proof has no place in science

Originally posted by Iere man
Maybe there are not as many science haters afterall...I'd just like to clarify few points however,,,with the exception of the research taking place at the LHC and work done by nuclear physicists, Einstein's and other quantum physics theories are still at the infancy stage because experimentation is very difficult at these microscopic levels and scientist ar ...[text shortened]... and masses and IMO will stay even as quantum physics theories eventually become mainstream...

Actually, we already depend on relativistic effects on technologies many people routinely encounter whenever we use a GPS device.

Originally posted by lausey
Actually, we already depend on relativistic effects on technologies many people routinely encounter whenever we use a GPS device.

see that guys? it's here and it's now...awesome!!!

Originally posted by lausey
A good example:

Newtonian summation of velocities (u and v to get s):

s = v + u

After observations by Michelson, Morley, Lorentz and Einstein, you will get this:

s = (v+u) / (1 + (vu / c^2))

Of course, at low speeds (small fractions of the speed of light), the denominator part becomes very close to 1 and you will get the first equation.

The ...[text shortened]... , so it is of no surprise that he wouldn't be happy to consider what he says as not exact.

Oops, slight correction. 😉

s = (v+u) / (1 + (vu / c^2))^(1/2)

Powers and square roots aren't so easy to show here though. 😕

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
"proof has no place in science"

See what you started?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
See what you started?

Prove it was me.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Prove it was me.

It's axiomatic.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So much for the pass, I guess... 😕

Indeed...

Originally posted by Iere man
good for you...you would have failed in any event if you attempted to do so...broken english and punctuation errors yeah but i can care less about that, my point is very clear otherwise...

Nope, you're wrong about that, as well.

Your main point seems to be that you confuse science and engineering; but your writing is so unstructured that I cannot be sure even of that.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Nope, you're wrong about that, as well.

Your main point seems to be that you confuse science and engineering; but your writing is so unstructured that I cannot be sure even of that.

Richard

it's OK some folks tolerated the unstructuredness and were able to see some validity in my viewpoints and challenged me with theirs as is normal and healthy, although most were not that different to mines the way I see it...