Science is young
BURT
taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
both slow time rates. There are two times that slowdown in the
universe for matter. We live in a two time universe. Fastest time for
gravity and motion is where it all begins.
Light has gravity time and matter has gravity and motion time. Light
shares the time of space. Matter shares the time slow of both space
and energy flow.
Mitch Raemsch; the fastest clock is ahead of all others
Raymond Yohros
that is very pesimistic view!
i think that theory is just an add on to GR
to merge it into QM and with d xperimental
ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner.
not more that 10 years ahead!
r.y
BURT
No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that
it knows much. Not as of now.
Mitch Raemsch
Raymond Yohros
why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate
science so much?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded
attitude that it knows a lot.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
Hi
GogoJF
Burt, the second smartest man on the Earth. So fuckin what.
GogoJF
I love when Spring, spings! I love Dekalb and Sycamore in that order-
just joking!
Raymond Yohros
maybe if you do youreself a favor and learn the basics
you will stop being so confuse with obsolete scientific terms
and gain a little optimism.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go read a book. Your optimism is unfounded because it is not objective
to the truth about science. Give it millions of years.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent
creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their
intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in
animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that
exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better
about himself.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Your attitude is unfounded. We have just began.
Mitch Raemsch
Raymond Yohros
maybe we should stop learning to make mitch happy!
BruceS
I just hope you have not begat.
Hawkman
Evidence shows that God's spirit is the only fundamental reality. This
means that most of what they teach in physics is simply false. They
teach us that everything is physical or material but this is clearly
not the case in life. Evidence points that there are also mental,
spiritual, cognitive and Godly spirits in life and in the universe.
purple
How nice of you to speak for everyone!
BURT
You don't need evidence for spirit to show how young science really
is. Any attitude that we know a lot is simply unfounded. Stephen
Hawking was the dope that said we know a lot. We do not. What we have
done is gather a lot of data and this doesn't qualify as knowledge or
understanding. Give that millions years for science.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How pesimistic is the truth of how young science is?
I am not making up its small age. The greatness of science is for
millions of years in the future. Right now we have a lot of data but
no knowledge or understanding.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
Burt, I believe in the science of today that we are in the stage of
what a phenomena is, and not yet why it is the way it is.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not be objective and not inflate what science has done in its
short lifetime. Ahead of us is where the greatness lies. We have a
fantastic future but we need to admit it is not of much now.
It is matter of a proper attitude toward science. The people that have
the wrong idea and use science in that way will be corrrected by the
more objective.
An example of a great future is the fossil record collection. Right
now we have gathered fossils for about a hundred years. But this
collecting is never going to stop. This is where millions of years is
going to count. This example applies to all measurements of our
universe. We can look forward to millions of years of measurement. The
future is complete theory and measurement.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
A measure man
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
We will be measuring. Of course measuring for completeness in theory
will be most important.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry for the repeat.
BURT
> On May 27, 5:20 pm, Ivan I. Deer <Iv...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010 13:50:15 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com>
> > years? How will the ever increasing population provide food when the
> > agricultural land is badly depleted and low priced fuel/fertilizer is
> > no longer available? Where will they find water to drink when most of
> > the aquifers are polluted with toxic wastes? Another mass extinction,
> > followed by the evolution of another upper level species will most
> > likely be the way things work out. But, there will probably be a very
> > long delay while this poor old planet heals itself from the human
> > wounds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
Humans won't wound it. They will overpopulate and run out of
resources.
What humans are doing is benefial. For instance Global warming is
going to put an end to all possible future ice ages. This is a
blessing on mankind.
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said.
I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever
say.
We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know
squat.
Unfortunately, AFAIK there's no sensible way to talk about
quantifying when we might expect to "completely understand" anything.
Mark L. Fergerson
Don Stockbauer
This is becasue it's the same effect as one neuron (equivalent to a
person) trying to understand the entire mind he/she helps form (the
Global Brain). The same effect as a goldfish peering out of its
prison and trying to deciper a lesson on quantum physics being shown
on a TV.
zookumar yelubandi
> On May 23, 12:26�pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
>> idea of science having complete theories �is for the very distant
>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>> Mitch Raemsch
Modern science is only a few hundred years old and perhaps a little
longer. Documented scientific method goes back to Aristotle's Greece and
arguably even further back then that. Indeed, one can correctly argue
that science has been with us for as long back as the time we first
recognized and celebrated the human brain ... only it was called different
things back then. Galileo was more likely a great-great-great-great-great
grandson to the original science.
Then there are unresolved questions about the origins of human DNA.
Are we star wanderers (it seems more and more likely that this is the
case)? Or are we merely electrified broth from the Great Oceans (as
informed by the ubiquitous Darwinian tome and tradition) in the winding end
of a long journey from CHONSP (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur,
phosporous) ... to amino and nucleic acids to cells to tissue to organs to
organisms to higher organisms to simians and apes to protohumans, humans,
and posthumans?
The establishment of scientific fact can't be entrusted to the agenda of
perched mealbirds preying on insects and worms, but I'm afraid that's
exactly what has happened in the construction of the plinths of modern
science. Real science is still the weaker twin to imagined science.
> I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said.
> I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever
> say.
> We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know
> squat.
Yes, perhaps even less than diddly.
> Unfortunately, AFAIK there's no sensible way to talk about
> quantifying when we might expect to "completely understand" anything.
> Mark L. Fergerson
That expectation is our first disappointment. We will fare much better if
we reduce our expectations to a size that our brains can handle.
Uncle Zook
maxwell
> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. In
order to gain public support (particularly cash), scientists like to
claim most of the credit for technological advances in the last 200
years. Most of these were due to engineers, who have remained little
known (if at all) since the scientists are the intellectuals who write
the books. "He who writes, defines the history."
