beecee

And of course we can add to that your never ending philosophical nonsense and hand waving. Yes most certainly...refuted every day, every week and ever since the implementation of the scientific methodology. My only concern with you, Sam or anyone else claiming science is recalcitrant, is that it flies in the face of the actual empirical evidence. One Swallow [expert or not] does not a Summer make. There is no discipline anywhere in this big wide fart arse world, where you can get everyone speaking to the beat of the same drum. Born was/is wrong and the continued ongoing evidence says he is wrong...just as Fred Hoyle an otherwise great Astronomer was wrong with his "Steady State" hypothetical. Whatever you have attempted to build is simply a house of cards with no foundation. The overwhelming, continued evidence shows you are most definitely wrong. You can go through whatever you like and continue to fool yourself that you have any argument at all re your ongoing anti science mission, and the members here, at least the vast majority of them, will continue to see your claims and anti science rant/s for what they are.

Born's assertion and the way "you" interpret it, your own assertions and anyone else's assertions on a public forum will certainly not change the facts of what a science theory/model is, nor of the reality and use of the scientific methodology, which as I pointed out to you and which others have also shown you, is evident everyday, every week of every year. In other words, the general adverse claims made against science so often made on forums such as this just don't cut it. I agree with the original claim of where the "begging the question" and "execrable logic" actually lay.

Your continued rhetoric and denial will not change what is patently observed, every day of the week, every week of the year. Please don't though mistake this as my aversion to new ideas....I don't mind entertaining new ideas as I believe most scientists have also shown....It's just that most new ideas are not sufficient enough to overturn the incumbent model, after all, something you continually seem to miss....the incumbent science theories and models, were also just ideas and hypothetical, and needed to run the gauntlet so to speak, to gain theory stage of consideration. You seem to want us all to have any and all ideas to take a dump within our brains. That's not science, that's not the scientific method.

You have made many claims in more then one thread so far.....some have proven to be wrong or false. Please can you link to Born's statement so the forum can determine if once again you are taking something out of context. Either way even if correct, the overwhelming evidence in the greater scheme of things, says you are certainly wrong. eg: Theories that are well supported such as SR, GR, the BB, and the theory of the evolution of life, are tested and confirmed every day.

Bingo! and obviously the same applies to the prediction of Neptune.

Thanks studiot, appreciated.

It is your claims and the contents of your posts that are idiocy. You have made many hairy fairy philosophical claims, that at best are confusing and worst certainly reflects an agenda of sorts. Here is another favourite Feynman video of mine that I have posted a few times now and only 7.5 minutes long, but he makes some excellent points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 In essence I believe I have shown you in error at least three times now, the last being your claim that Newtonian mathematics was not used to predict Neptune. Think about it carefully...It was Newtonian maths that explained all the planetary orbits, and found an error with Uranus......After some thinking, rather then throw out Newtonian as wrong, they surmised an outer planet that maybe having gravitational effects. That planet, Neptune was pin pointed before it was ever observed by Newtonian maths. Then you made another claim about not knowing what gravity was and needed to have that explained to you particularly the scientific methodology that any supposed truth or reality that you think is the goal of science theories is just not so. Now without going back checking over everything, you did not concede on any of those points, nor any other I can think of, simply as per your confusing style, skipped over them and started on something else. And now its playing the victim card and pointing the finger at those that are doing no more then trying to straighten you out and falsifying near all you have claimed because you are simply wrong. No one is out to get you...no one is out to simply be contrary to your views...that appears to be exactly what you are doing. Forget me...while I have done plenty of reputable reading, I am only an amateur lay person, but I believe I am able in general to sort the wheat from the chaff, and in your case, that is mighty easy.

You mistake hostility with the scientific methodology and the right, indeed the duty of science to question with utmost vigour the picture you are trying to portray as far as science is concerned. In all your threads so far the only claims that are false are yours. You claim calmness, rationality and this being a debate forum, but others have made the observation that you actually appear argumentitive and just contrary, particularly in the face of reputable evidence. Perhaps though if anyone should pass any judgement, they need to research all the threads, and the nature of those threads you have been active in to form an opinion. Well perhaps the amount of obvious ,misinterpretations, the amount of obtuseness, the ignoring of evidence put to invalidate your stance, all add up to people making the observation that you probably have an agenda. Again though, as per my previous comment, perhaps though if anyone should pass any judgement, they need to research all the threads, and the nature of those threads you have been active in to form an opinion. I believe they will come to the same conclusion I have and a commonality in those threads with regards to yourself.

I don't believe you know what you are saying, let alone what anyone else is saying. You need to consider very carefully your attitude in this thread and its similarity with your attitude in other threads of yours that have been closed. In essence I have yet seen anyone actually agree with you other then back a bit when some religious bloke claiming god made 50 year old trees in a day! Your agenda, closeted as it is, is probably the reason, and your fanatical disposition in taking philosophical jargon over scientific discipline and facts.

Once again, all this shows is your apparent ignorance and then misinterpretation of science and history. Again the apparent abnormal orbit of Uranus according to Newtonian mechanics predicted another planet further out. Bingo! That planet was found and named Neptune. In fact Neptune was mathematically pin pointed by Newtonian mechanics before it was observed. In other words observation did not clash with theory, rather observation aligned with the principals of the theory!... Not bad for a approximate theory!!

It is your misinterpretation and general posting that is full of bollocks. I've invalidated most of your faith based claims so far and this is another. Again scientific theories are not meant to search for any truth or reality, rather give working models of what we observe...if we should happen to hit upon any truth or reality, if it at all exists, all well and good. And no Dawkins does not disagree with me. You please yourself what you want to come up with. I have invalidated many of your faith based claims and obvious agenda driven misinterpretations, I'm always up for a few more.

