info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: What's a "Crazy" Idea ?????
2 views
Skip to first unread message
HVAC
Dec 18, 2011, 11:00:59 AM12/18/11
to
On 12/18/2011 10:14 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> As an example, take Ptolemy's idea that Earth was the center of the
> Universe. That particular bad idea continued for hundreds of years,
> and it took Copernicus, Galileo and *then* some to focus in on
> reality.
And it has come full circle.
The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
>
> As an example, take Ptolemy's idea that Earth was the center of the
> Universe. That particular bad idea continued for hundreds of years,
> and it took Copernicus, Galileo and *then* some to focus in on
> reality.
And it has come full circle.
The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Painius
Dec 18, 2011, 2:11:06 PM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:00:59 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/18/2011 10:14 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> As an example, take Ptolemy's idea that Earth was the center of the
>> Universe. That particular bad idea continued for hundreds of years,
>> and it took Copernicus, Galileo and *then* some to focus in on
>> reality.
>
>And it has come full circle.
>
>The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>On 12/18/2011 10:14 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> As an example, take Ptolemy's idea that Earth was the center of the
>> Universe. That particular bad idea continued for hundreds of years,
>> and it took Copernicus, Galileo and *then* some to focus in on
>> reality.
>
>And it has come full circle.
>
>The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
Universe.
Once again, you are far too imprecise to be what you say you are. No
true theoretical astrophysicist would make such an inaccurate
statement.
In the past when I have caught poseurs like yourself in a blatant lie,
they would go on the run with their tails between their legs. They
would leave science groups forever because they felt completely
humiliated. Not so, you. No. You stick around as if you just LUV
the attention. You call others "kook" when, in reality, you are the
biggest attention-mongering kook of all.
--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is a great warrior within all of us. What wakes yours up?"
HVAC
Dec 18, 2011, 2:50:08 PM12/18/11
to
On 12/18/2011 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
>
> No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>
> Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
> Universe.
No. It *is* the exact center. Then again, so is Mars.
>
>>
>> The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
>
> No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>
> Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
> Universe.
Perhaps some day, you will understand.
I doubt it tho... You are far too invested in
your religious beliefs to open your eyes.
G=EMC^2
Dec 18, 2011, 3:37:43 PM12/18/11
to
3C 372 know they are at the center of the universe. Good reason
why. TreBert
Painius
Dec 18, 2011, 3:42:46 PM12/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:50:08 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/18/2011 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
>>
>> No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>>
>> Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
>> Universe.
>
>
>No. It *is* the exact center. Then again, so is Mars.
>
>Perhaps some day, you will understand.
>I doubt it tho... You are far too invested in
>your religious beliefs to open your eyes.
And you are far too invested in your poseuse posting to relate to
>On 12/18/2011 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
>>
>> No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>>
>> Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
>> Universe.
>
>
>No. It *is* the exact center. Then again, so is Mars.
>
>Perhaps some day, you will understand.
>I doubt it tho... You are far too invested in
>your religious beliefs to open your eyes.
anything "real".
I would ask you to explain how two locations in spacetime could
possibly be the center of the Universe at one and the same time, but
you will then probably try to get me to prove that they're NOT the
center of the Universe at one and the same time.
Perhaps it would be better to have you prove that you are not a moron,
since several of us here have *already* proved that you *are*.
No offense.
tj Frazir
Dec 18, 2011, 4:08:35 PM12/18/11
to
evry point in the universe is at the center of its visible universe.
Outside the vu time is a strait line.
Inside the vu no two points are at the same rate of time forward.
Time slows down in a fast rocket.
Time speed up when it stops.
Time up in space is longer then time on earth .
Time on earth is faster and faster time is lass mass as the energy is
not there as long.
So mass changes when time changes.
So the time slope around mass changes the mass in atoms in the time
slope and they have more mass on thier top sides thenthe bottom.
The atoms push them selves down the time slope to be at its own center
of mass.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Outside the vu time is a strait line.
Inside the vu no two points are at the same rate of time forward.
Time slows down in a fast rocket.
Time speed up when it stops.
Time up in space is longer then time on earth .
Time on earth is faster and faster time is lass mass as the energy is
not there as long.
So mass changes when time changes.
So the time slope around mass changes the mass in atoms in the time
slope and they have more mass on thier top sides thenthe bottom.
