Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Space and spacetime
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:46:15 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <419d1cda40b2d72908760701d026eaae@www.novabbs.com>
References: <v4k05l$3agjr$3@paganini.bofh.team> <IZqLWu0r1pGumkx88v-OnXgTbLY@jntp> <a9d511e73e3581ce0ed8753f07619f01@www.novabbs.com> <ayoldiJgLa7QaSPmKBZeM5tyhng@jntp> <ldad1pFlf8nU1@mid.individual.net> <lcUcDbWtK0WeTGWawNs9QhziP2s@jntp> <d5327496187c83adb45662c785f2e7aa@www.novabbs.com> <0_2RlZkEX7ZgJnjVZbx6GZo_ilk@jntp> <17da0f7c0f2b5328$153561$441546$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="386737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$S9P0PM2paXnTXSSAVCuV1e8x2dlq6zidBpsMJyMmtow1KLS7plUP6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
Bytes: 3253
Lines: 57

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:
> >
> > Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> > >
> > > Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise.  Science is NOT
> > > based on what is said or written.  It is based on whether the
> > > analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of
> experiments.
> > 
> > This is science as you imagine it.
> > This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.

Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?
What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?

> > Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical science
> where 
> you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make money.

I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide. 
Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust,
sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
 -- Douglas Adams

> > What is said or written is not only
> > the basement, but also the only content
> > of science.

Nope.  The foundation is what has been written about a phenomenon AND
what
has been verified by repeated experiments.  Theoretical physics is not
in
the same category - until it has been verified - by observation and/ or
by
experiment.

There are phenomena that are not exactly repeatable, subject to unknown
factors (human or otherwise), that are another category.

> Science is an advanced informational system.

That's too narrow a definition.

> And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
> some Heavenly Force into it, because
> 1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
> developed and maintained
> 2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.

That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)