I suggest you stop being so overly pretentious and obtuse. Again scientific theories are never meant to find any supposed truth or reality that keeps bugging you. And that includes Newtonian. Again Newtonian is a correct [not true] theory when applied with its zones of applicability.....the same with the more accurate GR This has all been explained to you by more knowledgable people then either you or I. Now I suggest you stop playing games and come up with whatever alternative to the theory of evolution you have faith in....It certainly will not be a scientific theory, I will bet on that!

Most people do come to science forums to learn. Apparently you are one of the exceptions. Let me straighten you out once again, no Newtonian was never deemed to be true, and as you have been told before, the truth or reality is not the object of the scientific discipline. Newtonian was though correct within its zone of applicability. GR of course gave us a wider more encompassing zone of applicability, and gave the same answers as Newtonian albeit with far more accuracy. It's your own misrepresention that is in question and your misinterpretation of what science is all about and the scientific method. Again the theory of the evolution of life is as close to certainty as we could hope> If of course you have any evidence to the contrary, I suggest you table it. But you won't and you havn't. "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956).

Dismissing your continued rather lengthy rhetorical preaching let me say again, that yes evolution is as certain as anyone could wish for...and only a fool would deny that....sure there are areas that lack certain detail and exact methodology, but the basis of evolution is undeniable. That obviously going on the numbers of crusades we have had on this forum and others against that fact, does erk many true believers in ID and other religious fanatics. Again that evidence is here for the sorting and perusing. The problem is of course with yourself and others [I mean you have personally castigated me for attempting to force some of our religious fanatics to put up or shut up] is that most probably the reasons for such crusades are as I say, and you seem to cunningly trying to dismiss them as per "Scientists go to extreme lengths to protect their best theories from falsification." and tie the hands of your critics behind their backs, on a science forum no less, is not going to work. If you have any doubt about any other area of science where you pretend that it is never questioned, than start a thread on that particular discipline. The facts are science is a discipline in eternal progress and advancement, unlike religion and the faith at all costs attitude. I'll leave you with two thoughts...... Science is the record of dead religions. Oscar Wilde. There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman.

Phi for all is totally right of course and reg couldn't be more wrong. The evidence supporting the fact that not only is science questioned everyday it also is in constant change as new evidence comes to light. Reg and others of that opinion need to realise that all of mainstream science was at one time also being questioned and not always in the mainstream.

Here's that Greek Angel again, singing a Spanish? number.....Fair dinkum, she could put her glasses on by bed head any day of the week! Beautiful!!

Someone talking about being hot? ....... Or perhaps you like your "hot" Russian style......

A bloke escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money, beer and guns and finds a young Australian couple in bed. He orders the bloke out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then goes into the bathroom.While the man is in the bathroom, the husband tells the wife: "Listen, this guy's an escaped inmate, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years... I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain. Do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you." To which the wife responds: "He wasn't kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey, I love you too!!"

http://www.oxfordreference.com/page/scienceandtech/science-and-technology Science and Technology Science encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. Oxford Referenceprovides more than 210,000 concise definitions and in-depth, specialist encyclopedic entries on the wide range of subjects within these broad disciplines. Our coverage comprises authoritative, highly accessible information on the very latest terminology, concepts, theories, techniques, people, and organizations relating to all areas of science and technology—from astronomy, engineering, physics, computer science, and mathematics, to life and earth sciences, chemistry, environmental science, biology, and psychology. Written by trusted experts for researchers at every level, entries are complemented by illustrative line drawings, equations, and charts wherever useful.

No wrong again. I'm saying that near everything you claim and say is totally bereft of evidence and nothing but unsupported rhetoric and just as obviously driven by some anti science agenda. Oh, and once again to highlight another error or gap in your knowledge or more accurately the lack thereof, science is not about "proof" it is about the best explanation at any particular time, and as observations are extended, may be modified, changed or completely dropped, based on those new improved observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. (Classical physics also predicts the bending of light, but only half that predicted by general relativity.) Nothing to do with each other?? Again empty rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology More nonsense. But hey! the ball's in your court. Please show me evidence about science hindering progress, and of course evidence invalidating all the overwhelming evidence that supports relativity both SR and GR. I'm a patient man with time at my disposal this morning.

More nonsense. Science seeks explanations of what we observe through observations and experiments. It's wrong to say that it has nothing to do with finding truth, rather seeking truth per se, is not its objective, if this truth or reality actually even exists. Science is based on empirical evidence: Religion is based on faith. Understand? One would then ask why you use and depend on science every single day of your life if it is based on not understanding. I mean saying that is not just circular, it is inane and obtuse to boot. You my friend would still be swinging in the trees if it wasn't for science and the scientific methodology.

Circular? I see it as a reasonable answer. What I find as particularly illogical and showing signs of an agenda is the following.... "Spacetime really exists and has been shown to exist with many observations including the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational lensing, and in more recent times gravitational waves. The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".  Hermann Minkowski:

Your reasonings and assumptions seem to defy what we have observed and the reasonable assumption of the isotropic and homegenous nature of the observable universe. https://phys.org/news/2018-07-einstein-againweak-strong-gravity-fall.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0265-1 And of course gravitational lensing of distant objects as dictated by GR have been confirmed many many times. Obviously the answer to your final question is that while certainly GR is an excellent aproximation that at this time we are unable to improve on, then certainly, no, it is not the wrong physics.

“Klaatu Barada Nikto”