The atoms push them selves down the time slope to be at its own center
of mass.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
HVAC
Dec 19, 2011, 5:02:01 AM12/19/11
to
On 12/18/2011 3:42 PM, Painius wrote:
> 4
infinite set of numbers...Can you do that?
Wouldn't any one of these be exactly in the middle?
> 4
>
> I would ask you to explain how two locations in spacetime could
> possibly be the center of the Universe at one and the same time, but
> you will then probably try to get me to prove that they're NOT the
> center of the Universe at one and the same time.
Easy enough. As an example, let's start by imagining an
> I would ask you to explain how two locations in spacetime could
> possibly be the center of the Universe at one and the same time, but
> you will then probably try to get me to prove that they're NOT the
> center of the Universe at one and the same time.
infinite set of numbers...Can you do that?
Wouldn't any one of these be exactly in the middle?
G=EMC^2
Dec 19, 2011, 9:18:24 AM12/19/11
to
allows one to say Look at me I'm in the exact middle of the universe.
TreBert
Painius
Dec 19, 2011, 3:40:59 PM12/19/11
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:02:01 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/18/2011 3:42 PM, Painius wrote:
>> 4
>>
>> I would ask you to explain how two locations in spacetime could
>> possibly be the center of the Universe at one and the same time, but
>> you will then probably try to get me to prove that they're NOT the
>> center of the Universe at one and the same time.
>
>
>Easy enough. As an example, let's start by imagining an
>infinite set of numbers...Can you do that?
>
>Wouldn't any one of these be exactly in the middle?
That's not a proof, that's a question. Thought you knew the
>On 12/18/2011 3:42 PM, Painius wrote:
>> 4
>>
>> I would ask you to explain how two locations in spacetime could
>> possibly be the center of the Universe at one and the same time, but
>> you will then probably try to get me to prove that they're NOT the
>> center of the Universe at one and the same time.
>
>
>Easy enough. As an example, let's start by imagining an
>infinite set of numbers...Can you do that?
>
>Wouldn't any one of these be exactly in the middle?
difference. My answer must be, "No, an infinite set of numbers, by
defintion, has no middle."
The idea that any one of an infinite set of numbers is in the middle
of the set is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
You seem to now hold that the Universe is infinite. Isn't that, to
your way of thinking, a religious, faith-based belief? I thought you
didn't believe in God, Bounce-back-n-forthVAC. Is that mean ol'
Jesuit priest finally getting to you? Lemaītre wanted people to
believe his "hypothesis of the primeval atom", you know, because it
was quite "Godly". Of course, he left that part out when he proposed
his idea to science. But you go ahead and believe it, Harlow, because
I now know that it's just your way of believing in God without
actually having to admit it.
HVAC
Dec 19, 2011, 6:38:51 PM12/19/11
to
On 12/19/2011 9:18 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> Easy enough. As an example, let's start by imagining an
>> infinite set of numbers...Can you do that?
>>
>> Wouldn't any one of these be exactly in the middle?
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>>
>> Easy enough. As an example, let's start by imagining an
>> infinite set of numbers...Can you do that?
>>
>> Wouldn't any one of these be exactly in the middle?
>>
>> --
>>
>
> Its the universe's great size,and not knowing where you are in it that
> allows one to say Look at me I'm in the exact middle of the universe.
> TreBert
No.
> allows one to say Look at me I'm in the exact middle of the universe.
> TreBert
G=EMC^2
Dec 19, 2011, 8:26:26 PM12/19/11
to
Sam Wormley
Dec 19, 2011, 9:32:16 PM12/19/11
to
On 12/19/11 7:26 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> To many unknows to pick the time and place of the big bang TreBert
The place was everywhere! And the time was 13.73 billion years ago.
> To many unknows to pick the time and place of the big bang TreBert
be...@iwaynet.net
Dec 20, 2011, 12:56:41 AM12/20/11
to
On 12/18/2011 2:11 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:00:59 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/2011 10:14 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
>
> No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>
> Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
> Universe.
>
> Once again, you are far too imprecise to be what you say you are. No
> true theoretical astrophysicist would make such an inaccurate
> statement.
>
> In the past when I have caught poseurs like yourself in a blatant lie,
> they would go on the run with their tails between their legs. They
> would leave science groups forever because they felt completely
> humiliated. Not so, you. No. You stick around as if you just LUV
> the attention. You call others "kook" when, in reality, you are the
> biggest attention-mongering kook of all.
