Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: maxwell on 28 May 2010 13:22 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 Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. In order to gain public support (particularly cash), scientists like to claim most of the credit for technological advances in the last 200 years. Most of these were due to engineers, who have remained little known (if at all) since the scientists are the intellectuals who write the books. "He who writes, defines the history."
From: BURT on 28 May 2010 13:58 On May 28, 5:27 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. Mark L. Fergerson We do not know a lot. What you mean is that we have gathered a lot of data. Mitch Raemsch
From: J. Clarke on 28 May 2010 14:32 On 5/28/2010 1:22 PM, maxwell 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 > > Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. In > order to gain public support (particularly cash), scientists like to > claim most of the credit for technological advances in the last 200 > years. Most of these were due to engineers, who have remained little > known (if at all) since the scientists are the intellectuals who write > the books. "He who writes, defines the history." If you don't have the theory you can't do the engineering. Think radio would have existed without electromagnetic theory or lasers without quantum theory? And where would the electronics industry be without transistors?
From: BURT on 28 May 2010 15:24 On May 28, 10:22 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> 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 > > Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. Please show religions domination of twentieth century science? It is not there. Please show all the religious dogma of science. Big Balogna. The atheists invent aetheist science and claim it as the truth. They don't need God. There is no universe without God. And God created science. Mitch Raemsch > In > order to gain public support (particularly cash), scientists like to > claim most of the credit for technological advances in the last 200 > years. Most of these were due to engineers, who have remained little > known (if at all) since the scientists are the intellectuals who write > the books. "He who writes, defines the history."
From: Don Stockbauer on 28 May 2010 15:38
On May 28, 2:24 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 28, 10:22 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> 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 > > > Theoretical science is slowly emerging from its religious roots. > > Please show religions domination of twentieth century science? > It is not there. Please show all the religious dogma of science. > > Big Balogna. The atheists invent aetheist science and claim it as the > truth. They don't need God. > > There is no universe without God. And God created science. God and the Universe are the same. |