🚀 go-pugleaf

"Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message 
news:f348d6be-00ae-4353-b155-1b06226a3950@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 2:38 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 9:37 pm, Strich 9 <Strich.9.2dd3...@physicsbanter.com> wrote
> in sci.physics:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1905 will be the year marked as the beginning of the Dark Age of
> > Cosmology, wherein the Theory of Special Relativity, strung science
> > along a path of never ending dead ends, from the quest for Dark Matter
> > to Gravitational Waves. It is a tale of how minor computational errors
> > in the observations of the bending of light and the precession of the
> > planets led to a never ending vicious cycle of one layer of theoretical
> > bureaucracy on top of another. Any potential contravening opinion is
> > sentenced to go through layers upon layers of bewildering claims. Yet,
> > its very foundation was shaky, propped up over the century by an
> > illusion of strength and consistency. Proponents of the science will
> > be looked by history as practitioners of pseudoscience and mythology,
> > almost like a modern day alchemy.
>
> > Current loopholes in Relativity include:
>
> > 1) The unresolvable twin paradox.
> > 2) The incorrect predictions of precession for the planets.
> > 3) The incorrect interpretation of red shift.
> > 4) The incorrect interpretation of so-called bending of light.
> > 5) The inability to find dark matter, gravitational waves, and other
> > relativity spin-offs.
> > 6) Intrinsic incompatibility with quantum dynamics.
>
> > --
> > Strich 9
>
> Well said. Bryan Wallace, the Martyr, while dying, still managed to
> write this:
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
> profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
> that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
> still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
> long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
> their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
> power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
> politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
> Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
> shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
> with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
> of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
> common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
> unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
> duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
> I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
> between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
> I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
> differences between science and the other religions. The other
> dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
> rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
> and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
> dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
> time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
> demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
> observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
> from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
> the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
> of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
> College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
> joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
> the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
> physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
> the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
> showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
> scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
> consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
> scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
> Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
> way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
> the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
> the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
> in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
> themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
> something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
> good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
> theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
> more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
> more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
> and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
> should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
> extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
> wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
> prostitutes."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The difference between science and religion is that science can be
tested by experiment and religion cannot.  That is why we have many
religions in the world but only one physics.

Uncle Ben

========================

  Science is never going to reach the point of describing 100% of the 
Universe, much less 101%. Not to mention 120%, much less......

GLB

========================