Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 23:45 On 6/6/2010 3:23 PM, rick_s wrote: > On 6/7/2010 3:40, BURT wrote: > >>> >>> 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 > > Well you are missing the point Burt. The point I am trying to show is > that there is information that somehow people receive, not everyone can > make use of it, but geniuses well placed like Pascal, Newton, Bacon, > Cantor, they do make use of that information. > > But these people were scientists probably from birth. And they would > have to be geniuses to be able to understand what they were being shown > or told since often there may not be familiar words to use to explain > the concepts. > > Now I showed you one modern example that is not communication by dreams, > but similar, in that imagery from Peru as seen from space. > > The missile man. And we also have an artifact in the form of an Ica > stone and there are a bunch of other similar artifacts that all tell us, > that about 2 million years ago, someone launched two 20km long nukes at > the moon, one impacted at the south pole, and there was outgassing from > that blast, since the interior is a terraformed space. > > So ok, that's a lot to swallow. No matter what the source of that > information is. So using the Baconian method, rather than believing > blindly, we have done some empirical science and sent probes there to > see if there was water there. There is. Not satisfied with the results > from Clementine (sponsored by the Pentagon) which used ground > penetrating radar to find water ice, we sent more probes there this time > with impactors. > > Now the Indians have said there is carbon in that water, which is what > we really want to know. Are there signs of life in that water that > supposedly came from inside the moon? And so we are still investigating > it at the speed at which molasses flows uphill in the winter. > > Why does it take so long? The whole notion that the moon is anything but > rock is the realm of science fiction. > > And every step along the way, as science marches on, the majority of > people work to prevent science from marching forward. > > Yet by perseverance science marches on. But prior to Bacon, you could > argue that all people had to go on was faith. > > Galen was right about a lot of medicine and his medicine was used for a > very long time until around the time of Bacon. > > But Galen never dissected humans. Only animals. So his medicine was full > of human anatomy, that just is not there. It is only in the anatomy of > some animals. > > Bacon however and his movement caused people to examine cadavers, and by > that science progressed. By not taking things on faith. > > That may not seem like a big leap but to be a believer, and think that > the information you are being given is coming from God or angels or some > religious enlightenment, and then to say well hold on, are they telling > us the truth? That would be heresy. And even a personal type of heresy > in private because a s a person, you now have to decide that the people > who are giving this information are not perfect. > Or perhaps God is not perfect. > > And that is a very difficult step to make. To say well, we can't trust > this information, we need to prove it to ourselves through empirical > means. But lets not make assumptions about the credibility of our > sources, lets just do fact gathering, for the sake of it, and see what > THAT shows us, so we don't have to call anyone a liar, or make and > judgements about sources, lets just look at the facts, and since God > made nature (according to these people who were themselves religious > people working for the Church in many instances as monks or theologians) > since God made nature we are just examining Gods good works. > > And that is like independence day for humanity. The coming of age. > To stand up and dare to defy doctrine and investigate through physical > means. Fact gathering, pure science, and experiment. You're coming across as a loony-tune conspiracy theorist. Among other things, if you think that the pace of space exploration has anything to do with obstructionism by scientists you really are clueless. Scientists don't set the budget, politicians do, and politicians can by more votes with Welfare than the can with a space program.
