Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: "SCW" <doune60@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Mar 2006 07:06:59 -0800
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Mike wrote:
SCW wrote:
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Any thoughts or comments?
Of course. According to your postulates, your theory is also falllible.
Mike
.
SCW
Well, there isn't much theory there to be honest, but yes, that's true
- it could be replace by a better theory.
It's more a jibe at SR, which seems to be painting itself into a
corner.
What corner would that be?
PD
The conceptual one over there, containing the socially awkward males
with body odour and no women.
Excuse me while I go locate my wife at the other end of the party and
ask her if she knows what corner you're talking about.
PD
<unable to avoid the temptation>
Why, does she have some experience in this field?
SCW
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: Hexenmeister
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- References:
- A new theory with two postulates
- From: SCW
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: Mike
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: SCW
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: PD
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: SCW
- Re: A new theory with two postulates
- From: PD
- A new theory with two postulates
- Prev by Date: Re: A new theory with two postulates
- Next by Date: Re: In quantum physics breakthrough, strange computer is on and off
- Previous by thread: Re: A new theory with two postulates
- Next by thread: Re: A new theory with two postulates
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading