Re: Distribution & Redistribution

From: Ron (ronis_at_home.com)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:03:40 -0500

In article <30l543F311028U1@uni-berlin.de>,
 "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > Out of curiosity, what would be the issue if we could space-time travel
> > and with a large vehicle?
>
> It would mean our theories are wrong.

This is not an issue of science but of thought processes. I'm okay with
theories being tweaked. I'm okay theories being modified. I'm okay with
theories being completely scrapped. I'm okay that humans are not perfect
and that we don't know everything and even that we are wrong from time
to time. Geez, I think I was wrong once today before leaving the office.
(I'm usually wrong only .3543% of the time. :)

So long as the concern is that current theories would be wrong, there is
sufficient motivation _not_ to solve the problems that are being
explored. The difficulty is not science but our own beliefs about what
it "means" to find the answer to the question of space-travel.

> A physical theory is always
> potentially falsifiable by experiment or observation. That is what makes
> it a scientific theory. Just because our theories have predicted without
> falsification until now does not mean a novel set of circumstances under
> which tye will fail does not exist. Past success is no guarantee of
> future perfaction.
>
> If you have a theory in which supraluminal speed is acheivable you must
> subject it to experimental test. In particuular you would have to actual
> move something from A to B at greater than light speed with finite energy.
>
> Do you have such a theory? Have you tested it experimentally?
>
> In December of 1900 Max Planck dropped a bombshell on physics. He
> resolved the problem of Black Body Radiation by assuming that energy
> does not come in continuous amounts but in descrete amounts. I.E. there
> are atoms of energy (we call them quanta now). This was something that
> no physicist has assumed before. He was able to get a correct formula
> for Black Body Radiation on the basis of this hypothesis. This is how
> quantum theory came to be.
>
> Now, sir, do you have a bombshell you can drop? Have you worked it out?
> Have you tested it?
>
> Bob Kolker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... Boyd, Philip Gasper and J.D. Trout, eds., _The Philosophy of Science_ ... I have no trouble with inferring unobservables. ... realism as being merely a dimension, ... they do die and their energy ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • FMA: Conqueror of Shamballa Pt 1 Revisited
    ... energy. ... development and application of science. ... The inventor heads to a console with levers. ... Edward leaps toward Huskisson with an alchemic-created blade on his ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: 31000 scientists reject global warming hoax -- including 9k phds
    ... 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth ... petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human ... Access to Energy newsletter. ... Robinson said the project targets scientists because, ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: OT: U.S. airstrike kills al-Zarqawi
    ... There's no science in your post. ... we pursue alternative energy sources. ... so at the cost of energy efficiency. ... pension money) should be punished for their forward investement ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... > of energy U and momentum. ... > unit area per unit time. ... per unit time' when in fact it is well known the energy an momentum of EM ... So the honors degree I have in science is all in my imagination then. ...
    (sci.physics)