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 00:06 "rick_s" <here(a)my.com> wrote in message news:S2_On.90646$304.88273(a)newsfe12.iad... > On 6/7/2010 4:30, BURT wrote: > >>> >>> And that is like independence day for humanity. The coming of age. >>> To stand up and dare to defy doctrine and investigate through physical >>> means. Fact gathering, pure science, and experiment.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> I see that for personal reasons; that is for you to remain great; the >> state of science must be. But this is pure nonsense. >> Science has just began. The same with a somewhat older beginning of >> civilization. >> >> Science isn't gathering facts. Those are data. >> >> Mitch Raemsch > > I didn't make myself and I don't even remember signing on or agreeing to > be born, in fact most of my information is gathered from greats like > Bacon, Newton, Cantor, Descartes etc. > > I think that your definition of science is not broad enough to include all > the work that people have done that was informal science. Why does it have to? > By your definition philosophy is not science. It isn't > I think philosophy is also science. Then you're wrong > And in fact I would even go further than that and say that skinning > animals and treating aliments with herbs eons ago still required a type of > scientific methodology. Trial and error in many cases. Scientific method is effectively organized and formal trial and error. > But I will be honest with you that I don't know how to include data that > is extraordinary. Even small steps small advances in science are > rigorously attacked by the people in those fields and not always in a > constructive way. Sure skepticism is part of the scientific method and it > is necessary to test hypothesis but science would move faster if people > were more open to change and more open to other ideas and possibilities > except they can't seem to put aside their own interests often financially > motivated, and the bulk of scientists should realize that often it is that > type of motivation that prevents science from advancing. The burden is on you (the person attempting to make a change) to show how that change is for the better > Science should be more altruistic. Why? > People should be able to see through these detractors or look at > motivation to see if objections are valid objections. Motivation doesn't really matter to science. > I will give you one example. Dentistry. Do you think we can make space age > materials that can work better than our teeth we have? Stronger bacteria > resistant, etc? Of course we can but dentists fear they would be out of a > job. So I can tell you from experience that the stuff they put in your > mouth is designed to fail. Any endeavour involving human beings is going to be imperfect and subject to emotion and self-interest. That is exactly WHY an impartial and formal scientific method is so important. Why on earth would you want science to be less rigid and formal and more altruistic? > And that my friend has caused this who entire experiment on earth to fail. > > And it has failed. What experiment is that? > Now was it doomed to fail? Was it predicted that it would fail? > Was it an argument of the Gods with some saying they won't fail, and some > saying they will, with both sides taking sides, one camp trying to help > mankind succeed and one trying to help man fail? > > That is what it might be from one perspective. But perhaps it is just that > sh*t happens. And we failed because we just couldn't make it type I > civilization like many other planets in the universe, who just could not > make it that far. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_stone_detail.JPG > That's the moon. At the bottom where the missile hit. > > We failed. > > > > >
From: purple on 7 Jun 2010 00:06 On 6/6/2010 10:30 PM, Inertial wrote: >> "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to >> understand better, the history of the natural world and how >> the natural world works, with observable physical evidence >> as the basis of that understanding." > > That is the GOAL of science. Science is the method of achieving that > goal, and the scientific method is how it is accomplished The discussion is not about how science is done, but what science is. Keep up at the back! http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm If you go around this same discussion one more time you're a low class troll and I have no time for you. Please check your facts before posting nonsense to usenet.
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 00:32 "purple" <purple(a)colorme.com> wrote in message news:8739ihFbqsU1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 6/6/2010 10:30 PM, Inertial wrote: > >>> "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to >>> understand better, the history of the natural world and how >>> the natural world works, with observable physical evidence >>> as the basis of that understanding." >> >> That is the GOAL of science. Science is the method of achieving that >> goal, and the scientific method is how it is accomplished > > The discussion is not about how science is done, but what science > is. Keep up at the back! Science is the process by which the goals of science are achieved, and the results achieved. Science isn't just the goals. > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm > > If you go around this same discussion one more time you're a low > class troll and I have no time for you. Please check your facts > before posting nonsense to usenet. Take your own advice
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 16:34
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_stone_detail.JPG > That's the moon. At the bottom where the missile hit. > > We failed. > At the top of that link it says 'The Sun Stone' Really? Is that the sun? Fail. You see we had to get inside there, to the center, which is about 1500 km in the air inside there where there is a fusion reactor keeping that computer going, represented by the face in that rock carving - lets call him Hal 9000 and we had to repair that computer by 2012. Epic fail. That computer has a panel interface, similar to the one described in the science fiction drama Neuromancer, and it has a six finger interface. To do the work we needed 6 fingered androids. We got our six fingered androids in Roswell New Mexico. They were shot down and dissected. Epic fail. Its all over but the screaming. |