kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
: Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
: > Andrew K Fletcher (andrew.k.fletcher at naturesway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : how people are supposed to think in order to become scientists? I believe
: > : you have touched upon the very reason for such a prolonged existence of many
: > : erroneous scientific projections
: > What do you mean by "prolonged existence of erroneous scientific
: > projections"? Give concrete examples, please.
: Ptolemaic Astronomy, Phlogiston Theory, Blood-Letting, Phrenology, "attractive
: 'gravity'", "conservation of energy", "'constant' c", "the vacuum of 'empty'
: space", "the 'atomic nucleus'", "sub-atomic 'particles'", "quantum" Mechanics,
: "the strong-'nuclear' force", "symmetry", "black holes", etc. K. P. Collins (ken)
You seriously need to justify the inclusion of some of the above as
"erroneous".
Instead of conservation of energy, we have the conservation of mass-energy.
Instead of attraction of gravity, we have gravity as a consequence of
the curvature of space-time. For every normal every day occurrence,
thinking of gravity as an attractive force suffices.
What do you have against atomic nuclei and sub-atomic particles?
By "constant c", I assume you are referring to the speed of light.
Normally, c is used to refer to the speed of light in a vacuum
with the realization that the speed of light is not constant in
all substances. In fact, the slower speed of light in water produces
some clear optical illusions. The speed of light in glass is slower
than the speed of light in a vacuum and consequently allows us to
build lenses. Are you suggesting that the speed of light in a
vacuum is not constant?
I have no idea what you don't like about black holes. The evidence
indicates that they probably exist -- nothing else completely fits
the facts (according to my best understanding).
Please provide a better description of what is wrong with these
and the evidence which supports your view.
Even for some of the above such as Ptolemy, his theory explained
the movements of the planets while keeping the Earth as the center
of the universe. With advances in scientific thought, his view
was overturned.
I guess you think we should skip intermediate understandings of
nature and jump immediately to some final theory in the complete
absence of evidence to suggest that such a final theory is needed.
Eric Johnson