BURT
> On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said.
>
> I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever
> say.
>
> We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know
> squat.
We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of
data.
Mitch Raemsch
J. Clarke
If you don't have the theory you can't do the engineering.
Think radio would have existed without electromagnetic theory or lasers
without quantum theory? And where would the electronics industry be
without transistors?
BURT
> On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots.
Please show religions domination of twentieth century science?
It is not there. Please show all the religious dogma of science.
Big Balogna. The atheists invent aetheist science and claim it as the
truth. They don't need God.
There is no universe without God. And God created science.
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
> On May 28, 10:22 am, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots.
>
> Please show religions domination of twentieth century science?
> It is not there. Please show all the religious dogma of science.
>
> Big Balogna. The atheists invent aetheist science and claim it as the
> truth. They don't need God.
>
> There is no universe without God. And God created science.
God and the Universe are the same.
Don Stockbauer
We do know quite a lot, and quite a lot of what really matters when it
gets down to understanding the Universe. Study cybernetics.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bull. You have no proof that we know a lot. You have gotten the wrong
idea. You like to think you do and if not you somebody else. But it
doesn't bear out.
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
We know a lot right now. In the future we will know a lot more. "A
lot" is relative.
spudnik
of science; I call it,
the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept.,
such as on the holodeck in Star Trek The Movie
('twas Newton, Einstein, Hawking, which is the same,
though Einstein was the best of them, because he was Jewish).
I didn't realize that _The Da Vinci Code_ was a part of this,
and hadn't read much of it, til I found a copy of the prequel,
which makes Galileo the Daddy of the Illuminati, as well.
this reminds me, of when Woodrow Wilson had the East Coast Premier
of the Birth of a Nation in the "White House," effectively a tool
to recreate the KKK.
"the rest of the story" is on wlym.com, if you dare to read it.
thusNso:
the framework is called *mathematica*,
which isn't just a programme from the Wolframites;
it is four subjects!
if you cannot study the original monographs
of the various creators of these subjects, or create them from
scratch, yourself,
go to Hell!
anyway, here's the OEuvres du Fermatttt,
who created the modern science of numbertheory, and
he certainly could have proved this early (for him) result:
wlym.com
> Why "must" there be such a "framework"? Is it inconceivable to you that
> problems like F"L"T are just hard and complicated?
thusNso:
if there is one thing that is renewable, it is "petroleum,"
also marketed as "Fossilized Fuels TM;"
is it not really biomass?
of organic seeps -- well, I read this of *spills*, but --
about half evaporates (VOCs, create ozone,
just like Ronny Raygun said of trees, two), and
the other half is eaten by plankton.
thusNso:
it's just oil, which is biomass of unknown C14/C12 dating
(til they release the Official Age in Days .-)
read in the paper, one day, that the guestimate
on the natural seepage of oil in the Gulf,
is about one Exxon Valdez per annum, BUT
that is while we're pumping like crazy, man.
(I mean, I'm pogoing, dood, and They are pumping.)
no similar guestimate have I read,
of the Redondo Seep, but I'm sure that the Gabrielenos etc.
have some kind of lore (search on "bitumen," but
googol it at your own risk; "when you googol it,
We know it (TM)").
thusNso:
yes, but "no communication FTL" is "not spooky." formally,
there is a proof that (mathematical) induction is one-
to-one with deduction; thus, no hypothesis ca be made,
merely by induction. what is unrealistic about not looking
at Schroedinger's cat?... that could save you some problem,
like changing the litter-box. (anyway, that was most
of the "point" of his cat: the "problem" is resolved,
by opening the box & looking, or smelling.)
there is such a tremendous variation in quality
of sci.am., dealing with QM and cosmology Pop Sci,
it is hardly worth scanning the cartoons; stick with Gardener (RIP, in
reprint).
the more serious you become with it, the more likely that
you'll become the "exotic matter to make an EPR bridge" --
with negative mass.
anyway, what is "arbitrary" about a phase-factor?... Schroedinger's
equation
gives real parameters & pictures, where to find the electron; but,
you can't then measure one, without affecting another parameter
of a pair -- aren't there as many of those, as you can
set-up mathematically & instrumentally?
what is rarely said in Sci.Am. articles about q.teleportation e.g.,
is that such a transformation must conform, more or less, to E=mcc
-- "sorry, we couldn't make a copy of you, two."
> (a) realism; (b) induction works (science); (c) Einstein separability
> I think realism implies that, for any axis of measurement, a proton
> is either spin up or spin down (even if there is no measurement).
> It seems to me that realism isn't testable.
> There could be many EPR-type thought experiments.
thusNso:
thank you, The Maetherwocky!
> > check-out Alfven's plasma physics/cosmology.
> That is not to say I think a photon travels as a quantum of mæther,
> just that it would still be considered to be massless because it would
> be a quantum of mæther traveling through the mæther.
thusNso:
yeah; on the net, no-one knows if you're a poesy-talking dog,
unless you tell them.
> The fierce book that falls upon the shoulder
> bringing the weight that stays with reminisce
> the present to the future like a binding scroll
> to carry is to wrap the tattered edges tightly
> in sympathy that we ourselves are frayed with age
> we look upon the written lightly; knowing we are also.
> automutt.deviantart.com/
thusNso:
per my usual, I jumped into the middle of the article, so
I probably missed an earlier statement about "the value
of polar amplification." well, there has been a very long-
running assumption, dumped into GCMs, that the poles
would warm more than tropics, with such probably transient
effects like floating ice-cover in the Arctic, taken as totems.
the problem is with Ahrrenius's 1896 "glass house," and the lack
of any common-sense model of an ordinary one,
at a particular lattitude (but, he didn't win the first Nobel
in a category for that, any way .-)... I mean,
insolation is completely differential from equator to poles,
taking as the norm "noon on the equinoix," from nothing
at the poles, to something at the equator.
