaphysiques et autres désirs
subjectifs imprégnent sinon sa démarche tout entière, du moins
certaines de ses phases ? Votre légitimité incontestée est-elle fondée
sur autre chose que des effets de pouvoir ?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/27/science-easier-exams
"Pupils of today struggle with science questions of the 60s. Evidence
shows standards are slipping as comparison is made of exam papers
through the decades. There has been a "catastrophic slippage" in
standards of science taught in schools, leaving children with a
superficial understanding of chemistry, biology and physics, according
to the Royal Society of Chemistry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/22/highereducation.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method
is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes
all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew
"belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture
of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all,
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
62541183-a510-430b...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
> On Jun 27, 10:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> regurgitated:
[snip stomach content]
>> Pentcho Valev
>
> An excellent message, Pentcho!
How would a pre-kindergarten imbecile like you be
able to spot excellence?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FourGroup.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ISnoAcceleration.html
> Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
> Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists -
Metaphysics is the introspective study of imbeciles.
I told you, try to work your way through kindergarten first.
Pentcho managed. I'm sure you will too.
Dirk Vdm
glird
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/22/end-science-unifie...
majority of our youth, the educational
system magically causes this capacity
to disappear by adolescence.....Do I
think there is any hope for UK? I am
really not sure." >
>
> Pentcho Valev
An excellent message, Pentcho!
Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists -
will regain its position above physics (the study of how much
who-knows-what-"this"-is
occurs when "that" happens) in the minds of men, thus in the school
curriculum too. Then the students will regain their curiosity as to
what
"this" and "that" *physically* ARE.
As of now, the "theories" of present physics are almost purely
mathematical constructions treating the relations between measured
quantities of various undefined things such as mass, force, energy,
etc. "Relation", however, is only one of the six things of which the
universe is made. The others are matter, motion, pressure,
organization and awareness, none of which are made of each other or
(except for pressure and motion) convertible into each other or
anything else.
Because the "things" so quantified are undefined or misunderstood,
and because the unit of measure of "mass" (a quantity of matter) and
"force" (a quantity of net pressure) are identical,
many of the present sacrosanct theories of physics are totally false.
Because the teachers and professors in our schools BELIEVE those
theories, however, and ridicule those who question the validity of
some of the many IRRATIONAL premises beneath them, such as the present
absurdity that "empty" space has properties that are responsible for
gravity and light and energy etc; intelligent youngsters stop asking
their questions and soon lose interest in physics.
A word of advice to such youngsters:
IGNORE your teachers (who believe *their* teachers who believed
ditto^3) and study the subjects by reading the landmark papers
yourself and trying to figure out what their data could mean if - as
now - the conclusions of the authors are defective.
glird
glird
wrote:
> glird wrote:
>
> <An excellent message, Pentcho!
Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists
- >
>
> Metaphysics is the introspective study of >imbeciles.
>
The rest of this message is copied from W2 ("What it all is and Why")
by G Lebau.
Present physics thinks that "probability" is a component of the
quantum, and, to a large degree, a physical component of "the way God
made the world". They argue whether, due to probability and
indeterminacy, God plays dice at the sub-atomic level. They suggest
that indeterminacy {their inability to measure ("determine") both the
position and velocity of a given electron simultaneously} is also a
physical component of reality. They even provide the equations with
which, according to them, this "10% indeterminacy" enters into atomic
level phenomena.
The equations {"laws"} about interacting masses were initially based
on the actions of particulate things. Such laws do not apply to
photons or to raw, unstructured matter. The quantum equations,
tailored to ever closer approximations to experimental data, do
closely fit, but the words and concepts for some of the symbols in the
equations don't apply either. The underlying metaphysical concepts,
not the equations, are incorrect.
"The World of the Atom" commentary concerning Schrodinger says on page
1064,
"We may illustrate an eigenvalue problem in a simple way by
considering a violin string. The vibrations of such a string can be
described by a 'differential equation' that contains a constant, which
can be chosen at will. However, it turns out that only those
vibrations of the string are actually observed (that is, are possible)
for which this constant is an integer. These integers are called the
eigenvalues of the problem. Thus, although the string is continuous,
its vibrations are governed by integers." [My emphasis.]
