--- 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 dreams!!!!!" 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 science. 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 http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/