> These techniques of course, make some assumptions. Firstly, that the
> spatio-temporal pattern associated with a particular forcing is
> reasonably accurate (though the magnitude of the pattern can be too
> large or small without causing a problem). To a large extent this is the
> case – the stratospheric cooling/tropospheric warming pattern associated
> with CO2 increases is well understood, as are the qualitative land vs
> ocean/Northern vs. southern/Arctic amplification features. The exact
> value of polar amplification though is quite uncertain, though this
> affects all the response patterns and so is not a crucial factor. More
> problematic are results that indicate that specific forcings might
> impact existing regional patterns of variability, like the Arctic
> Oscillation or El Niño. In those cases, clearly distinguishing internal
> natural variability from the forced change ...
>
> don't read more »
thusNso:
that seems rather unlikely, because
"orthogonal Hilbert dimensions" etc. are rather abstract. on the
other hand,
there is nothing arbitrary about 11-dim. objects in W-theory (meaning,
What ever), if you consider that no-one bothers to debunk or
deny Kaluza's 5D coordination of Maxwell's spacetime stuff (never
mind,
what Klein decided it "looked like," or Minkowski's slogan about
time .-)
> Or one could define a consistent set of mutually orthogonal dimensions
> with length, time, and momentum, and mass is just some more-or-less
thusNso:
although global warming is almost entirely a)
computerized simulacra, and b)
very selective reporting, it seems that
the effects we have on landscapes & atmosphere are much larger
than could be accounted for, merely by measuring the gasses
that are the end result (agricultural turnover of CO2 is much greater
than that from cars or electricity e.g.; there may have been no jet
stream,
before the ivention of jets e.g.).
water vapor is far & away the greatest "glass house gas," yet CO2
is the one
that is not presewnt in three or four phases in the background, and is
#2 (also,
as John Muir dyscovered, you can be nearly smothered by it,
just by digging a 40' well for your grumpy dad-unit, by hand .-)
so, stop Waxman's capNtrade "Last Bailout of W.Street and the City
of L.;"
institute a tiny, adjustable tax on carbon,instead of "free trade,
free beer, free dumb."
a combination of nuclear & solar etc. in space,
might alleviate some of the needs in here (with or without the
Satellevator Synchrogeos,
which seems totally unworkable, with or without graphenes).
thusNso:
well, the textbook method is quite questionable, iff
you have access to the original monographs of the dyscoverers. but,
what I was going to type, just now, is that *mathematica* is not a
program
from the Wolframites ("yo, my daddy dyscovered an element!"), but
it is four subjects (*quadrivium* in Latin .-)... if Timmy wants
to pretend that he can grok it all, de novo,
it might take a while.
> The response is in any basic textbook.
thusNso:
I was reading one of Brown's books, and he is pretty-much
in the officious opinions of the Second Church of England, Newton,
about the "separation of science & religion," the idolization
of Galileo (as in, Galileo started the Illuminati,
sheesh, the background to the one where he relays
the officially unofficial Anglican doctrine
about the Chosen (British) People. well-paced, though.
> religion. It is fairly clear to me that progress will not lay in the
> direction of negating time http://bandtechnology.com
thusNso:
if the proofs of Bell's inequalities are interpreted
to mean that EPR were wrong, then you *should* transmit info
faster than lightwaves. a lot of the formalistic "paradox" goes
by the wauyside, by not enlisting the rock o'light
to impart the "momentum" to the atoms, electromagnetically. maybe,
the confusion is not helped, that EPR et al were wedded
to that "photon" being a particle. well, if
there's is only one thing that can't be a particle
-- except in some equatiopnal form with momentum --
it is waves of light in space -- not Pascal's Plenum!
never much cared for stuff from Templeton Prize Pop Sci,
kind of an Anglican thing, in Philadelphia, as I recall.
> For one thing, there's an arbitrary phase factor exp(i*theta)
> I think. Rather, it's a probabilistic theory tool.
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
Don Stockbauer
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup.
They slither while they pass, they make their way across the Universe.
BURT
No we don't. We have data.
Mitch Raemsch
> In the future we will know a lot more. "A
> lot" is relative.- Hide quoted text -
Don Stockbauer
Well, your conversational opponent can play the game just a swell as
you can, Mitch:
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. You just want to think of it that way. Give science millions of
years and ask it if it knows a lot.
This is intellectual dishonesty to say that we know a lot when it is
just that we have gathered what looks like a lot of data.
Science and you are clearly too young to claim it knows a lot.
I challenge you on that.
Mitch Raemsch
alien8er
> On 5/28/2010 1:22 PM, maxwell wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT<macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> >> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> >> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> >> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> >> Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. In
> > order to gain public support (particularly cash), scientists like to
> > claim most of the credit for technological advances in the last 200
> > years. Most of these were due to engineers, who have remained little
> > known (if at all) since the scientists are the intellectuals who write
> > the books. "He who writes, defines the history."
>
> If you don't have the theory you can't do the engineering.
Horseshit.
Tell us about the Japanese theoreticians behind the most feared
swords in Asian history.
Tell us about the Mongol theoreticians who worked out tension,
torsion, and ballistics theories before engineering their marvelous
composite bows.
Tell us about the Egyptian theoreticians who worked out the
compression failure limits of various types of stone *on papyrus*
before engineering pyramids.
Tell us about the thermodynamics that was worked out before anyone
ever designed and built a steam engine.
Tell us about the turbulent-flow equations that were solved before
the Wright brothers flew.
> Think radio would have existed without electromagnetic theory
Radio *was* largely engineering. You *do* know the history of the
vacuum tube, right? Does the term "Edison Effect" ring a bell?
