Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: purple on 4 Jun 2010 00:13 On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: >> In article >> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >> macromi...(a)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? Science is the study of nature. It began with early man.
From: BURT on 4 Jun 2010 00:49 On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > >> In article > >> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > >> macromi...(a)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? > > Science is the study of nature. It began with early man.- Hide quoted text - > > - 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
From: purple on 4 Jun 2010 01:23 On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >>>> macromi...(a)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? >> >> Science is the study of nature. It began with early man.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - 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 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.
From: BURT on 4 Jun 2010 02:14 On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > >>>> In article > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > >>>> macromi...(a)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? > > >> Science is the study of nature. It began with early man.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - 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 > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - 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
From: Don Stockbauer on 4 Jun 2010 08:32
On Jun 4, 1:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > >>>> In article > > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > >>>> macromi...(a)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? > > > >> Science is the study of nature. It began with early man.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - 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 > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - 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. 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." |