bazonix - 26-6-2003 at 14:36
Hello.
I am not a chemist, though I am interested in science. I would like to know if this forum is for non-mainstream scientists, for people who challenge
the orthodoxy...
What do people make of the current state of cosmology? Quantum physics, string theory, the latest developments in relativity? What of grand unified
theory? Is it possible and where does chemistry come into it all?
Thank you in expectation.
The universe does things.
Polverone - 26-6-2003 at 19:34
You'll drive yourself batty trying to figure it out. It's worse than a woman.
Woman:
"Does this make me look fat?"
"No, of course not."
"Come on, tell me what you really think."
"You don't look fat."
"Are you sure it doesn't make me look fat? Be really honest."
"Okay, it does make you look a little chubby."
"You think I'm ugly!"
Universe:
"I'm composed of at least 4 dimensions, maybe 11 or more, but most of them you can't see. You'll just have to trust me when I say
they're there. My laws make sense except when you try to apply them on a really small scale or a really large scale or at really high speeds. You
can try to box me in with quantum mechanics at one end and general relativity at the other, but - SURPRISE - you won't even be able to derive
methane's heat of formation from first principles. Also, do my thighs look bigger to you? I was hoping the red shift would hide it."
If you have some unorthodox theory that works out, I'm all ears. Your theory should of course be able to account for existing observations at
least as well as orthodox theories and in addition lead to (and jibe with) testable predictions that existing theory doesn't. If your theory
can't make and match with verifiable predictions, it's worthless. It's as bad as psychology, phrenology, or computer science.
PHILOU Zrealone - 13-10-2003 at 03:36
I 200% agree with this vision of science and the de absurdi demonstrandi by Polverone.
Wel said!
Ph Z