Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:43:18 +0200
cjcountess wrote:
Thank you both for understanding.
Hint: Nick is one of the worst crackpots around here, with no understanding of physics whatever. Judging from the few things I've read of OsherD so far, he is not much better.
I am so glad that there are principles like the one that you both mentioned that guide true teachers and students,
Both are not in the position to judge what principles should guide teachers and students.
prevents people from abusing authority based on title or degrees and gives evidence itself prime authority.
Fine. I'm all for giving evidence itself prime authority, and against abusing authority. When will you start to address the evidence? When will you even start to learn what the evidence actually is?
Follow the evidence with a scientific objective open mind and I think that truth will be revealed to us including who's overcomplicating it.
Indeed. When will you start?
There is a principle in science called Occam's razor, and one variation says "one should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
Agreed. Feel free to explain why the current theories in physics are *not* necessary to explain the observations. I.e. feel free to explain how one could explain the observations *without* such complex theories. Be quantitative, please.
Bye, Bjoern .
- References:
- Quantum Gravity
- From: cjcountess
- Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: cjcountess
- Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: OsherD
- Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: Nick
- Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: OsherD
- Re: Quantum Gravity
- From: cjcountess
- Quantum Gravity
- Prev by Date: Re: My Unified Theory, of Logic, Infinity
- Next by Date: Re: Physical Origin of Electron Spin
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Gravity
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Gravity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|