Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 22:08 On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)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. > > > > > 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 > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > attitude that it knows a lot. > > Mitch Raemsch Hi
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 22:11 On May 23, 9:08 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)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. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Hi Burt, the second smartest man on the Earth. So fuckin what.
From: GogoJF on 23 May 2010 22:16 On May 23, 9:11 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 9:08 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)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. > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Hi > > Burt, the second smartest man on the Earth. So fuckin what. I love when Spring, spings! I love Dekalb and Sycamore in that order- just joking!
From: Raymond Yohros on 24 May 2010 14:29 On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)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. > > > > > 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 > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > attitude that it knows a lot. > 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.
From: BURT on 24 May 2010 14:33
On May 24, 11:29 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)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. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - 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 |