After discussing the development of the wave versus particle aspects
of light in his 1929 Nobel Prize Address, de Broglie said in "The
Undulatory Aspects of the Electron" [pg 1050]:
"Thus we see once again it had become necessary to assume two
contradictory theories of Light, in terms of waves, and of corpuscles,
respectively; while it was impossible to understand why, among the
infinite number of paths which an electron ought to be able to follow
in the atom according to classical ideas, there was only a restricted
number which it could pursue in fact. Such were the problems facing
physicists at the time when I returned to my studies.
"When I began to consider these difficulties [1920] I was chiefly
struck by two facts. On the one hand, the Quantum Theory of Light
cannot be considered satisfactory, since it defines the energy of a
light-corpuscle by the equation W = hv, containing the frequency, v.
Now a purely corpuscular theory contains nothing that enables us to
define a frequency; for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled
in the case of Light, to introduce the idea of a corpuscle and that of
periodicity simultaneously. ... In this way, then, I obtained the
following general idea ... that it is necessary in the case of Matter,
as well as of radiation generally and of Light in particular, to
introduce the idea of the corpuscle and of the wave simultaneously: or
in other words, in the one case as well as in the other, we must
assume the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves. But
corpuscles and waves cannot be independent of each other: in Bohr's
terms, they are two complementary aspects of Reality: and it must
consequently be possible to establish a certain parallelism between
the motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of its associated wave.
The first object at which to aim, therefore, was to establish the
existence of this parallelism.
"With this in view, I began by considering the simplest case: that of
an isolated corpuscle, i.e. one removed from all external influence;
with which we wish to associate a wave. Let us therefore consider
first of all a reference system O xoyozo in which the corpuscle is at
rest: this is the 'proper' system for the corpuscle according to the
Theory of Relativity [the wet noodle]. Within such a system the wave
will be stationary, since the corpuscle is at rest; its phase will be
the same at every point [another limp noodle] and it will be
represented by an expression of the form
sin pivo(to - tauo)
[the timelag, tauo, is the twisted relativistic timelag noodle inside
this needle], to being the 'proper' time and tauo [the lie] a
constant.
"Now this is exactly the condition of atomic periodic motion,
according to Planck. Thus the quantum conditions of stability appear
as analogous to resonance phenomena, and the appearance of integers
here becomes as natural as in the theory of vibrating cords and
disks."
From childhood on, most of us have been conditioned in our thinking by
the kinetic atomic theory. This holds that all things are made of
individual independent separate particles. That theory is totally
false. ...
For a particle to exist, i.e. a specific parcel of material locked
into a lasting configuration, several requirements must be met. First,
the given atom and/or molecule must be stopped from exchanging outer-
shell material with its neighbors. They cannot, therefore, be part of
a gas! Second, the continuum of which they are a part cannot be in a
fluid, easily flowing state in which outer-shells continuously
rearrange their groupings and thus their shared material. They cannot,
therefore, even be parts of a liquid!
Only a solid state substance can be a true particle; a lastingly
specific segment of matter. In order for such a solid particle to
exist, multiple atoms and/or molecules have to be joined together to
form it. The intervening material has to be denser than the shell-
layers trapped within. The substance then is kept in place.
The only time a molecule or atom is a particle, then, is when it is
forced to be by the structure of the field of which it is a part.
Otherwise they are configurations that more or less hold on to a semi-
permanent, freely exchangeable portion of the material of the field.
Conversely, as we study the actions of the field, which for an atom
may be the molecule of which it is a part, the same hydrogen bomb
revision in mental approach is required: There is no such thing as a
homogeneous field.
There is no field at all, other than that made of the very substance
of all the matter-units that fill the field. Indeed, for our purposes
the term "field" merely denotes a given, abstract local volume. (There
is no such thing as an "electromagnetic field" or "gravitational
field", of themselves. They are only variations in structure and
actions of the things that fill a local environment.)
We saw that Einstein held his relativistic field "homogeneous". That
turns out to be the Rosetta Bimp! No field, in nature, is
homogeneous. All fields are made of the highly organized material
portions that fill them. All highly organized material portions are
therefore part of their field. They are part of a non-linear Navier-
Stokes equilibrium with each other because:
Particles and fields do not separately exist. They are different
aspects of one and the same matter-filled-space, whether that be an
atomic nucleus or the Cosmos.