What part of advancing electromagnetic theory do you attribute to
Nikola Tesla?
> or lasers without quantum theory?
Lasers are arguably a special case of fluorescence and IMO would
have been invented eventually anyway.
> And where would the electronics industry be
> without transistors?
Google for Oskar Heil.
Mark L. Fergerson
alien8er
> On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said.
>
> > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever
> > say.
>
> > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know
> > squat.
>
> data.
I mean what I said; we know a lot about how to *interpret* what data
we have gathered and how to use it to *predict* other data and how to
go look for it.
You wish to define "a lot" one particular way, namely what we will
know in millions of years (assuming we're even around by then), but
that's not my problem.
Science requires a weird mix of arrogance (I can *so* solve this
problem!) and humility (everything I know may turn out to be wrong).
You want to concentrate on the humility, fine, go right ahead. But
don't make the mistake of assuming I'm focusing on the arrogance.
Einstein said "The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know."
But beware *your* arrogance; he also said "Whoever undertakes to set
himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the
laughter of the gods."
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
> On May 28, 10:58 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 5:27 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> > > > taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> > > > idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> > > > future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said.
>
> > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever
> > > say.
>
> > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know
> > > squat.
>
> > We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of
> > data.
>
> I mean what I said; we know a lot about how to *interpret* what data
> we have gathered and how to use it to *predict* other data and how to
> go look for it.
Oh really. I don't think so. Prove it. Science is much too young to
make that claim. The only thing you have right is the idea of a lot of
data.
Mitch Raemsch
alien8er
Science isn't just stamp-collecting; it's useful because it's
*predictive*. What we learn about the patterns in our "lot of data"
tells us about things we *didn't* collect data on yet, and when we
collect that data we discover either that the pattern we found earlier
still holds, or that new patterns emerge.
Example:
Why is gold yellow?
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science has gathered a lot of data but not any complete or even near
complete understanding. It is far too young to proclaim it any
different.
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> complete understanding. It is far too young to proclaim it any
> different.
I said nothing about "complete". I said we have a lot more knowledge
(understanding, if you prefer) than you seem to think we do, which was
gained from discovering patterns in the data we *have* collected.
When do you think "complete" understanding of *anything* will come?
Also, why do *you* think gold is yellow?
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Millions of years of work not right around the corner as the nut
Hawking has promissed in the 80's.
Mitch Raemsch
rick_s
<0d746578-840e-4997...@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
macro...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
>taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
>idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
>future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
>Mitch Raemsch
If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal of
electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and Marconi?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_the_E
ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG
The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can put
two and two together.
BURT
> In article
> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> macromi...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
> >taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
> >idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant
> >future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>
> >Mitch Raemsch
>
> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal of
> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and Marconi?
>
> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG
>
> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can put
> two and two together.
What's your point rick?
purple
Science is the study of nature. It began with early man.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. It began after civilization. The scientific method is much
younger.
In historical standard Galileo is considered its father.
It is too young to make claims right now. Everyone needs to be
objective to time and science. It is the future that can proclaimed to
be great not what we have already done. You can give it millions of
years.
Mitch Raemsch
purple
You're narrow minded and wrong about everything you *think* you know.
"A full description of Aristotle's contributions to science
and philosophy is beyond the scope of this exhibit, but a
brief summary can be made: Whereas Aristotle's teacher Plato
had located ultimate reality in Ideas or eternal forms,
knowable only through reflection and reason, Aristotle saw
ultimate reality in physical objects, knowable through
experience. Objects, including organisms, were composed of
a potential, their matter, and of a reality, their form;
thus, a block of marble -- matter -- has the potential to
assume whatever form a sculptor gives it, and a seed or
embryo has the potential to grow into a living plant or
animal form. In living creatures, the form was identified
with the soul; plants had the lowest kinds of souls, animals
had higher souls which could feel, and humans alone had
rational, reasoning souls. In turn, animals could be
classified by their way of life, their actions, or, most
importantly, by their parts.
"Though Aristotle's work in zoology was not without errors,
it was the grandest biological synthesis of the time, and
remained the ultimate authority for many centuries after
his death. His observations on the anatomy of octopus,
cuttlefish, crustaceans, and many other marine invertebrates
are remarkably accurate, and could only have been made from
first-hand experience with dissection. Aristotle described
the embryological development of a chick; he distinguished
whales and dolphins from fish; he described the chambered
stomachs of ruminants and the social organization of bees;
he noticed that some sharks give birth to live young -- his
books on animals are filled with such observations, some of
which were not confirmed until many centuries later."
<http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html>
"Ancient Navigators Could Have Measured Longitude -- in Egypt
in 232 B.C. !
"The Maui expedition was under the guidance of Eratosthenes,
the great scientist who was also the chief librarian of the
library at Alexandria. Could this voyage have demonstrated
Eratosthenes' theorem that the world was round, and measured
approximately 24,500 miles in circumference? One of the
navigational instruments which Maui had with him was a
strange looking "calculator" that he called a tanawa;
such an instrument was known, in 1492, as a torquetum.
"Eratosthenes had just measured the circumference of the Earth,
and the circumference of a sphere is the same in all directions.
We know that Maui was thinking about this, because his cave
drawings also include a proof of Eratosthenes' experiment to
measure the Earth's circumference."
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821404/posts>
Pythagoras (580?-? B.C.)
Plato (427?-347? B.C.)
<http://library.thinkquest.org/29033/history/ancientgreeks.htm>
And there were lots of other contributors through the ages
predating Galileo. I started with a few well documented
examples.
Now come back and repeat some trite saying you've conjured up
in order to evade the truth of the matter. That's what you
always do to avoid learning anything worthwhile.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. There were pre-scientists before the scientific method but still
it doesn't change the fact that science is young and really has just
begun.
