"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Androcles on 13 Jul 2010 11:02 "Richard Dobson" <richarddobson(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:9r__n.175974$aS3.48403(a)hurricane... | On 13/07/2010 12:18, Androcles wrote: | .. | > Do as Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's last theorem and prove the | > charlatan Einstein's relativity from first principles, no appeal to | > authority allowed. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the | > irony, fraud. | > | | I wish I could, but (a) I am not a physicist (well-paid or otherwise; Hi | Arindam!) and (b) the experimental procedures required are way beyond my | resources. All mathematics needs is a mathematician; physics needs kit. Pop science as you see it in magazines and TV shows such as Horizon needs about as much kit as Jurassic Park did, a computer to generate moving dinosaurs. Here is all the information you need to do as I asked: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Einstein had no kit when he wrote it, you need no kit to respond to it. | Which is why one needs institutions - few individuals can afford it | these days. If/when any of the many arguments from authority on this | lists are proved and confirmed by experiment, none will be more pleased | than I! | | Richard Dobson You don't need an institution to think for yourself, you need a brain. Give it a try. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the irony...
From: Richard Dobson on 13 Jul 2010 12:20 On 13/07/2010 16:02, Androcles wrote: ... > Einstein had no kit when he wrote it, you need no kit to respond to it. 'Nuff said, really. Does this neo-post-modern non-experimental approach apply to physics in general, or just to Einstein? Richard Dobson
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 12:21 > Killfile for the oxygen thief, Bret Cahill. Flattery will get you know where. Bret Cahill
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 12:34 > > ...If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or > > problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is > > intended to end debate on the topic. > > Really? Usually it is intended to enable the debate to move on to a > further stage. You mean like in one of those liberal western societies? I was just discussing those places a few weeks ago. Some science guy said that the question was if China was going to go in some direction like ancient Greece or like ancient Rome. Western civilization took off with the debate . . . Bret Cahill
From: AM on 13 Jul 2010 13:10
Bret Cahill wrote: >>> ...If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or >>> problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is >>> intended to end debate on the topic. >> Really? Usually it is intended to enable the debate to move on to a >> further stage. > > You mean like in one of those liberal western societies? > > I was just discussing those places a few weeks ago. Some science guy > said that the question was if China was going to go in some direction > like ancient Greece or like ancient Rome. Western civilization took > off with the debate . . . > > > Bret Cahill > > China's economy is proceeding at too fast a rate. They will have a crash at sometime, it's only a matter of when.... Right now they actually need us more than we need them. When we (the US) stop buying their stuff, they can/will have a bigger problem then us. It's in their best interest (s) to help the USA as much as possible right now. -- AM |