darrenyeats wrote: > Very good. Science being very mathematical, his argument is > unsurprisingly maths-based and he quantifies how successive theories get > less wrong. Also he picked really simple things like the shape of the > earth, and indeed this has been refined over time. Sadly, Relativity and > QM marked a complete and utter throwing out of prior classical > -concepts-. But because mathematically their equations give similar > (just slightly more accurate) answers than classical physics in most > normal situations, would the author want us to think they were merely > refinements? I can't see it. IMO they were refinements based on revolutionary but somewhat inevitable concepts.
darrenyeats wrote: > But Relativity and QM are extremely rare events in science. I can't > think of any revolutions that compare since. I'm not quite sure. Of course it's very hard to decide what constitutes a (scientific) revolution. Even though the entries of the following list might not have the same momentousness as (general) relativity theory or QM, they are amongst my 'personal favourites': - Watson's an Crick's work on the structure of the DNA molecule (might be practically even more important than QM) - Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (even though the conjecture is not very notable the proof is) - The invention of Public Key Cryptography (Ellis, Cocks, Diffie & Hellman and [potentially many] others) darrenyeats wrote: > > If there were no future revolutions I'd be disappointed! Me too! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102330 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
