Re: Definition of A Field
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Previous message: Jeff_Relf: "Ben Goodger knows that, Linus knows that... how about you ?"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:58:02 GMT
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:307fniF2pgmbtU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > So Einstein's gedankens are not speculations?
>
> Which led to -real- experiments which in fact supported the theory. A
> gedanken is just a test of concept, not a corroberation of theory.
But in his 1905 paper he had no experimental support. All he had was his
gedankens and yet you think that's the greatest paper ever written. Is this
double standard?
BWT in my paper I have a very doable experiment that can falsify my theory.
That's more than what Einstein has in his paper.
Ken Seto
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Previous message: Jeff_Relf: "Ben Goodger knows that, Linus knows that... how about you ?"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
