Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 13:29 On 6/7/2010 2:16, BURT wrote: >> >> 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 Well the atomists ... "date back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the fifth century BC. These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two fundamental and opposite, indivisible bodies � atoms and void (void is mere nothing, or the body's negation). Atoms are intrinsically unchangeable and move about the void combining into different clusters (and these clusters form differing substances)." That last sentence seems a little too much like a lucky guess from my perspective. I am not saying they had scanning tunneling microscopy, but with certainty, people have been getting information in their sleep from somewhere. Now granted the level of human evolution or development has been such that it has been difficult for people to assimilate the knowledge they have been given, but that is not the fault of science or the scientists who have led man through the ages. (Whoever they might be and wherever they might be.) If you consider Descartes, he was a monk. Newton, a pious theologian. In fact, many of the greats were monks like Gregor Mendel, were doing science and at the same probably getting their marching orders in their sleep through dreams or like Pascal, some enlightening experience. Hence why I mentioned Pascal's Amulet. If you consider he created the first computer, and dramatically changed the world with his science and math, including probability theory, AND he got the information in his sleep and through divine revelation. Quantum mechanics even is based on Pascal's work amongst others. What about Cantor? Abducted by aliens in the mountains. Comes up with the first fractal, and set theory. That led to relativity and the bomb. So man is progressing as fast as he can, and he is being fed information as quickly as he can assimilate it. From what I see of history.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 21:39 On Jun 6, 10:29 am, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 6/7/2010 2:16, BURT wrote: > > > > >> 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 > > Well the atomists ... > "date back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the fifth century > BC. These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two > fundamental and opposite, indivisible bodies atoms and void (void is > mere nothing, or the body's negation). Atoms are intrinsically > unchangeable and move about the void combining into different clusters > (and these clusters form differing substances)." > > That last sentence seems a little too much like a lucky guess from my > perspective. I am not saying they had scanning tunneling microscopy, but > with certainty, people have been getting information in their sleep from > somewhere. > > Now granted the level of human evolution or development has been such > that it has been difficult for people to assimilate the knowledge they > have been given, but that is not the fault of science or the scientists > who have led man through the ages. (Whoever they might be and wherever > they might be.) > > If you consider Descartes, he was a monk. Newton, a pious theologian. In > fact, many of the greats were monks like Gregor Mendel, were doing > science and at the same probably getting their marching orders in their > sleep through dreams or like Pascal, some enlightening experience. > > Hence why I mentioned Pascal's Amulet. > If you consider he created the first computer, and dramatically changed > the world with his science and math, including probability theory, AND > he got the information in his sleep and through divine revelation. > > Quantum mechanics even is based on Pascal's work amongst others. > > What about Cantor? Abducted by aliens in the mountains. Comes up with > the first fractal, and set theory. That led to relativity and the bomb. > > So man is progressing as fast as he can, and he is being fed information > as quickly as he can assimilate it. From what I see of history. However old you might want to say science is that is still too young to amount to much greatness. This is true of civilization itself. It is just simply a fact. If it were not true we wouldn't have a better future to look forward to. We are in the beginning if you are objective to time. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 21:39 "rick_s" <here(a)my.com> wrote in message news:zFXOn.123151$gv4.1866(a)newsfe09.iad... > On 6/7/2010 0:25, BURT wrote: > >>> >>> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - >> >> It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. >> The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was >> based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history >> and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not >> objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure >> is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great >> future of science and not until then. >> >> Mitch Raemsch >> > > Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras? They were philosphers more than scientists. Certainly there would be some individuals that used the logical approach of scientific method before Galileo, but that was the exception, rather that the rule. > Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he? A butcher? :):) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen He was a researcher .. in that he certainly gathered information and observation; and a philosopher .. in that he formed ideas and notions that he he used to explain his findings; and a physician .. in that he put that knowledge into practise. But science as we know it is as a formal process is more than just that. Also again, some individuals may have used (some/all) the processes of scientific method earlier than Galileo. Searching for knowledge and trying to understand the world around (and within) us is older than civilization .. but widely accepted, formalized, scientific method is relatively young.
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 21:41 "rick_s" <here(a)my.com> wrote in message news:bZXOn.123152$gv4.3494(a)newsfe09.iad... > On 6/7/2010 2:16, BURT wrote: > >>> >>> 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 > > Well the atomists ... > "date back to Leucippus and his student Democritus in the fifth century > BC. These atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two > fundamental and opposite, indivisible bodies � atoms and void (void is > mere nothing, or the body's negation). Atoms are intrinsically > unchangeable and move about the void combining into different clusters > (and these clusters form differing substances)." > > That last sentence seems a little too much like a lucky guess from my > perspective. I am not saying they had scanning tunneling microscopy, but > with certainty, people have been getting information in their sleep from > somewhere. Science is not just coming up with interesting ideas (that may indeed be (close to) correct). That is philosophy.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 21:53
On Jun 6, 6:28 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science says death is our worlds ultimate fate. Well if the stars run out then there is no survival for the universe. Although if there is a God that can be proven to then be false. I know I will be around in the future and my eternal soul cannot be terminated. Mitch Raemsch |