We need to be objective to time concerning the scientific enterprize.
Clearly it is much younger than civilization itself. Our species is
much older than civilization by far. Our species is at 3 million. I
ask what will science be like in that amount of time. That is when we
will be able to make claims not now in the very beginning.
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
Oh, shut up, already.
>
> We need to be objective to time concerning the scientific enterprize.
> Clearly it is much younger than civilization itself. Our species is
> much older than civilization by far. Our species is at 3 million. I
> ask what will science be like in that amount of time. That is when we
> will be able to make claims not now in the very beginning.
As the nuns used to say, "These are mysteries you'll learn when you
die."
purple
> On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
>> Now come back and repeat some trite saying you've conjured up
>> in order to evade the truth of the matter. That's what you
>> always do to avoid learning anything worthwhile.
> Yes. There were pre-scientists before the scientific method but still
> it doesn't change the fact that science is young and really has just
> begun.
And there you are, right on cue, with trite crap.
Did these people get anything right? Yes.
Has science incorporated any of the study/work these people
did? Yes.
Then they studied/worked on problems needed by and used by the
later scientists. Yes.
Your line of demarcation is crap.
BURT
> On 6/4/2010 1:14 AM, BURT wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> >> Now come back and repeat some trite saying you've conjured up
> >> in order to evade the truth of the matter. That's what you
> >> always do to avoid learning anything worthwhile.
> > Yes. There were pre-scientists before the scientific method but still
> > it doesn't change the fact that science is young and really has just
> > begun.
>
> And there you are, right on cue, with trite crap.
>
> Did these people get anything right? Yes.
>
wrong and it is the future that will prove this to be a fact.
> Has science incorporated any of the study/work these people
> did? Yes.
>
> Then they studied/worked on problems needed by and used by the
> later scientists. Yes.
>
> Your line of demarcation is crap.
Science will be great in its vast future.
Mitch Raemsch
purple
Not if Obama has his way.
BURT
Everything is in danger by that man not just science.
Mitch Raemsch
BruceS
<snip>
>
> Oh, shut up, already.
>
<snip
While purple's posts had me scratching my head a bit about why he's
apparently trying to reason with an insane imbecile (I suspect an
ulterior motive), yours just made me laugh out loud. Sierra tango
foxtrot uniform indeed. Not going to happen, but funny anyway.
BURT
Show me where I am wrong about science Bruce.
The future is great not the beginning. It is not possible.
Mitch Raemsch
purple
I believe it was Marx who cautioned that we should occasionally
meet with the enemy to find out what he is willing to give up.
I accept small wins wherever I can find them. If J. Clarke isn't
another insane imbecile it might also have made a point with him.
And even if he is, a change in tactics was like a little vacation.
purple
It has already been done. That you're too stupid to comprehend
simple facts is nobody's fault, not even yours. The wrong parts
ran down your mother's leg.
BURT
> On 6/4/2010 9:16 PM, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 7:08 pm, BruceS<bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 6:32 am, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Oh, shut up, already.
>
> >> <snip
>
> >> While purple's posts had me scratching my head a bit about why he's
> >> apparently trying to reason with an insane imbecile (I suspect an
> >> ulterior motive), yours just made me laugh out loud. Sierra tango
> >> foxtrot uniform indeed. Not going to happen, but funny anyway.
>
> > Show me where I am wrong about science Bruce.
>
> > The future is great not the beginning. It is not possible.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> It has already been done.
Oh really? Show me. I say it is too young.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think that you have to believe this about science to believe it
about yourself. In both cases there is no greatness. Even our best
like Einstein was just a very beginning in time.
Mitch Raemsch
purple
It has already been done. That you're too stupid to comprehend
BURT
> On 6/4/2010 9:36 PM, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 7:32 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/4/2010 9:16 PM, BURT wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 4, 7:08 pm, BruceS<bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 4, 6:32 am, Don Stockbauer<donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> Oh, shut up, already.
>
> >>>> <snip
>
> >>>> While purple's posts had me scratching my head a bit about why he's
> >>>> apparently trying to reason with an insane imbecile (I suspect an
> >>>> ulterior motive), yours just made me laugh out loud. Sierra tango
> >>>> foxtrot uniform indeed. Not going to happen, but funny anyway.
>
> >>> Show me where I am wrong about science Bruce.
>
> >>> The future is great not the beginning. It is not possible.
>
> >>> Mitch Raemsch
>
> >> It has already been done.
>
> > Oh really? Show me. I say it is too young.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> It has already been done.
Oh really?
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you look into the history of this very young science do you know
that it is mostly composed of mistakes? We haven't passed that time
yet for science. It is the future where we will start to get things
right. As of now no.
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> On May 31, 6:41 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip to the crash)
> > When do you think "complete" understanding of *anything* will come?
>
> Millions of years of work not right around the corner as the nut
> Hawking has promissed in the 80's.
I'm uninterested in your opinion of Hawking. I asked your opinion of
when we'll gain "complete understanding" of anything. So far you've
managed to avoid expressing what "complete" might mean.
Again I ask:
> > Also, why do *you* think gold is yellow?
And yes, that's a tease to try to get you to refute this:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
> On May 31, 6:55 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 6:41 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip to the crash)
>
> > > When do you think "complete" understanding of *anything* will come?
>
> > Millions of years of work not right around the corner as the nut
> > Hawking has promissed in the 80's.
>
> I'm uninterested in your opinion of Hawking. I asked your opinion of
> when we'll gain "complete understanding" of anything. So far you've
> managed to avoid expressing what "complete" might mean.
Not at all. I have expressed it before. Complete means tested under
every variable of condition that might produce a different result. If
all fundamental variation is tested and not found wanting at that
point there is nothing left to test and we can embrace the theory as
complete.
