Re: Curved space

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:44:45 -0500,
Dick <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The problem in science is further insights into our universe are not
coming from direct observation and experimentation, it is coming from
theories. Testability is becoming harder. How do you test string
theory, how do you examine a quark? How do you describe curved space?

I just love how you simultaneously attempt a switcharoo on the word "theory"
while at the same time bringing up the tired canard about string theory.

Quarks can be inferred by the effect they have on surrounding matter, just
as a gun can be inferred from a round hole in a man's skull. If you're
going to bash inference, then I suggest you stick cotton in your ears,
close your eyes and keep yourself in a room filled with surfaces because
guess what, there's no such thing as "direct" observation. Every single
thing you see, smell, touch, taste or hear is being filtered through an
entire sensory apparatus, and if you want to see how easily that system
can be screwed with, go drink a bottle of Tequila.

The difficulties involved in testing a theory is not an argument against
a theory. In the example of quarks, it meant building more powerful
particle colliders, but the fact is that the theoretical existence of the
particle was confirmed, just as a previous generation of particle physicists
confirmed the existence of electrons, protons and neutrons. I'll wager you
haven't seen an electron, so when can we expect you moaning about Maxwell
and his theory?

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx

.

Quantcast