Re: Question For Matt
- From: Kid <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:03:26 +0100
Matt Faunce wrote:
On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
But without the context it is meaningless.
Yes! above, I suggested that the context was with a view to a unified
theory. I offer another possibility below. Regardless, we'll never
know the FULL context surrounding this quote, which also consists of
Einstein's thought process.
According to Thorne (ibid pg. 64), writing about a Michelson
experiment (which held to be accurate.)
"It was easy to be skeptical. Interesting experiments are often
terribly
difficult–so difficult, in fact, that regardless of how carefully
they are
carried out, they can give wrong results."
Scientists need to be challenged. Einstein knew even if he were wrong,
by challenging the new finding he was helping to carry out the
scientific method in this matter. So anyway you slice it, his comment
was a good one!
Perhaps we gotta be taught soon by the http://lhc.web.cern.ch/ action.
And you know what? Maybe DaveA isn't as dumb as everyone thinks. He's
just playing Devils advocate to help solidify opposing theories.
I think he is just kind of a scrutinizing character.
.
- References:
- Question For Matt
- From: Lutemann
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: David Raleigh Arnold
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: Matt Faunce
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: David Raleigh Arnold
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: Matt Faunce
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: Matt Faunce
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: Steven Bornfeld
- Re: Question For Matt
- From: Matt Faunce
- Question For Matt
- Prev by Date: Re: Question For Matt
- Next by Date: Re: For Andrew Schulman - another request
- Previous by thread: Re: Question For Matt
- Next by thread: Re: Question For Matt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|