Our constructions will arrive at integer multiples of a constant times
relative thicknesses and other things from layered shell to layered
shell. Since we do intend to show that light-waves and other things
really are the results of vibrations analogous to those released by
vibrating chords and disks, I agree with de Broglie's conclusion. It
is only fair to point out that his above "constant", (tauo actually
equal to -vx/c2, the unchanging local time discrepancy) was present
early in the development of quantum and electron theory and wasn't
side stepped until Feynman switched to absolutes, world lines, to plot
small scale relations. Even now, though, people still try to construct
a relativistic set of equations for qed and in the process discover
that they have to go back to "proper time" instead of relativistic
"time". {In calculating the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
Einstein did the same thing! Schwinger did it for quantum physics,
some sixty years later.}
The four dimensional vibrations are analogous, but the source is not.
Cords and disks are solid state objects. The entire inside of an atom
is a highly organized continuous fluid material. The actions that are
the sources of the radiating vibrations take place throughout the
entire volume of this material.
The commentaries preceding Schrödinger's article said,
"One could eliminate, so he thought, the idea of quantum jumps and
replace it by another concept of transition from one mode of vibration
to another. Schrodinger did not quite see how to do this before 1926,
when he learned about de Broglie's wave theory of the electron through
some words of praise written by Einstein."
A transition from one mode of vibration to another is very probably a
part of what does physically happen; but not by absolutely separate
and discretely independent particles or layers. There are no such
things.
It isn't that a "particle" (the electron) is accompanied by waves, the
electron IS a wave system and thus its precise location at a point IS
"indeterminate". {That's another misuse of semantics. It isn't really
indeterminate; it just isn't at a point. A vibrating material
continuum, no matter how small or localized, is not point sized nor,
therefore, ever precisely "at a point".
Another tunnel? You like the twists and turns? Try this:
On page 507 Freeman's Physics says,
"A brilliant yet simple explanation of the experimental facts of
photoelectricity was given by Einstein in 1905. ... Later, the name
photon was given to a quantum of radiant energy. The amount of energy
of a photon is E = hf, where f is the frequency of the associated
radiation.
"Einstein found the key to an explanation of the photoelectric effect
by assuming that each photon, on striking an atom, can release one
electron: 'a photon, if it is absorbed at all, never shares its
energy among a number of electrons, but delivers all of it to a single
electron.'" [My italics.]
Insofar as a photon is supposed to be a quantum of light, this notion
is generally expressed in the phrase that it is an "all or nothing"
affair. On page 500, however:
"To the amount of energy E = hf Planck gave the name one quantum. Thus
his hypothesis may be expressed by saying that *the amount of energy
possessed by an oscillator can only be an integral multiple of one
quantum*. ... The possible amounts of energy that the oscillator can
possess are depicted by equally spaced lines, like the rungs on a
ladder. The energy of the oscillator must be located on one of these
levels, except when in transition."
Semantic meaning? The energy of an electron as an oscillator must
change by whole number multiples of eo, except when it doesn't. On
page 512, however, we are informed,
"If the incident photon in the Compton Effect is considered to be an
entity having kinetic energy and momentum, it may also be regarded as
able to collide with and rebound from matter. Compton considered what
happens if a photon strikes a free electron and rebounds elastically.
The photon communicates some of its energy to the electron and so must
have less energy afterward. But if its energy is less, its frequency
is also less after collision. This means that the scattered photons
have lower frequency - and so a greater wavelength - than the incident
ones, as observed. ... Notice that the change in wavelength is
independent of the initial wavelength and the nature of the target
material and that this change is always positive, which means an
increase in wavelength."
The Physics text thus informs us that, "The energy of the oscillator
must be located on one of these levels, except when in transition."
and "a photon ... never shares its energy among a number of electrons"
and "The photon communicates some of its energy to the electron".
Translation? Quantum theory is twisting in the wind. {There appears
to be a modicum of uncertainty, there.}
The Uncertainty Principle was another road to nowhere. It was a way to
hide a consequence of kinematics within the mantle of a basic
postulate. This made it seem to be a property of physical reality
rather than a product of the abstract hypotheses through which we
interpret the results of experimental measurements. Again metrical
relation was mistaken to be the physical relation it measures.
The key phrase, above, is: the Compton Effect stipulates that a wave
suffers no decrease in velocity after striking an electron, "but
merely a decrease in frequency".
A photon always undergoes a red shift and an electron always undergoes
a velocity change. Our choice of metrical hypotheses thereupon now
comes into play.
The cause of "Indeterminacy".
Smith's "Elements of Physics" says on pg 165:
"Let m1 and m2 be the masses of [two elastic spheres], v1 and v2 their
respective velocities before collision, and u1 and u2 the
corresponding velocities after collision.
Momentum before collision = momentum after collision.
m1v1 + m2v2 = m1u1 + m2u2."
