Jones Beene wrote:
Of course it is absurd!
That is the point of my (apparently failed) attempt at injecting
some cynical humor into the sad situation . . .
Shoulda caught that . . . my humor index must be low.
> Nearly every scientist rejects it because it violates the theory that
> atoms cannot shrink below the ground state. I am sure that is the
> reason they reject it; not because of any ulterior motive.
NOT TRUE! There is no such theory, just a number of assumptions
based on other valid theories which are tangential to this exact point.
I think this is splitting hairs. There is no practical difference
between an assumption based on a theory and the direct predictions of
the theory itself. In any case, assumptions based on well-established
theories are not easily overthrown. We would not want them to be.
I expect most scientists would say it is not merely theory but a fact
that hydrogen atoms do not shrink. This, I think we all agree, is a
peculiar assertion, since one cannot directly observe atoms. Some
scientists say things like this because they have such a vivid
imagination, and they are so used to dealing with abstractions, their
ideas take on a corporeal reality. One of them once told me that he
knows for a fact that energy is conserved because: "I can feel it. I
can see it being conserved." I did not ask what it felt like.
Perhaps he meant that a gadget with a 2 W electric power supply (such
as a modem) produces heat which an experienced person (me) can judge
to be about 2 W by feel.
- Jed
