Science > Physics > Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rajeswaran M" |
| Date: |
03 Jul 2005 01:47:09 AM |
| Object: |
Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction? |
My idea defining nature is not all possible from the way we progressing
either by whatever. What if a special creature which is enormously big
in size and tells us that it is supernatural power we are expecting, we
are to believe that. Task of breaking the nature's secret will never be
achieved from the direction we approach. Can there be a pages of
definition which would satisfy everyone in the world that should written
by using the language that we developed. But we can not expect the ultra
natural power has definition that bound to be in our language. So it
could mean that we would never achieve that. Instead we need to think
alternative solution what we could do stop our heads being broken by the
universal question of "Who are we?". Some Imagination was required thats
why the theory of God came. Incidentally this thought process happened
in all isolated human civilizations. Lets think much developed idea
which would ideally avoid the questions and gaps being developed which
would unnecessarily bother the future generations.
The destination is unknown, still we dare to travel!!
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction? |
03 Jul 2005 05:52:15 PM |
|
|
Rajeswaran M wrote:
My idea defining nature is not all possible from the way we progressing
either by whatever.
[snip further crap]
Eloquently, succinctly, and above all exhaustively stated.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction? |
04 Jul 2005 09:02:47 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Rajeswaran M wrote:
My idea defining nature is not all possible from the way we progressing
either by whatever.
[snip further crap]
Eloquently, succinctly, and above all exhaustively stated.
However, there is a problem with one God, and physics.
He could never be published in peer reviewed journals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction? |
04 Jul 2005 12:11:49 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling wrote:
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Rajeswaran M wrote:
My idea defining nature is not all possible from the way we progressing
either by whatever.
[snip further crap]
Eloquently, succinctly, and above all exhaustively stated.
However, there is a problem with one God, and physics.
He could never be published in peer reviewed journals.
Depends on his citation list and whether he fancies himself an
experimentalist or theoretician. Whole forests have been hewn to
create vast libraries on scientific socialism. You would gag to see
what sags Canadian campus library bookshelves. Benny-16 vs. Paris
Hilton vs. the New Soviet Man. All three are loathsome, but there is
still a perceptable ranking.
"The bible is fit to empirical data given element discretizations of
abelian Chern-Simmons functionals and Yukawa fringing." Yeah, that's
the ticket. Then a counterpoint paper is published on phase space
structure of non-abelian Chern-Simmons particles (call it a new
testament) and two drones get tenure.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Will everyone agree that we are not in the right direction? |
04 Jul 2005 03:39:12 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Rajeswaran M wrote:
My idea defining nature is not all possible from the way we progressing
either by whatever.
[snip further crap]
Eloquently, succinctly, and above all exhaustively stated.
However, there is a problem with one God, and physics.
He could never be published in peer reviewed journals.
Depends on his citation list and whether he fancies himself an
experimentalist or theoretician.
Err, not if God has no peers :)
Whole forests have been hewn to
create vast libraries on scientific socialism. You would gag to see
what sags Canadian campus library bookshelves. Benny-16 vs. Paris
Hilton vs. the New Soviet Man. All three are loathsome, but there is
still a perceptable ranking.
Seen some of that sort of stuff even at the uni I attend. (Scotland)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