No doubt you have hit the ACDC nail on the head. He LOVES to be
>
>> On 12/18/2011 10:14 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> The Earth IS the exact, precise center of the universe.
>
> No, it is not, PtolemyVAC.
>
> Earth "appears to be" the exact, precise center of the "observable"
> Universe.
>
> Once again, you are far too imprecise to be what you say you are. No
> true theoretical astrophysicist would make such an inaccurate
> statement.
>
> In the past when I have caught poseurs like yourself in a blatant lie,
> they would go on the run with their tails between their legs. They
> would leave science groups forever because they felt completely
> humiliated. Not so, you. No. You stick around as if you just LUV
> the attention. You call others "kook" when, in reality, you are the
> biggest attention-mongering kook of all.
humiliated. You should see the great B&D/S&M setup in his basement. He
loves to have people call him a "low worm". Please don't feed the trolls.
be...@iwaynet.net
Dec 20, 2011, 1:03:43 AM12/20/11
to
On 12/19/2011 3:40 PM, Painius wrote:
> The idea that any one of an infinite set of numbers is in the middle
> of the set is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
Only counter-intuitive when compared to reality. Luckly mathematics need
> The idea that any one of an infinite set of numbers is in the middle
> of the set is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
have nothing to do with reality. Hence if I say any number as being in
the center of an infinite set it's always mathematically true.
> You seem to now hold that the Universe is infinite. Isn't that, to
> your way of thinking, a religious, faith-based belief? I thought you
> didn't believe in God, Bounce-back-n-forthVAC. Is that mean ol'
> Jesuit priest finally getting to you? Lemaītre wanted people to
> believe his "hypothesis of the primeval atom", you know, because it
> was quite "Godly". Of course, he left that part out when he proposed
> his idea to science. But you go ahead and believe it, Harlow, because
> I now know that it's just your way of believing in God without
> actually having to admit it.
must be actual experiment to back up all assumptions. So is the universe
infinite? Well, let's check with our greatest physics authority: Einstein!
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein.
HVAC
Dec 20, 2011, 7:01:27 AM12/20/11
to
G=EMC^2
Dec 20, 2011, 8:28:03 AM12/20/11
to
out lots of events that took long lengths of time. Such as the first
neutron. The first hydrogen atom,and how hydrogen got to be at this
time 92% of the universe. The first nebula The first star The first
galaxy etc. When you add up all these events you will see that 22
billion years is very conservative . TreBert
Sam Wormley
Dec 20, 2011, 12:31:19 PM12/20/11
to
protons and neutrons) along with electrons took but three minutes.
http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378
G=EMC^2
Dec 20, 2011, 4:30:09 PM12/20/11
to
universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles? Don;t you have to compress
hydrogen to get an helium atom? You being a parrot have no thoughts.
Your mind is a dark tunnel with no light at its end. Do not think "go
directly to Google" O ya That's Sammy "With his nose sticking out of
his zipper " TreBert
Sam Wormley
Dec 20, 2011, 5:01:56 PM12/20/11
to
On 12/20/11 3:30 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> Sam just 3 minutes(WoW) Ha Ha Ha 3 minutes to create 93% of the
> universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
> of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles?
The quark-qluon plasma came first and quickly created of H and He
> Sam just 3 minutes(WoW) Ha Ha Ha 3 minutes to create 93% of the
> universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
> of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles?
nuclei (protons and neutrons) along with electrons taking but three
minutes. The nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium (observed) is
predicted by the process.
http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378
Sam Wormley
Dec 20, 2011, 5:11:39 PM12/20/11
to
http://bearsite.info/General/Philosophy/Steve%20Weinberg%20-%20The%20First%20Three%20Minutes%20-%20A%20Modern%20View%20of%20.pdf
HVAC
Dec 20, 2011, 5:12:02 PM12/20/11
to
On 12/20/2011 4:30 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> You seem to have little idea that the creation of H and He nuclei (
>> protons and neutrons) along with electrons took but three minutes.
>> http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378
>
> Sam just 3 minutes(WoW) Ha Ha Ha 3 minutes to create 93% of the
> universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
> of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles? Don;t you have to compress
> hydrogen to get an helium atom? You being a parrot have no thoughts.