Mitch Raemsch
rick_s
donsto...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>On Jun 4, 1:14�am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 10:23�pm, purple <pur...@colorme.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...@colorme.com> �wrote:
>> > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote:
>>
>> > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...@my.com> � �wrote:
>> > >>>> In article
>> > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > >>>> macromi...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> > >>>>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old
>> > >>>>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The
>> > >>>>> idea of science having complete theories �is for the very distant
>> > >>>>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead.
>>
>> > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>
>> > >>>> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal
of
>> > >>>> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and
Marconi?
>>
>> >
>>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t...
>> > >>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG
>>
>> > >>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can
put
>> > >>>> two and two together.
>>
>> > >>> What's your point rick?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young.
But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is.
I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand
what I am talking about.
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&src=msl
On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two
missiles.
We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the
south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and
inner atmosphere into space.
We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we
have lots of other evidence about this weird event.
We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625
scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what
looks like old Peruvian markings on it.
So how could science be young?
rick_s
>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t...
>>>>>>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG
>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can
> put
>>>>>>>> two and two together.
>>>
>>>>>>> What's your point rick?
>
> Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
>
> My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young.
>
> But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is.
>
> I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand
> what I am talking about.
>
> http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&src=msl
> On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two
> missiles.
>
> We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the
I have to correct this typo because my news reader software Winvn hates me.
That should read...
"We know from the historical record and 3 space probes that a missile
exploded at the"
The latest space probe we sent BTW was the LCROSS probe which found
water ice again.
Clementine, LCROSS and the Chandrayaan-1 which even found carbon in the
water.
LCROSS and Chandrayaan-1 used impactors and then analyzed the dust plume.
Here is the eye witness account...
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica161a.jpg
BURT
> In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> donstockba...@hotmail.com says...
> On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two
> missiles.
>
> We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the
> south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and
> inner atmosphere into space.
> We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we
> have lots of other evidence about this weird event.
> We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon.
>
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625
> scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what
> looks like old Peruvian markings on it.
>
It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father.
The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was
based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history
and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not
objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure
is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great
future of science and not until then.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
Hi Mitch. When I think that up until 120 ago there was no flight, no
television or radio, no electricity, no automobiles, no telephone-
from a scientific standpoint, we are finally beginning to many great
things
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Technology doesn't make man great. It is superficial. It is in no way
a measure of the greatness of spirit. It is only a level of comfort.
Technical genius is superficial.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
Being able to eventually get off of this Earth, will not only help
mankind, but it will insure its survival by the sheer fact that all of
our eggs will not be in one basket. I think all of these advances are
predestined- because they are prequels to our eventual migration.
BURT
Balogna. Tapping the entire resources of our planet for a few people
in space is the dumbest thing Stephen Hawking has ever said. That will
never solve any problem. If we loose the Earth we are dead all of the
way. So this idea really is rediculous.
> I think all of these advances are
> predestined-
How would a few people in space be an advance?
Are they going to dance around on mars?
Are they going to get smarter?
I mean come on? It would be billions of dollars of resources that are
set to run out right about now anyway.
Mitch Raemsch
> because they are prequels to our eventual migration.- Hide quoted text -
GogoJF
I think you really have to think in terms of hundreds, even thousands
of years down the line here. If we have done, what we have done in
120 years, and if knowledge is geometric in growth, then imagine what
things will be like in 500 years.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before you go on show that it is doable to any degree. It is not.
What is doable is too small and it is going to stay that way.
No. The Earth is where people will remain. There is no excuse that it
this will change in the future.
If you want to dance on mars spend your own money to do it. Leave the
Earth's resources alone. They will recylce for the Earth in the future
when man develops.
Something more important is going to happen on your timeline gogo.
In this century we have a global collapse comming. We will be dealing
with that for the longest time after. So space travel will become less
important.
I guess an inferior genius like Hawking appeals to your nonsense?
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
In the last 120 years, we've had two World Wars, with a Hitler to
boot, a world-wide depression, among other endless calamity- and we
have still been able to advance, despite all of these setbacks.
Whoever conquers space, will conquer the universe.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
So we are great right now when you say we had world wars?
That is not a sign of greatness.
It is not conquering space it is developing space travel that will be
great. Hawking is the biggest idiot for suggesting that aliens
conquere space and will conquere us for the colonization that could
never even happen.
Mitch Raemsch
rick_s
>>
>> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text -
>
> It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father.
> The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was
> based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history
> and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not
> objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure
> is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great
> future of science and not until then.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras?
Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
BURT
> On 6/7/2010 0:25, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
> >> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father.
> > The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was
> > based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history
> > and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not
> > objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure
> > is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great
> > future of science and not until then.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras?
They are considered pre-science but if you must take them into account
they came much later than civilization. They were thinking mostly in
terms of mistakes. We come from the same history. Science has yet to
get away from its legacy of mistakes.
Science's greatness is for the future by those Great in Spirit.
>
> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
I do not think that aliens are anything to worry about. But, when it
comes to our own self-survival, that is a different matter. Consider
this. What if we established a station on the moon. Is this too
radical of step? That way, if a killer meteor hit the Earth and
killed everything on it- then we would have at least the population of
the moon to carry on. After the smoke settles, we could re-inhabit
Earth from the moon. Sounds like a sci-fi thriller.
rick_s
>>
>> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras?
>
> They are considered pre-science but if you must take them into account
> they came much later than civilization. They were thinking mostly in
> terms of mistakes. We come from the same history. Science has yet to
> get away from its legacy of mistakes.
>
> Science's greatness is for the future by those Great in Spirit.
>
>>
>> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Well the atomists ...
"date back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the fifth century
BC. These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two
fundamental and opposite, indivisible bodies � atoms and void (void is
mere nothing, or the body's negation). Atoms are intrinsically
unchangeable and move about the void combining into different clusters
(and these clusters form differing substances)."
