On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:21:04 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 16:50, <[email protected] <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:34:30 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 15:23, <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 1:18:44 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 2:42 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if >>>>>> not by top-down influence in levels from consciousness ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At the molecular level, if this were true, we would see miracles >>>>> happening, like a table levitating without any applied force. No such >>>>> thing >>>>> has ever been observed. Neurons and muscle cells only fire according to >>>>> the >>>>> laws of physics. If you documented an example of a miracle in the brain >>>>> you >>>>> would overthrow science and be famous. >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The "laws of physics" are not a static thing, in terms of history. One >>>> can say the "laws of physics" are in 2019 "The Standard Model" (about 40 >>>> years old now) and maybe some others like electromagnetism. Before 1900 >>>> there was no quantum mechanics that was a part of "laws of physics". There >>>> are also chemical and neurobiological "laws" that have become a part of >>>> science that also address "neurons and other cells". >>>> >>>> The "laws of physics" may be different in 2119 than in 2019. What we >>>> "list" as "laws of physics" changes over time. >>>> >>> >>> It does change to explain experimental data not explained by current >>> theories.... Here there should be experiment which put evidence to >>> extraordinary behavior not explained/explainable by current theories. >>> >>> If you can provide no test, and all the tests we do are explainable by >>> current theories, why the need to invoke invisible horses ? >>> >>> Quentin >>> >> >> >> >> There is data from astronomy that involves what people have called "dark >> matter". There is no theory yet that physicists have rallied around to >> "explain" this data. >> > > So that means there is a need for a new or modified theory. > > >> Can you derive today a dark-matter theory from The Standard Model + >> General Relativity? >> > > No, so what ? I just said theories change to explain new datas or they > propose test that gives rise to new results. If you invoke invisible horses > and those horses do not explain better than competing existing theories > without those invisible entities, that theory seems useless, no better than > god did it. > > Quentin > >> >> What is this theory? Is it written down in arXiv somewhere? >> >> - pt >> >> >>
Sometimes theories do more than merely "change". There may be a radically new theory that is proposed. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are more than a "change" of the old theories. BTW, There could be invisible horses involved ... *Trojan-horse particle invariance: The impact on nuclear astrophysics* - https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4874070 - pt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
