Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 21:55 On 6/6/2010 1:09 PM, rick_s 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? > > Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen Butchers dissect animals. Are they scientists? Science is a method, not a body of knowledge.
From: GogoJF on 6 Jun 2010 22:12 On Jun 6, 8:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Mitch, there is a difference in the reality of the self- of the eventual outcome of the individual verses the society- the overall, propagation and future civilization of mankind. As tiring as it seems in our lifetimes, we must insure the public- because the public is us- that the planet Earth will be accessible for hundreds and thousands of years to come.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 22:18 On Jun 6, 7:12 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 8:53 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > Mitch, there is a difference in the reality of the self- of the > eventual outcome of the individual verses the society- the overall, > propagation and future civilization of mankind. As tiring as it seems > in our lifetimes, we must insure the public- because the public is us- > that the planet Earth will be accessible for hundreds and thousands of > years to come.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The global collapse is going to bring us together. The auful it may seem. When we begin to manage our planet for its future it will join us as one world. We cannot colonize other worlds to save us from our death because it isn't doable. Anyone who is objective to what that takes knows the Earth is where we stay. MItch Raemsch
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 14:23 On 6/7/2010 2:39, Inertial wrote: > "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. > > Well what about a person who collects butterflies, and makes notes and drawings, and all that sort of thing? Is that not the scientific method? If you mean strictly Baconian science, then I probably agree with you. But only because there needed to be a way to sort out the truth you get in your sleep from the absolute bs that is also being fed to people through those same channels. You know its very difficult to see this undercurrent of information transfer that happens. For instance when the same invention is made at the same time in different parts of the world. Today with the way communication is global you would not notice any information transfer of that kind but in the old world where people could not communicate well globally, you still see the same inventions coming up at the same time, in parts of the world. And on top of all that, currents of information like innuendo, that seems to be talking above people's heads, from some loftier perspective. I will give you an example of this with Cantor. Now he was a master genius. And he did have a breakdown of some sort that today people might say they were abducted by aliens or similar. It looks like the same experience when you delve into it. Its not easy to find because people's mental conditions are kept private so the details are not given in most biographies. Such as the biography at St. Andrews. But if you read this quote... Re Cantor: All was not going well in other ways too, for in 1885 Mittag-Leffler persuaded Cantor to withdraw one of his papers from Acta Mathematica when it had reached the proof stage because he thought it "... about one hundred years too soon". Cantor joked about it but was clearly hurt:- Had Mittag-Leffler had his way, I should have to wait until the year 1984, which to me seemed too great a demand! ... But of course I never want to know anything again about Acta Mathematica. Well ok, is 1984 just a coincidence here? Of course it is, and of course there are no coincidences as well, depending on your own opinions about these things. And what was he raving about? He was raving about Bacon. And claiming he wrote Shakespeare's plays. And well there is a lot of reasons why people thought that, because both Bacon and Shakespear were on-line too. In the spiritual sense of being aware, having had enlightening experiences the same as Pascal. And in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard M. Bucke (circa 1901) he relates the experiences of these people as being the same type of experience. So probably Cantor was trying to somehow tell people that he had seen the light in a manner of speaking and he had no way to explain to them what that meant, which led to his eventual depression and stay in a sanatorium etc.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 22:40
On Jun 6, 11:23 am, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 6/7/2010 2:39, Inertial wrote: > > > > > > > "rick_s" <h...(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. > >>> What about a person who collects rainbows but cannot ever explain them? You can't explain them by atoms. 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. > > Well what about a person who collects butterflies, and makes notes and > drawings, and all that sort of thing? Is that not the scientific method? > > If you mean strictly Baconian science, then I probably agree with you. > > But only because there needed to be a way to sort out the truth you get > in your sleep from the absolute bs that is also being fed to people > through those same channels. > > You know its very difficult to see this undercurrent of information > transfer that happens. For instance when the same invention is made at > the same time in different parts of the world. > > Today with the way communication is global you would not notice any > information transfer of that kind but in the old world where people > could not communicate well globally, you still see the same inventions > coming up at the same time, in parts of the world. > > And on top of all that, currents of information like innuendo, that > seems to be talking above people's heads, from some loftier perspective. > > I will give you an example of this with Cantor. > > Now he was a master genius. And he did have a breakdown of some sort > that today people might say they were abducted by aliens or similar. > It looks like the same experience when you delve into it. Its not easy > to find because people's mental conditions are kept private so the > details are not given in most biographies. > > Such as the biography at St. Andrews. But if you read this quote... > > Re Cantor: > All was not going well in other ways too, for in 1885 Mittag-Leffler > persuaded Cantor to withdraw one of his papers from Acta Mathematica > when it had reached the proof stage because he thought it "... about one > hundred years too soon". Cantor joked about it but was clearly hurt:- > > Had Mittag-Leffler had his way, I should have to wait until the > year 1984, which to me seemed too great a demand! ... But of course I > never want to know anything again about Acta Mathematica. > > Well ok, is 1984 just a coincidence here? Of course it is, and of course > there are no coincidences as well, depending on your own opinions about > these things. > > And what was he raving about? He was raving about Bacon. And claiming he > wrote Shakespeare's plays. And well there is a lot of reasons why people > thought that, because both Bacon and Shakespear were on-line too. > In the spiritual sense of being aware, having had enlightening > experiences the same as Pascal. > > And in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard M. Bucke (circa 1901) > he relates the experiences of these people as being the same type of > experience. > > So probably Cantor was trying to somehow tell people that he had seen > the light in a manner of speaking and he had no way to explain to them > what that meant, which led to his eventual depression and stay in a > sanatorium etc.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How can atoms in the form of a round arc hang above and radiate the spectrum? Won't these atoms fall or move in the atmosphere as a gas? NO. Science has its Pot O Gold and Leprachon. Its explanation is a big lie that they want you to believe because they have convinced themselves that they are smart. Show how a circular arc can float in the sky without changing position as matter always does over time. No. Rainbows can't be explained by atoms. Mitch Raemsch |