On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:56:52 +0100, "Al"
<almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Bob" <wf3h@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4352e85c.18495064@newsgroups.comcast.net...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:32:31 +0100, "Al"
<almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
To address the subject
the suspicion (I wouldn't call it a theory as it predicts zero) of
Intelligent design
should indeed be a part of philosophy lessons
It has - of course - nothing to do with Biology ar any other science.
Hi
Since when has science been bothered about theories that predict nothing?
Do you want a list?
String Theory
it's not a theory.
"The Conference "String Theory at The Millennium" is organized by the
Caltech-USC Center for Theoretical Physics. "
I think it is?
really? which of the thousands of string theories is testable?
SETI and the Drake equation.
not a theory.
The Drake equation N+N* fp ne fi fi fc fl
It's an equation that leads to his theory of how many intelligent
civilisations are present in the galaxy
and the variables can differ by orders of magnitude. it's a
qualitative concept expressed quantitatively.
The second law of thermodynamics is a negative theory-it tells you what
you
can't do.
the 2nd law is not a theory. it's an observation...a law of nature.
It's a negative *law* that causes science to go into a
bankruptcy of new ideas like the Victorian evolutionary elitist dream.
except it's one of the most useful laws in science. if you want to
compare that to some arbtrary cultural artifact, be my guest.
and this is goalpost moving.
you think galaxies get BIGGER due to gravity?
Did I say that?
No. The rotation of galaxies does not conform to the *LAW* of gravity.
That's the reason the *theory* had to be patched with Dark Matter.
uh, no. gravity as a theory was not 'patched' by dark matter. our
concept of the structure of galaxies was modified to account for the
fact that gravity can't account for what we see.
big difference.
It cannot be a law if nature does not conform to it.
The law of gravity is like the law/fact of evolution - it needs another
look.
now THAT is true. but dark matter has little to do with it.
The expansion of the universe.
gee. the big bang makes predictions...the power spectrum of the
background radiation for example.
Background radiation was a convenient patch for an ailing theory.
I suggest that you read what Arp has to say.
i've corresponded with arp. he's alone in his field. and background
radiation has both been MEASURED and its existence admitted to by arp.
Another patch was expansion where the whole universe moves beyond the speed
of light.
you really don't understand what you're talking about do you? no one
ever said the whole universe does what you just said.
Black holes.
which makes predictions...frame dragging, x rays, etc...
Gravitational and x ray effects are not proof of black holes.
really? who sez?
Black holes have never been observed and by their nature never can be.
They are purely mathematical constructs.
then why have their effects been observed?
They are assumptions that are derived from assumptions about star formation
which is also an assumption. Science builds on foundations of assumptions
and then props up it's crumbling theories with more speculation.
i suppose you're writing that with a feather pen rather than a
scientist invented computer?
Plate tectonics.
ever hear of earthquakes?
Are you being ironic? Thousands of people have just died due to geology's
total failure to predict earthquakes.
?? just because we can't PREDICT them does NOT mean plate tectonics is
FALSE. again you contradict yourself.
Give me an instance of an earthquake being predicted by PT?
who said plate tectonics could predict earthquakes? it predicts they
will happen.
The aerofoil.
The anthropic principal.
Memes.
The Big Bang.
Quasars.
The quantum nature of quasars is being ignored and therefore
no model can be even close to reality. No real predictions.
you don't know what a quasar is, do you?
observed. Not
gee. some of the stuff you presented aren't even theories
do you KNOW what a theory is?
Yes I know what it is, it's science saying something is what it's not.
Red Shifts
Geoffrey Burbridge on the destruction of Halton Arp;
and i've corresponded with burbidge as well. in addition, arp works at
the world renowned max planck institute. hardly 'destruction'.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
