Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: PD on 24 May 2010 16:25 On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > that is very pesimistic view! > > > > i think that theory is just an add on to GR > > > > to merge it into QM and with d xperimental > > > > ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner. > > > > not more that 10 years ahead! > > > > > r.y > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > attitude that it knows a lot. This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better about himself.
From: BURT on 24 May 2010 17:20 On May 24, 1:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > that is very pesimistic view! > > > > > i think that theory is just an add on to GR > > > > > to merge it into QM and with d xperimental > > > > > ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner. > > > > > not more that 10 years ahead! > > > > > > r.y > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent > creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their > intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in > animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that > exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better > about himself.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. Your attitude is unfounded. We have just began. Mitch Raemsch
From: Raymond Yohros on 25 May 2010 12:38 On May 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > that is very pesimistic view! > > > > > i think that theory is just an add on to GR > > > > > to merge it into QM and with d xperimental > > > > > ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner. > > > > > not more that 10 years ahead! > > > > > > r.y > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent > creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their > intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in > animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that > exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better > about himself. > maybe we should stop learning to make mitch happy!
From: BruceS on 25 May 2010 12:39 On May 24, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 24, 1:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 9:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 23, 4:57 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 4:37 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 23, 4:32 pm, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 23, 12:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > that is very pesimistic view! > > > > > > i think that theory is just an add on to GR > > > > > > to merge it into QM and with d xperimental > > > > > > ways of observation of today it can be just around the corner. > > > > > > not more that 10 years ahead! > > > > > > > r.y > > > > > > No. Your view is inflated. Science doesn't deserve the attitude that > > > > > it knows much. Not as of now. > > > > > why dont you go and talk somewhere else if you hate > > > > science so much?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I have no hatred of science just an adversion to its unfounded > > > attitude that it knows a lot. > > > This is a little like saying that primates are not intelligent > > creatures on earth, compared to say sea cucumbers, because their > > intelligence pales in comparison with what will be exhibited in > > animals 5 million years from now. In other words, everything that > > exists right now is worthless. This makes Mitch feel a little better > > about himself.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No. Your attitude is unfounded. We have just began. I just hope you have not begat.
From: Hawkman on 25 May 2010 21:07
Sorry for being the rain on the parade but Mitch Raemsch has a point. Evidence shows that God's spirit is the only fundamental reality. Thia means that most of what they teach in physics is false. They teach us that everything is physical or material but this is clearly not the case in life. Evidence points that there are also mental, spiritual, cognitive and Godly energies at work in the cosmos |