Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: GogoJF on 6 Jun 2010 20:59 On Jun 6, 7:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 5:40 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - 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 > > > > > 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. > > > > 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 - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - 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 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.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 21:05 On Jun 6, 5:59 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:40 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - 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 > > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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 - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - 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 > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - 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
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 13:09 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? Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 21:16 On Jun 6, 10:09 am, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > 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
From: GogoJF on 6 Jun 2010 21:28
On Jun 6, 8:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 5:59 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 5:40 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - 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 > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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 - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - 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 > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - 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 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. |