![]() |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
I'd say your postulate is flawed because you don't maintain a constant frame of reference. No, I'm saying maintaining a constant frame of reference is impossible because all possible frames of reference are constantly changing. Those observations are not made from the same frame of reference and cannot be directly compared. My point exactly. Why does man continue to ignorantly attempt the impossible? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
Your point being what? That science is screwed up? My point regarding that is that science constantly refines and improves. Doesn't the need for a constant redefinition and improvement process prove that science is screwed up? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Mike Coslo wrote:
... I believe that the hypothesis was wrong. minimum size for a life form doesn't make it quite as far as a theory to me. Based on what we knew t the time, it wasn't a bad guess. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - A theory is only a guess which appears to have substance and proof behind it ... too often, this proof and substance evaporates ... JS |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Those observations are not made from the same frame of reference and cannot be directly compared. My point exactly. Why does man continue to ignorantly attempt the impossible? Cecil: Wait a minute bub! Are you still attempting to apply and use frames of reference NOT approved by jim? ;-) Regards, JS |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
Are you still attempting to apply and use frames of reference NOT approved by jim? ;-) This is similar to the problem that John Harrison faced when he tried to design a clock for ocean travel. The frame of reference was continuously changing so he had to give up on his original design. It is way past time for homo sapiens to give up on any notion of an absolute frame of reference in a relativistic universe. The nail that they drive in the floor under their feet is getting longer with each passing day. Why can't they see that? Such a thing as absolute references simply do not exist in the universe of relativity. That gives a whole new meaning to, "There are no absolutes!". Of course, I cannot be absolutely certain ... what will happen on an absolute foundation of jello ... -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... frame of reference in a relativistic universe. The nail that they drive in the floor under their feet is getting longer with each passing day. Why can't they see that? ... Cecil: Such is the lot of man, and this certainly includes myself ... from time to time we are lucky to even catch a glimpse of reality ... we move towards the future, albeit it ... slowly. Regards, JS |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
Such is the lot of man, and this certainly includes myself ... from time to time we are lucky to even catch a glimpse of reality ... we move towards the future, albeit it ... slowly. Why are some of the supporters of the scientific method unwilling to apply the scientific method to the scientific method? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there. With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do. I was talking about s.p.r where your idea of some Omniscient Supreme Science God handing down scientific theories that are never wrong might not be welcome. You mean using the scientific definition of words when talking science and not the TV cop show definition? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
This is similar to the problem that John Harrison faced when he tried to design a clock for ocean travel. The frame of reference was continuously changing so he had to give up on his original design. It is way past time for homo sapiens to give up on any notion of an absolute frame of reference in a relativistic universe. The nail that they drive in the floor under their feet is getting longer with each passing day. Why can't they see that? Such a thing as absolute references simply do not exist in the universe of relativity. That gives a whole new meaning to, "There are no absolutes!". Of course, I cannot be absolutely certain ... what will happen on an absolute foundation of jello ... That is your opinion of Harrison's problem. I think the rest of us would look at it quite differently. He made a clock to carry the reference with the traveler. And the traveler could sync the clock by telescopic observation using Jovian tables they had with them if they were at a stable anchor. Almost an absolute reference I'd say. At least for it's day. Remember, we aren't talking about high velocity here, just position changes, so the reference is not changing to any great degree. tom K0TAR |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com