All things Science related. λν = c

I agree that the book is long on hypothesis and short on experimental evidence.

You mean like Einstein's theory of relativity was initially?

You mean like Einstein's theory of relativity was initially?

Exactly. Well done Joe.

A lot more thought and substance went into Albert's work. You may want to check your facts before you high-five and celebrate

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Albert's work was the first that popped to mind and, while substantial work went into it, it was far from universally accepted at first and, in fact, much initial experimentation was inconclusive and some experimentation by those within the accepted community (i.e. not just a bunch o' quacks) disproved it.

Science travels many back roads and, often, down dead ends before arriving at an accepted provable theorem. Scientific crazy today is often tomorrow's scientific truth (birds came dinosaurs! Now that's just crazy talk). I thought the point would have been obvious to such a rational mind as yours RR.

There I go ... again overestimating your ability to detect subtlety and nuance. <sigh> I keep forgetting how limited your thought process is.

Sure.......you wordy prat.

<laughing >

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

<snip>

honestly I just wanted to snip ;)

Sure.......you wordy prat.

<laughing >

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

wordy? That was downright succinct!

honestly I just wanted to snip ;)

... and yet still more responsive than anything RR says.

A lot more thought and substance went into Albert's work. You may want to check your facts before you high-five and celebrate

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

No one is saying that Lanza has the same evidential foundation as Einstein.

But science works through a hypothesis>>evidence test>>thesis process, which means that both Lanza and Einstein (and every other scientist) have had periods where their work was hypothesis only without evidence.

but it doesn't draw on anything. einstein had things like math, so it's different. and he had a lot more work in before publishing and things that could actually be tested/verified.

dinosaurs -> birds, i mean, check the skeletal patterns and the feathered dinosaur finds (feather imprints in mud). it wasn't some random thought thrown onto paper, the evidence led them there.

feel free to believe whatever you want, but right now what he's pushing isn't science, it's just a random idea without any backing, and what i've read didn't seem to mesh well with QLC either.