Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:45:54 GMT
malibu wrote:
On Jul 14, 9:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:malibu wrote:On Jul 14, 8:55 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:QM explains many things, John. QM has contributed, necessarily, to ourI don't understand your frustration, John. The world is not Newtonian.I don't understand why you prefer to not understand, Sam.
Oh, most of what we experience is certainly well described by Newton,
Maxwell and the like... but we have copious evidence for far stranger
phenomena that require fruitful theories like relativity and the quantum
electrodynamics to explain. It's a wonderful and fascinating world, John!
Hey, did you see that photon fly by, John? Good! Neither did I. If one
of us had seen it... it wouldn't exist anymore!
Cheers,
-Sam
Keep asking 'why' until you get a proper answer, Sam. Don't be satisfied with
the pap that you spout.
It is not and never will be an answer to say "because the world is strange."
Our effort with our Science is to make thing *not strange*.
It's called *understanding*, Sam, and it cannot be accomplished by teaching
people that it cannot be accomplished. That is Anti-Science, Sam. Its name is QM.
John
modern society with GPS, Cell Phones and CD players.
I'm not saying it isn't a tool.
It's just a very clumsy tool that is preventing the
developement of better tools.
I doubt that the quantum mechanics is preventing any development.
Doesn't matter what your theory-
if you pour enough money in, you're bound to stumble
into something sooner or later. MANY of our
more important discoveries are
purely serendipitous- hindsight is 20/20 no
matter what your theory.
The foresight of QM isn't 20/20 by a longshot.
It's certainly not good enough for me- truthfully, Sam
is it good enough for you? Is it the final
understanding? I hope not.
John
I suspect the current tools (fruitful as they are) will be improved
upon in the future. Progress has been pretty steady on the last
century or two.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: malibu
- Re: intrinsic energy
- References:
- intrinsic energy
- From: aegis
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: aegis
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: aegis
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: malibu
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: malibu
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: malibu
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: intrinsic energy
- From: malibu
- intrinsic energy
- Prev by Date: Tom Potter, Brad Guth, Schoenfeld... look who is instigating!... ahaha..
- Next by Date: Re: Oklahoma City Bombing "Conspiracy" Debunked
- Previous by thread: Re: intrinsic energy
- Next by thread: Re: intrinsic energy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|