Let v1 and v2 be the velocities of mass m1 (a photon) before and after
it collides with a body of mass m2 (an electron). Let u1 and u2 be the
velocities of m2 before and after the collision. The photon and
electron masses are not supposed to change via such an act. Equating
their initial and final momentums we have the balancing act,
m1v1 + m2v2 = m1u1 + m2u2,
which requires that the total momentum is conserved if the masses
remain constant.
Obviously, if u2 changes but v2 remains constant, i.e. v1 = v2 = c,
then the value of u2 remains indeterminate even after you know where
the photon and electron went.
The cure.
A red shifted wave is lengthened because its quantity of energy and
action is lessened, so less medium is involved per second. Thus, in
terms of absolute speed [quantity of matter traversed per second] a
red shifted wave has slowed down. If a photon's "absolute velocity" is
stated in terms of "quantity of matter traversed per unit time" [a new
rule of the game], there would always be a change of velocity of a
rebounding photon, measurable by the degree of red shift.
A red shift would then mean that the velocity of the photon had
decreased by exactly the amount required to balance the conservation
of momentum equation and thus delete the principle of uncertainty.
[In reality, the velocity of light is a universal variable.]
The conservation of momentum equation would thereby arithmetically
balance and we could therefore predict the paths and positions and
velocities of both, after collision; or calculate the velocity and
position of the electron once we see the direction and altered
velocity - in terms of degree of red shift - of the departing photon.
If, instead of quantity of matter traversed per unit time, we measure
absolute velocity in terms of quantity of action per second per unit
distance, a red or blue shift would still denote a change in
rebounding velocity. Accordingly, the indeterminacy still disappears.
The point at issue now arises: Is indeterminacy a God-given fact of
nature or is it a product of our metrical treatment of relation? Well,
the postulates of kinematics are a free choice. As to whether or not
the postulates fit nature, the court of last appeal is physical
experiment. Postulates that lead to contradiction with results of
experiment remain perfectly acceptable for pure mathematics, but are
completely unacceptable to Metaphysics and (sometimes) even to its
insubordinate servant, physics.
In any event, we see that if we elect to measure velocity in terms of
amount of matter traversed per second then the indeterminacy
disappears. If we elect the present metrical choices then the
indeterminacy reappears.
The indeterminacy is thus a product of our free choice of abstract
metrical postulates rather than being a fact of (meta)physical
reality.
glird
jason
Uhh no. There will ALWAYS be a little more or there will be something else.
as new ideas and brains evolve there will always be just something else out
there. a new form of energy beyond the microwaves and beyond the gamma a
different form of light a different way to speed up light or to slow it
down. a new and wonderful theory of gravity that will last hundreds of years
before another one comes along. Every scientist that has the gall to say
that it will be the end of anything need his/her PhD shoved up their ass so
they can think a little bit harder. There were these atoms and then these
electrons and these neutrons and protons and then quarks and then
antiparticles.. no one has stopped to think that maybe these quarks are not
the elementary particles but maybe new particles created from the energy
required to smash the atoms. everyone is so excited then they discover a new
particle or a new quark they don't think about how it is actually formed. I
have read many books that talk about the new up or down charmed or strange
or the red or blue with this spin or that spin. why do they think of maybe
how the particle was actually formed was it created or was it already there?
--
God is really a pink elephant with television rabbit ears.... think I am
wrong?
Prove it
Assume nothing; expect everything
BURT
All our theories are incomplete. Science has just began; a few
hundreds of years old.
Mitch Raemsch
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Jun 27, 12:26 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <jirk/Physics/Fumbles>
> wrote:> glird wrote:
>
> > <An excellent message, Pentcho!
>
> Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
> Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists
> - >
>
>
>
> > Metaphysics is the introspective study of >imbeciles.
>
> > Jerk Vdm
>
> The rest of this message is copied from W2 ("What it all is and Why")
> by G Lebau.
> Present physics thinks that "probability" is a component of the
> quantum, and, to a large degree, a physical component of "the way God
> made the world". They argue whether, due to probability and
> indeterminacy, God plays dice at the sub-atomic level.
