Reply To: Physics – Relativity

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Physics – Relativity Reply To: Physics – Relativity

#790821
philosopher
Member

Okay, thanks Mod, I don’t remember writing deep theory end so thanks for that. I think that sums it up very well : deep THEORY end of the continuum of science.

ZachKessin, I think we are arguing about something we basically agree on with little differences. I wrote:

I am not denying, if we peel away the scientific theories that scientists have, and look at the facts that are known today to us humans that there is indeed a lot of knowledge out there.

What knowledge is based on facts and I agree with you that we know more today than we did years ago and in and the future we will expand on that knowledge.

Let me explain what I meant with the following paragraph:

However, I am assuming you agree with me that in 200 years hence there will be a lot of new information that will make the facts and theories and knowledge of our generation look like we were in the infant stage at best and foolish at worst.

Just as in past generations people believed in foolish ideas for example idolatry and they backed it up with “scientific proofs” of their day and today we know that the sun is not a god or stone cannot be a god so too eventually the “scientific facts” and theories of this generation, for example the THEORY of evolution which is accepted as a fact in a lot of academic institutions and by scientits worldwide will be looked upon as foolish. I believe global warming will belong in the same foolish category.

On the other hand, our knowledge of REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS is just in the infant stage.

I think we basically differ on the computor model issue. I do not believe computor models can give us facts when they are built on theories.

As Moderator-80 wrote frequently there are widely differing and even opposite results depending on the assumptions made.

A computor model cannot produce a realistic answer based on assumptions. It can only produce a realistic answer when the information provided for the model is factual, but I don’t know if scientists ever use computor models if they have ALL the relevent facts.

Thanks again for the clear answer you posted yesterday on the topic of Dark Matter, Dark Energy and black holes. I really enjoyed reading that.