> Your mind is a dark tunnel with no light at its end. Do not think "go
> directly to Google" O ya That's Sammy "With his nose sticking out of
> his zipper " TreBert
Why so venomous, Bert?
>
>>
>> You seem to have little idea that the creation of H and He nuclei (
>> protons and neutrons) along with electrons took but three minutes.
>> http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378
>
> Sam just 3 minutes(WoW) Ha Ha Ha 3 minutes to create 93% of the
> universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
> of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles? Don;t you have to compress
> hydrogen to get an helium atom? You being a parrot have no thoughts.
> Your mind is a dark tunnel with no light at its end. Do not think "go
> directly to Google" O ya That's Sammy "With his nose sticking out of
> his zipper " TreBert
G=EMC^2
Dec 20, 2011, 7:22:56 PM12/20/11
to
prediction? Who did the observing? I go with 3.3 billion. They go in 3
minutes. Who said a gluon is plasma? Does it take both a quark+ gluon
to make plasma? Please answer these questions in the order given.
I'll let you off easy on what a plasma is (superrhot ionized gas) If
you do not know the answers it will not come as a surprise. We know
you are a complete idiot of the cosmos O ya TreBert Sam youi are
not a thinker,but only a Google goose stepper Get the picture
G=EMC^2
Dec 20, 2011, 7:28:53 PM12/20/11
to
because they were real. I'm no faker. I am clever. I go always with
the truth TreBert
Sam Wormley
Dec 20, 2011, 11:01:40 PM12/20/11
to
On 12/20/11 6:22 PM, G≠EMC^2 wrote:
> On Dec 20, 5:01 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 12/20/11 3:30 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Sam just 3 minutes(WoW) Ha Ha Ha 3 minutes to create 93% of the
>>> > > universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
>>> > > of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles?
>> >
>> > The quark-qluon plasma came first and quickly created of H and He
>> > nuclei (protons and neutrons) along with electrons taking but three
>> > minutes. The nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium (observed) is
>> > predicted by the process.
>> > http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378
> Sam it begs this question Who had the stop watch?. Who did the
> prediction? Who did the observing?
You might consider reading Weinberg's book, TreberT. Here's the URL:
> On Dec 20, 5:01 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 12/20/11 3:30 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Sam just 3 minutes(WoW) Ha Ha Ha 3 minutes to create 93% of the
>>> > > universe. I have the time as 3.3 billion years. Well Sam that's a lot
>>> > > of 3s Don't atoms need sub-particles?
>> >
>> > The quark-qluon plasma came first and quickly created of H and He
>> > nuclei (protons and neutrons) along with electrons taking but three
>> > minutes. The nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium (observed) is
>> > predicted by the process.
>> > http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378
> Sam it begs this question Who had the stop watch?. Who did the
> prediction? Who did the observing?
http://bearsite.info/General/Philosophy/Steve%20Weinberg%20-%20The%20First%20Three%20Minutes%20-%20A%20Modern%20View%20of%20.pdf
Sam Wormley
Dec 20, 2011, 11:03:47 PM12/20/11
to
On 12/20/11 6:28 PM, G≠EMC^2 wrote:
>
> Sam said my fast pictures I showed at MIT were faked. That piss me off
> because they were real. I'm no faker. I am clever. I go always with
> the truth TreBert
Are you cleaver enough to read Weinberg's book, TreberT. Here's
>
> Sam said my fast pictures I showed at MIT were faked. That piss me off
> because they were real. I'm no faker. I am clever. I go always with
> the truth TreBert
the URL:
http://bearsite.info/General/Philosophy/Steve%20Weinberg%20-%20The%20First%20Three%20Minutes%20-%20A%20Modern%20View%20of%20.pdf
G=EMC^2
Dec 21, 2011, 8:50:28 AM12/21/11
to
On Dec 20, 11:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/20/11 6:28 PM, G≠EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sam said my fast pictures I showed at MIT were faked. That piss me off
> > because they were real. I'm no faker. I am clever. I go always with
> > the truth TreBert
>
> Are you cleaver enough to read Weinberg's book, TreberT. Here's
> the URL:http://bearsite.info/General/Philosophy/Steve%20Weinberg%20-%20The%20...
