Help the poor Cavemann understand

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mako71

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Ianke: Sorry about the typo.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The typo was mine (in the earlier posts) :-D EDIT: That "arh" was for me :)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>
 
C

cavemann

Guest
"If your beliefs are this disrespectful of the scientific work and facts, then frankly, your beliefs don't deserve our attention. Scientific discussion of events presumes a basic level of knowledge about the subject. If that knowledge is not there, no rational discussion of the subject is likely.<br /><br />Almost all well informed persons give the current experts in the field of quantum mechanics and current atomic models of the last 50 years a good deal more respect, credibility & support than one would models which are merely tossed up as beliefs & which do not constitute careful evaluations of the evidence, either. "<br /><br /><br />Most people are not "well informed" about any theories or schools of thought outside the standard model - mostly because the proponets of the standard model refuse to acknowledge they exist. I only recently stumbled across the SED theory which has been around (in one form or another) for decades - and yet it was never introduced as a rival for the standard model in any of my science classes. It wasn't even declared wrong. They simply didn't mention it. <br /><br />The same can be said of Lorentzian Relativity. Here's a theory that conforms to ALL known observations of the universe (or so I'm told) and actually predates the Big E's SR. Is it mentioned in junior high science classes? Do standard model adherents even bother to test LR with experimentation? No. It is just dismissed out of hand.<br /><br />How about evolution? It's not just that evolution is a theory. It's that evolution is the ONLY theory. There are no contenders mentioned. Evolution is presented as a fact - just like SR, just like the standard model.<br /><br />SED has been around for decades and LR has been around LONGER than SR. These ideas are not "merely tossed up" nor do they fail to "constitute careful evaluations of the evidence". <br /><br />If refusing to take SR at face value when it's defenders can't even explain a simple thought exercise that is directly a resul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts