Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 14:54 On Jun 6, 1:29 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 6:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 31, 6:41 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)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 > > 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
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 10:52 In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8152(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com says... > > >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? 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?
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 11:01 >>>>> 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
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 19:25 On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups..com>, > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > >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? > > 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&s... > 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?- 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 > - Show quoted text -
From: GogoJF on 6 Jun 2010 20:00
On Jun 6, 6:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > >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? > > > 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&s... > > 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?- 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 > > > - Show quoted text - > > 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 |