--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

By that standard, Science should have rejected August Kekule's
discovery of the benzene molecule -- made of six atoms of carbon
chained together to form a ring, plus six atoms of hydrogen, one per
carbon. He "discovered' it in a dream -- of a snake biting its tail.
Did the scientific community exclaim "My God!!! We can't accept that
hypothesis, no matter how well it explains observed phenomenon. It
CAME from a dream!!!. OMG. A dream. Science cannot be based on

In practice, Science doesn't give a snake's ass about where a good
hypothesis came from, as long as it bears fruit. 

A lot of good science comes from analogies. Analogies don't prove
anything, by themselves, but they can be a ferile ground for
brainstorming and hypothesis generation. Analogies are "soft" not hard

And actually a lot of Enisteins work  did not come from labored
pondering of existing scientific equations. A major source of his
insights came from pondering the ramifications of "thought
experiemnts". Such as, "what will happen if I shine a flashlight while
standing on top of a train going 90% the speed of light?" -- more
specifically, what will be the speed of that flashlight? Or the twins
paradox -- how will twins "differ in age" if one travels near the
speed of light and returns to earth. It was the paradoxes found in
these thought experiements that forced Einstein to think of deeper
explanations. He didn't come upon Relativity by simply tinkering with
 Newton's equations.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > > 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 
> science. 
> > 
> > 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 
> not
> > 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 
> model
> > that fits the observable evidence. 
> > 
> > Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka 
> devas)
> > 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 
> so
> > wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual "observe" 
> these 
> > energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in 
> science.

------------------------ 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