Originally posted by polomontana
Your whole post is basically saying, you can only talk about science if it fits my worldview.
since there is a large field called philosophy of science, there are also well defined boundaries what is science and what is not.. so if you want you
can look this critical rationalism and for addition okhams razor up
if you have an other picture of science, i have no problem with it but then please use other terminology to dont get things mixed up
Science is not immune to metaphysics, paranormal or ufology. Science is only limited by your perception of reality.
no, science is limited by its methods "hypothesis (incorporating the known theorys on this subject) + theory = explaination + falsificable
predicitions" as long as the predictions hold its favourized and if the are not satisfied, the theory is abandoned
If you are a secularist or athiest you want the world to be wrapped in a box that fits your pre-existing belief system. So when people incorporate
science into these things your reason shuts off and your belief kicks in.
i would be pleased if you would stop explaining my own character to me since you dont know me and my background
i consider the question "is god existent" one that can not be answered (neither yes nor no) by science since it fails falsificability.. so i would
never think about incorporating gods existence or notexistence in my picture of the world.. i just ignore the matter as unanswerable
Metaphysics, paranormal events and ufology all are "natural explanations" When a person says they are looking for a natural explanation it just
means they are looking for an explanation that supports what they already believe.
yes, since all working theories have to be (via correspondence principle) special cases of a more general law under some conditions (as newtons
gravity theory is the classical limit of general relativity or as classical mechanics is the highenergy and large space limit for quantum
this is only the way philosophy and most scientists (including me) look at science.. you are of course free to build up your own science but then
please just dont say such things as quantum fluctuations of light produces multiverses, which could be mistakenly understood as terms from physics
Have you ever heard of M-Theory? You asked where would the vacuum originate. It would originate in the bulk.
have heard of m theory and in maybe 1-2 years i will understand it..
for now i work on semiclassical quantum gravity (putting the expectation value of the energy momentum tensor of a quantum field as additional
component of the energy momentum tensor, but not considering space quantizised itself)
Light is actually infinite and has no speed. This goes back to Plato and the allegory of the cave. You can't see past your perception because
ignorance is bliss. There's comfort in the cave.
and you are sure that it is worth throwing all good working experimental confirmed theorys away for a saying without any explainatory value?
a "better" theory of light has to fullfill the following properties:
predict observed mechanisms of creation (radiating charges, laser, matter-antimatter annihilation), absorption (heat, affect chemical bondings,
fission of nuclei via gamma rays etc) and interaction with matter/energy (frequency dependend damping in media, pair production, radiation pressure,
bendig due to gravity etc)
your so far stated does none, so i will wait until i can tell what it is worth
[edit on 10-4-2008 by puerk]