> On 12/20/11 6:28 PM, G≠EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sam said my fast pictures I showed at MIT were faked. That piss me off
> > because they were real. I'm no faker. I am clever. I go always with
> > the truth TreBert
>
> Are you cleaver enough to read Weinberg's book, TreberT. Here's
I have read great books by people more clever than Weinberg. I have
not read his book. I thought he was dead?? Not reading his book does
not make people stupid. Get the picture TreBert
Sam Wormley
Dec 21, 2011, 3:10:04 PM12/21/11
to
On 12/21/11 7:50 AM, G≠EMC^2 wrote:
>
> I have read great books by people more clever than Weinberg. I have
> not read his book. I thought he was dead?? Not reading his book does
> not make people stupid. Get the picture TreBert
You need to read Weinberg's book, Trebeard. If Weinberg died today,
>
> I have read great books by people more clever than Weinberg. I have
> not read his book. I thought he was dead?? Not reading his book does
> not make people stupid. Get the picture TreBert
that would not reduce the value of reading his book to get yourself
up-to-speed concerning what happened during the first three minutes
of the big bang.
Here's the URL:
> http://bearsite.info/General/Philosophy/Steve%20Weinberg%20-%20The%20First%20Three%20Minutes%20-%20A%20Modern%20View%20of%20.pdf
Painius
Dec 23, 2011, 4:42:47 PM12/23/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:03:43 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 12/19/2011 3:40 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> The idea that any one of an infinite set of numbers is in the middle
>> of the set is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
>
>Only counter-intuitive when compared to reality. Luckly mathematics need
>have nothing to do with reality. Hence if I say any number as being in
>the center of an infinite set it's always mathematically true.
>
>> You seem to now hold that the Universe is infinite. Isn't that, to
>> your way of thinking, a religious, faith-based belief? I thought you
>> didn't believe in God, Bounce-back-n-forthVAC. Is that mean ol'
>> Jesuit priest finally getting to you? Lema�tre wanted people to
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 12/19/2011 3:40 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> The idea that any one of an infinite set of numbers is in the middle
>> of the set is, to say the least, counter-intuitive.
>
>Only counter-intuitive when compared to reality. Luckly mathematics need
>have nothing to do with reality. Hence if I say any number as being in
>the center of an infinite set it's always mathematically true.
>
>> You seem to now hold that the Universe is infinite. Isn't that, to
>> your way of thinking, a religious, faith-based belief? I thought you
>> didn't believe in God, Bounce-back-n-forthVAC. Is that mean ol'
>> believe his "hypothesis of the primeval atom", you know, because it
>> was quite "Godly". Of course, he left that part out when he proposed
>> his idea to science. But you go ahead and believe it, Harlow, because
>> I now know that it's just your way of believing in God without
>> actually having to admit it.
>
>But when we get to the universe, mathematics no longer applies. There
>must be actual experiment to back up all assumptions. So is the universe
>infinite? Well, let's check with our greatest physics authority: Einstein!
>
>"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
>sure about the universe."
>
>Albert Einstein.
Yes, Einstein said and wrote many interesting things. The above was
>> was quite "Godly". Of course, he left that part out when he proposed
>> his idea to science. But you go ahead and believe it, Harlow, because
>> I now know that it's just your way of believing in God without
>> actually having to admit it.
>
>But when we get to the universe, mathematics no longer applies. There
>must be actual experiment to back up all assumptions. So is the universe
>infinite? Well, let's check with our greatest physics authority: Einstein!
>
>"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
>sure about the universe."
>
>Albert Einstein.
just one of several of his quips that led people to believe that he
was some kind of agnostic rather than a true atheist.
He also indicated that it was impossible for him to believe in a
beneficent deity who would allow the Nazi holocaust to happen. That's
what got him pigeonholed as an atheist.
Experiment has some application in astronomy, but not much. Mostly,
astronomers must go with what they observe and yes, with mathematical
analysis of the data received by the many "toys" that NASA has sent
into space. Such data has produced some anomalies, puzzling pieces
that don't fit our present physics formulas. They'll figure it out,
and you can bet: Mathematics will be a big help, as well as somewhat
of a hindrance, to them. Math enjoys wide application in astronomy,
especially in the more theoretical branches, such as astrophysics,
astrochemisty and astrobiology.
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of
the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in
its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the
piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying
vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we
shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light
into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
> H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"
0 new messages