reply to post by Mary Rose
Please reconsider his words Mary. He is actually quite honest in that post, with little to no perceivable condescension. He is speaking candidly and
He also managed to answer your questions to me, for me. I obviously do not always agree with buddhasystem, but he has a point here. And made it
I am not saying Relativity is complete. Einstein himself would agree, and did so through his actions. Just because he is considered "standard"
science does not mean it is not representative of truth. It is just missing a few pieces.
ALL human contextual understanding of the universe will be limited. However, the most objective language we can use is mathematics based on
experimentation. It is far from fiction. Those very "scientists" that you quoted about the electric universe undoubtedly use mathematics
The tricky part comes into play when we consider that according to our understanding, the mathematics system we have derived from the patterns of the
universe itself is infinitely divisible. This can
lead us to leaps that are largely unsubstantiated in anything other than the mathematics
itself. This is where I agree with your quote. When experimentation can not be done, but the math seems to align with reality, we must consider that
our understanding is incomplete. But it is no more fiction than the computer that you are using right now to type your responses.
The electric universe theories, while intriguing, still tend to use the exact same mathematics for the physical behavior they attempt to describe.
They just use different subjective language. Its an important distinction!
Simply put, the labels are irrelevant. It is the math and experimentation that lead to growth and learning in science. And that, ostensibly, has no
end as far as we humans are concerned.
It could be labelled magnetism, it could be labelled gravity, it could be labelled "dumplings." What is pertinent is the patterns we explore can
consistently predict further phenomena, and we do this exclusively through math. We can effectively input a variable to take the place of hitherto
unexplained behavior, and it makes the equation no less valid. Just incomplete. This is the very thing that the quest of experimentation attempts to
answer. The unexplained variable of an incomplete equation.
Perhaps its would be wise to ignore the differences in labels altogether until we have a better understanding of the equations themselves.