But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later 
embraced them and much later found evidence for them.

The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists 
do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation 
for how things work and test it rigorously.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
> > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems
> > Houston within a scientific paradigm. 
> Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet)
> observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core 
> Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the
> early 20's but were not "observed", albeit indirectly -- by
> implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have 
> been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A
> mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not
> "observed" until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a 
> that fits the observable evidence. 
> Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka 
> that "explain" observed phenomenon   be rejected? I know that 
there is
> "no" observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect,
> then  a model of priordial  energy / information structures is not 
> wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual "observe" 
> energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to