That last sentence seems a little too much like a lucky guess from my
perspective. I am not saying they had scanning tunneling microscopy, but
with certainty, people have been getting information in their sleep from
somewhere.
Now granted the level of human evolution or development has been such
that it has been difficult for people to assimilate the knowledge they
have been given, but that is not the fault of science or the scientists
who have led man through the ages. (Whoever they might be and wherever
they might be.)
If you consider Descartes, he was a monk. Newton, a pious theologian. In
fact, many of the greats were monks like Gregor Mendel, were doing
science and at the same probably getting their marching orders in their
sleep through dreams or like Pascal, some enlightening experience.
Hence why I mentioned Pascal's Amulet.
If you consider he created the first computer, and dramatically changed
the world with his science and math, including probability theory, AND
he got the information in his sleep and through divine revelation.
Quantum mechanics even is based on Pascal's work amongst others.
What about Cantor? Abducted by aliens in the mountains. Comes up with
the first fractal, and set theory. That led to relativity and the bomb.
So man is progressing as fast as he can, and he is being fed information
as quickly as he can assimilate it. From what I see of history.
BURT
> On 6/7/2010 2:16, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras?
>
> > They are considered pre-science but if you must take them into account
> > they came much later than civilization. They were thinking mostly in
> > terms of mistakes. We come from the same history. Science has yet to
> > get away from its legacy of mistakes.
>
> > Science's greatness is for the future by those Great in Spirit.
>
> >> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Well the atomists ...
> "date back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the fifth century
> BC. These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two
However old you might want to say science is that is still too young
to amount to much greatness. This is true of civilization itself. It
is just simply a fact. If it were not true we wouldn't have a better
future to look forward to. We are in the beginning if you are
objective to time.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:zFXOn.123151$gv4....@newsfe09.iad...
> On 6/7/2010 0:25, BURT wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father.
>> The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was
>> based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history
>> and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not
>> objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure
>> is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great
>> future of science and not until then.
>>
>> Mitch Raemsch
>>
>
> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras?
They were philosphers more than scientists. Certainly there would be some
individuals that used the logical approach of scientific method before
Galileo, but that was the exception, rather that the rule.
> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he?
A butcher? :):)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
He was a researcher .. in that he certainly gathered information and
observation; and a philosopher .. in that he formed ideas and notions that
he he used to explain his findings; and a physician .. in that he put that
knowledge into practise. But science as we know it is as a formal process
is more than just that.
Also again, some individuals may have used (some/all) the processes of
scientific method earlier than Galileo.
Searching for knowledge and trying to understand the world around (and
within) us is older than civilization .. but widely accepted, formalized,
scientific method is relatively young.
Inertial
> On 6/7/2010 2:16, BURT wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras?
>>
>> They are considered pre-science but if you must take them into account
>> they came much later than civilization. They were thinking mostly in
>> terms of mistakes. We come from the same history. Science has yet to
>> get away from its legacy of mistakes.
>>
>> Science's greatness is for the future by those Great in Spirit.
>>
>>>
>>> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was
>>> he?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
>>
>> Mitch Raemsch
>
> Well the atomists ...
> "date back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the fifth century
> BC. These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two
> fundamental and opposite, indivisible bodies � atoms and void (void is
> mere nothing, or the body's negation). Atoms are intrinsically
> unchangeable and move about the void combining into different clusters
> (and these clusters form differing substances)."
>
> That last sentence seems a little too much like a lucky guess from my
> perspective. I am not saying they had scanning tunneling microscopy, but
> with certainty, people have been getting information in their sleep from
> somewhere.
Science is not just coming up with interesting ideas (that may indeed be
(close to) correct). That is philosophy.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well if the stars run out then there is no survival for the universe.
Although if there is a God that can be proven to then be false.
I know I will be around in the future and my eternal soul cannot be
terminated.
Mitch Raemsch
J. Clarke
Butchers dissect animals. Are they scientists? Science is a method,
not a body of knowledge.
GogoJF
Mitch, there is a difference in the reality of the self- of the
eventual outcome of the individual verses the society- the overall,
propagation and future civilization of mankind. As tiring as it seems
in our lifetimes, we must insure the public- because the public is us-
that the planet Earth will be accessible for hundreds and thousands of
years to come.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The global collapse is going to bring us together. The auful it may
seem. When we begin to manage our planet for its future it will join
us as one world. We cannot colonize other worlds to save us from our
death because it isn't doable. Anyone who is objective to what that
takes knows the Earth is where we stay.
MItch Raemsch
rick_s
Well what about a person who collects butterflies, and makes notes and
drawings, and all that sort of thing? Is that not the scientific method?
If you mean strictly Baconian science, then I probably agree with you.
But only because there needed to be a way to sort out the truth you get
in your sleep from the absolute bs that is also being fed to people
through those same channels.
You know its very difficult to see this undercurrent of information
transfer that happens. For instance when the same invention is made at
the same time in different parts of the world.
Today with the way communication is global you would not notice any
information transfer of that kind but in the old world where people
could not communicate well globally, you still see the same inventions
coming up at the same time, in parts of the world.
And on top of all that, currents of information like innuendo, that
seems to be talking above people's heads, from some loftier perspective.
I will give you an example of this with Cantor.
Now he was a master genius. And he did have a breakdown of some sort
that today people might say they were abducted by aliens or similar.
It looks like the same experience when you delve into it. Its not easy
to find because people's mental conditions are kept private so the
details are not given in most biographies.
Such as the biography at St. Andrews. But if you read this quote...
