• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Correction of single error makes nonsense of quantum.

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Dom

Re: God

Unread post

>Science today resembles religion more than religion does.>Quantum is held as dogma. Selfish gene is held as dogma.Hmm. You're starting to touch my pet peeve here.[Rant on]Science is only held at the level of religion by non-scientists. Working scientists are well aware of the fragility of theories (history is littered with them.. Phlogiston, the Ether, etc.) From a practical point of view, theories survive by natural selection - if the theory doesnt represent the facts then out with the theory (after a few attempts to fix it usually). At no point does the theory be used to describe how the universe IS, it merely tries to derive laws that approximate behaviour.Theories are not held as 'dogma', but if a competing theory cannot at least match the current theory in USEFULNESS then I'm afraid it is going to be largely ignored, & quite rightly so. Would you be happy knowing that the scientists running your local nuclear powerstation were going to 'try out a brand new quantum theory' on the reactor as this theory reckons it won't explode?[Rant off]Anyway, from the initial topic: there are currently some issues regarding its rejection of 'non-locality', and adherance to Einsteins old 'speed of light as a limit' brand of relativity (see, even that isn't held as dogma). Not to mention failure to account for certain physical phenomena (gravitational lensing). In the 3 or so years since these issues were raised, no significant response has been made from the 'TEW' camp, and so the theory will languish in the backwaters of science as a nice idea but flawed. This doesn't mean TEW hasnt been dismissed as heretical. It has been criticised, and as yet a satisfactory rework has not been forthcoming.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”