On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:21:04 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 16:50, <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:34:30 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 15:23, <cloud...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 1:18:44 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 2:42 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >>>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if >>>>>> not by top-down influence in levels from consciousness ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At the molecular level, if this were true, we would see miracles >>>>> happening, like a table levitating without any applied force. No such >>>>> thing >>>>> has ever been observed. Neurons and muscle cells only fire according to >>>>> the >>>>> laws of physics. If you documented an example of a miracle in the brain >>>>> you >>>>> would overthrow science and be famous. >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The "laws of physics" are not a static thing, in terms of history. One >>>> can say the "laws of physics" are in 2019 "The Standard Model" (about 40 >>>> years old now) and maybe some others like electromagnetism. Before 1900 >>>> there was no quantum mechanics that was a part of "laws of physics". There >>>> are also chemical and neurobiological "laws" that have become a part of >>>> science that also address "neurons and other cells". >>>> >>>> The "laws of physics" may be different in 2119 than in 2019. What we >>>> "list" as "laws of physics" changes over time. >>>> >>> >>> It does change to explain experimental data not explained by current >>> theories.... Here there should be experiment which put evidence to >>> extraordinary behavior not explained/explainable by current theories. >>> >>> If you can provide no test, and all the tests we do are explainable by >>> current theories, why the need to invoke invisible horses ? >>> >>> Quentin >>> >> >> >> >> There is data from astronomy that involves what people have called "dark >> matter". There is no theory yet that physicists have rallied around to >> "explain" this data. >> > > So that means there is a need for a new or modified theory. > > >> Can you derive today a dark-matter theory from The Standard Model + >> General Relativity? >> > > No, so what ? I just said theories change to explain new datas or they > propose test that gives rise to new results. If you invoke invisible horses > and those horses do not explain better than competing existing theories > without those invisible entities, that theory seems useless, no better than > god did it. > > Quentin > >> >> What is this theory? Is it written down in arXiv somewhere? >> >> - pt >> >> >>
Sometimes theories do more than merely "change". There may be a radically new theory that is proposed. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are more than a "change" of the old theories. BTW, There could be invisible horses involved ... *Trojan-horse particle invariance: The impact on nuclear astrophysics* - https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4874070 - pt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