But, since they also use the most unlikey mathematics, like Wave-
Particle Statistics,
that's also why the cranks are given the GM jobs, and the people
with
actual post 1905 engineering-technology-medicine brains work on
GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping,
Digital Fiber Optics Signalling, Stealth, Cell Phones, UAVs, AAVs,
Electronic Books,
Microcomputers, Optical Computers, Laser Disk Libraries, SGML, XML,
USB,
Flat Screen Software Debuggers, Distributed Processing Software
Development,
C++, Blue Ray, HDTV, All-In-One Printers, Holographics, Holograms,
Drones,
Cruise Missiles, Phalanx, Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Solar Energy,
neo wind Energy,
Cyber Batteries, Compact Flourescent Lighting, On-Line Banking, On-
Line Publishing,
Self-Replicating Machines, and Self-Assembling Robots.
> of a photon is E ...
>
> read more »
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Jun 27, 12:26 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <jirk/Physics/Fumbles>
> wrote:
>> glird wrote:
>>
>> <An excellent message, Pentcho!
> Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
> Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists
> - >
>>
>> Metaphysics is the introspective study of >imbeciles.
>>
>> Jerk Vdm
>
> The rest of this message is copied from W2 ("What it all is and Why")
> by G Lebau
and not even looked at by
Dirk Vdm
Clutch
>
> > On Jun 27, 10:16 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> regurgitated:
>
> [snip stomach content]
>
> >> Pentcho Valev
>
> > An excellent message, Pentcho!
>
> How would a pre-kindergarten imbecile like you be
> able to spot excellence?
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FourGroup.html
>
> > Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
> > Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists -
>
> Metaphysics is the introspective study of imbeciles.
> I told you, try to work your way through kindergarten first.
> Pentcho managed. I'm sure you will too.
>
> Dirk Vdm
sir, i just realized
you dont even sense where you disagree !!!
tell me where, in order for me to understand more
Clutch
why, what are you afraid for to read?
you burn books sir !!!
what are you a fuckng inquisition !
Tim BandTech.com
> On Jun 28, 10:45 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > dfbe47f6-844f-43a8-bdca-554c39484...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com
> > > On Jun 27, 12:26 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <jirk/Physics/Fumbles>
> > > wrote:
> > >> glird wrote:
> > >> <An excellent message, Pentcho!
> > > Please tell Harry Kroto that the answer to his question is YES!
> > > Pretty soon metaphysics - the study of that which physically exists
> > >> Jerk Vdm
> > > The rest of this message is copied from W2 ("What it all is and Why")
> > > by G Lebau
> > and not even looked at by
> > Dirk Vdm
> why, what are you afraid for to read?
> you burn books sir !!!
> what are you a fuckng inquisition !
I am quite free to burn books. It's no worse than throwing them out.
It is when you take books out of other poeple's hands and burn them
that a great offense is done. All of usenet is devoid of this trouble.
This medium could prove useful and posts like Pentcho's are not going
to be found in the journalistic literature which seeks to preserve its
status. Here there is no status.
I wonder if the downturn is accurate then should we be blaming the
system per se? For instance we know that mercury is spewed into the
air such that eating fish in my locality will contaminate us. Could it
be that we are experienceing our own environmental nightmare? A
dumbing down of the human race? Our egos will not like this, and our
governments are not likely to admit such a thing either.
This is a speculative idea. There are so many combinations of
chemicals possible that the US government's own testing has declared
that it will not cover the matrix. That was some years ago. Our
nervous systems are delicate and it is entirely believable to me that
we are not so bright as our ancestors were. We instead can rely upon
accumulation without the need for brightness. This can explain a lot
even without chemicals to cloud the way.
Really the human race is such a dubious thing. Our sense of identity
and our powers of denial are completely unscientific. Academic
schooling does little to correct the situation. Caution: thinking
about such material can bring one to a deep state of depression.
Still, beyond the human race is the puzzle of existence to ponder...
- Tim
Sam Wormley
You are clutching at straws, Clutch. Try physics instead
of metaphysics.
jason
>All our theories are incomplete. Science has just began; a few
>hundreds of years old.
Dude science has been around ever since humans could think....
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> "Are we witnessing the end of science?
[snip rest of crap]
No.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
BURT
No. Historically it is much younger than civilization itself.
Civilkization is about about 10 thousand and science is at about 500.
My point is that we are in the very beginning of science itself.
Mitch Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
"Einstein linked space and time into the dimension of space-time, and
now scientists wonder if they can ever untangle the two."
That is, now scientists wonder if they can ever resurrect science.
Mission impossible?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jul/10/science-gcse-curriculum-qca
"As concerns increase about the 'dumbing down' of science
education..."
but it is too late!
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/22/end-science-unified-theory-mavericks
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com