Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: BURT on 27 May 2010 19:21 On May 27, 4:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 3:25 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 27, 4:41 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 27, 1:59 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 3:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 9:38 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > How pesimistic is the truth of how young science is? > > > > > I am not making up its small age. The greatness of science is for > > > > > millions of years in the future. Right now we have a lot of data but > > > > > no knowledge or understanding. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Burt, I believe in the science of today that we are in the stage of > > > > what a phenomena is, and not yet why it is the way it is.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Why not be objective and not inflate what science has done in its > > > short lifetime. Ahead of us is where the greatness lies. We have a > > > fantastic future but we need to admit it is not of much now. > > > > It is matter of a proper attitude toward science. The people that have > > > the wrong idea and use science in that way will be corrrected by the > > > more objective. > > > > An example of a great future is the fossil record collection. Right > > > now we have gathered fossils for about a hundred years. But this > > > collecting is never going to stop. This is where millions of years is > > > going to count. This example applies to all measurements of our > > > universe. We can look forward to millions of years of measurement. The > > > future is complete theory and measurement. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > A measure man- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > We will be measuring. Of course measuring for completeness in theory > will be most important. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Sorry for the repeat.
From: BURT on 27 May 2010 22:58 On May 27, 7:54 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 27, 5:20 pm, Ivan I. Deer <Iv...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010 13:50:15 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > >On May 25, 9:38 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > >> 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > >How pesimistic is the truth of how young science is? > > >I am not making up its small age. The greatness of science is for > > >millions of years in the future. Right now we have a lot of data but > > >no knowledge or understanding. > > > >Mitch Raemsch > > > Will civilized, cultured humanity last more than a few hundred more > > years? How will the ever increasing population provide food when the > > agricultural land is badly depleted and low priced fuel/fertilizer is > > no longer available? Where will they find water to drink when most of > > the aquifers are polluted with toxic wastes? Another mass extinction, > > followed by the evolution of another upper level species will most > > likely be the way things work out. But, there will probably be a very > > long delay while this poor old planet heals itself from the human > > wounds.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > Humans won't wound it. They will overpopulate and run out of resources. What humans are doing is benefial. For instance Global warming is going to put an end to all possible future ice ages. This is a blessing on mankind. Mitch Raemsch
From: nuny on 28 May 2010 08:27 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. > > Mitch Raemsch I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever say. We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know squat. Unfortunately, AFAIK there's no sensible way to talk about quantifying when we might expect to "completely understand" anything. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Don Stockbauer on 28 May 2010 09:37 On May 28, 7:27 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> 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. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > say. > > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > squat. > > Unfortunately, AFAIK there's no sensible way to talk about > quantifying when we might expect to "completely understand" anything. > > Mark L. Fergerson This is becasue it's the same effect as one neuron (equivalent to a person) trying to understand the entire mind he/she helps form (the Global Brain). The same effect as a goldfish peering out of its prison and trying to deciper a lesson on quantum physics being shown on a TV.
From: zookumar yelubandi on 28 May 2010 11:01
On Fri, 28 May 2010 05:27:24 -0700 (PDT), nuny(a)bid.nes 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. >> Mitch Raemsch Modern science is only a few hundred years old and perhaps a little longer. Documented scientific method goes back to Aristotle's Greece and arguably even further back then that. Indeed, one can correctly argue that science has been with us for as long back as the time we first recognized and celebrated the human brain ... only it was called different things back then. Galileo was more likely a great-great-great-great-great grandson to the original science. Then there are unresolved questions about the origins of human DNA. Are we star wanderers (it seems more and more likely that this is the case)? Or are we merely electrified broth from the Great Oceans (as informed by the ubiquitous Darwinian tome and tradition) in the winding end of a long journey from CHONSP (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, phosporous) ... to amino and nucleic acids to cells to tissue to organs to organisms to higher organisms to simians and apes to protohumans, humans, and posthumans? The establishment of scientific fact can't be entrusted to the agenda of perched mealbirds preying on insects and worms, but I'm afraid that's exactly what has happened in the construction of the plinths of modern science. Real science is still the weaker twin to imagined science. > I think this is the most sensible thing you've ever said. > I think it's one of the most sensible things *anyone* could ever > say. > We know a lot, but in the grand scheme of things we don't know > squat. Yes, perhaps even less than diddly. > Unfortunately, AFAIK there's no sensible way to talk about > quantifying when we might expect to "completely understand" anything. > Mark L. Fergerson That expectation is our first disappointment. We will fare much better if we reduce our expectations to a size that our brains can handle. Uncle Zook |