Re Cantor:
All was not going well in other ways too, for in 1885 Mittag-Leffler
persuaded Cantor to withdraw one of his papers from Acta Mathematica
when it had reached the proof stage because he thought it "... about one
hundred years too soon". Cantor joked about it but was clearly hurt:-
Had Mittag-Leffler had his way, I should have to wait until the
year 1984, which to me seemed too great a demand! ... But of course I
never want to know anything again about Acta Mathematica.
Well ok, is 1984 just a coincidence here? Of course it is, and of course
there are no coincidences as well, depending on your own opinions about
these things.
And what was he raving about? He was raving about Bacon. And claiming he
wrote Shakespeare's plays. And well there is a lot of reasons why people
thought that, because both Bacon and Shakespear were on-line too.
In the spiritual sense of being aware, having had enlightening
experiences the same as Pascal.
And in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard M. Bucke (circa 1901)
he relates the experiences of these people as being the same type of
experience.
So probably Cantor was trying to somehow tell people that he had seen
the light in a manner of speaking and he had no way to explain to them
what that meant, which led to his eventual depression and stay in a
sanatorium etc.
BURT
> >news:zFXOn.123151$gv4....@newsfe09.iad...
> >> On 6/7/2010 0:25, BURT wrote:
>
> >>>> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father.
> >>>
them? You can't explain them by atoms.
>
> - Show quoted text -
How can atoms in the form of a round arc hang above and radiate the
spectrum? Won't these atoms fall or move in the atmosphere as a gas?
NO. Science has its Pot O Gold and Leprachon. Its explanation is a big
lie that they want you to believe because they have convinced
themselves that they are smart.
Show how a circular arc can float in the sky without changing position
as matter always does over time.
No. Rainbows can't be explained by atoms.
Mitch Raemsch
rick_s
>>
>> And in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard M. Bucke (circa 1901)
>> he relates the experiences of these people as being the same type of
>> experience.
>>
>> So probably Cantor was trying to somehow tell people that he had seen
>> the light in a manner of speaking and he had no way to explain to them
>> what that meant, which led to his eventual depression and stay in a
>> sanatorium etc.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> How can atoms in the form of a round arc hang above and radiate the
> spectrum? Won't these atoms fall or move in the atmosphere as a gas?
>
> NO. Science has its Pot O Gold and Leprachon. Its explanation is a big
> lie that they want you to believe because they have convinced
> themselves that they are smart.
>
> Show how a circular arc can float in the sky without changing position
> as matter always does over time.
>
> No. Rainbows can't be explained by atoms.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Well you are missing the point Burt. The point I am trying to show is
that there is information that somehow people receive, not everyone can
make use of it, but geniuses well placed like Pascal, Newton, Bacon,
Cantor, they do make use of that information.
But these people were scientists probably from birth. And they would
have to be geniuses to be able to understand what they were being shown
or told since often there may not be familiar words to use to explain
the concepts.
Now I showed you one modern example that is not communication by dreams,
but similar, in that imagery from Peru as seen from space.
The missile man. And we also have an artifact in the form of an Ica
stone and there are a bunch of other similar artifacts that all tell us,
that about 2 million years ago, someone launched two 20km long nukes at
the moon, one impacted at the south pole, and there was outgassing from
that blast, since the interior is a terraformed space.
So ok, that's a lot to swallow. No matter what the source of that
information is. So using the Baconian method, rather than believing
blindly, we have done some empirical science and sent probes there to
see if there was water there. There is. Not satisfied with the results
from Clementine (sponsored by the Pentagon) which used ground
penetrating radar to find water ice, we sent more probes there this time
with impactors.
Now the Indians have said there is carbon in that water, which is what
we really want to know. Are there signs of life in that water that
supposedly came from inside the moon? And so we are still investigating
it at the speed at which molasses flows uphill in the winter.
Why does it take so long? The whole notion that the moon is anything but
rock is the realm of science fiction.
And every step along the way, as science marches on, the majority of
people work to prevent science from marching forward.
Yet by perseverance science marches on. But prior to Bacon, you could
argue that all people had to go on was faith.
Galen was right about a lot of medicine and his medicine was used for a
very long time until around the time of Bacon.
But Galen never dissected humans. Only animals. So his medicine was full
of human anatomy, that just is not there. It is only in the anatomy of
some animals.
Bacon however and his movement caused people to examine cadavers, and by
that science progressed. By not taking things on faith.
That may not seem like a big leap but to be a believer, and think that
the information you are being given is coming from God or angels or some
religious enlightenment, and then to say well hold on, are they telling
us the truth? That would be heresy. And even a personal type of heresy
in private because a s a person, you now have to decide that the people
who are giving this information are not perfect.
Or perhaps God is not perfect.
And that is a very difficult step to make. To say well, we can't trust
this information, we need to prove it to ourselves through empirical
means. But lets not make assumptions about the credibility of our
sources, lets just do fact gathering, for the sake of it, and see what
THAT shows us, so we don't have to call anyone a liar, or make and
judgements about sources, lets just look at the facts, and since God
made nature (according to these people who were themselves religious
people working for the Church in many instances as monks or theologians)
since God made nature we are just examining Gods good works.
And that is like independence day for humanity. The coming of age.
To stand up and dare to defy doctrine and investigate through physical
means. Fact gathering, pure science, and experiment.
purple
Bzzzzttttttt! Wrong. Your knowledge and understanding are as
thin as BURT's.
"Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to
understand better, the history of the natural world and how
the natural world works, with observable physical evidence
as the basis of that understanding."
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html
And even that's overcomplicated. The definition given when I
was in school was simply:
Science is the study of nature.
If you don't get it you're as mentally deficient as BURT
whose definitions are all self-serving.
See also:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see that for personal reasons; that is for you to remain great; the
state of science must be. But this is pure nonsense.
Science has just began. The same with a somewhat older beginning of
civilization.
Science isn't gathering facts. Those are data.
Mitch Raemsch