Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 15:28 Time slows down from an original fastest clock. Gravity and motion both slow time rates. There are two times that slowdown in the universe for matter. We live in a two time universe. Fastest time for gravity and motion is where it all begins. Light has gravity time and matter has gravity and motion time. Light shares the time of space. Matter shares the time slow of both space and energy flow. Mitch Raemsch; the fastest clock is ahead of all others
From: Raymond Yohros on 23 May 2010 19:32 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
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 19:37 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. Mitch Raemsch
From: Raymond Yohros on 23 May 2010 19:57 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?
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 22:04
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. Mitch Raemsch |