And elaborate on the "pseudoscientific" claim as well. -BC-
On Oct 28, 12:35 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “Please elaborate on these claims.” – BC > “His description appears to be right on the mark.” – BC > > First, I’ll agree that the description appears to be on the mark. > Underline the term ‘appears’. That is my point. > > I’m talking about appearances in a philosophical way, something you > may not have had the luxury to explore yet. > > When I said “‘We’ don’t even know what waves nor light are.”, I had > hoped that one had studied enough to have come across some of the > following notions others have presented as support for the gestalt I’m > attempting to present. I’ll use a couple of them as my appeal to > authority for now, since that is what you seem to have used. > > “The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we > can find them in things.” - Albert Einstein. > > “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no > knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy > comes in little blobs of a definite amount. ” - Feynman. 1987 > > " We don't know what we are talking about" - Nobel laureate David > Gross referring to the current state of string theory > > “Since the mathematical physicists have taken over, theoretical > physics has gone to pot. The bizarre concepts generated out of the > over use and misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it > were not for the tragedy of the waste in time, manpower, money, and > the resulting misdirection.” - Richard Feynman > > "I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all if we > just apply working mathematical rules; that's not what the physicist > should be satisfied with." - Dirac > > For a ‘layman’s’ view of and differing arguments pro and con RE: > Uncertainty Principle > see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uncertainty_Principle > > Similar one liners and analysis are legion. > > On Oct 28, 10:36 am, BC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 28, 4:06 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> “Red is a word used to refer to a light wavelength of about 650 nm. > > >> Whether you can see it or not or whether it looks purple to you does > > >> not change the wavelength. We use different words to refer to > > >> different wavelengths for simplicity sake. Red is red regardless of > > >> ones perception of it.” - J. > > > > Apparently you are using a limited and pseudoscientific epistemology. > > > ‘We’ don’t even know what waves nor light are. Tell me you don’t > > > accept the uncertainty principle. You further suggest that ‘we’ know > > > what a color is even if we can’t see it and don’t use a word for it. A > > > strange view indeed! Earlier the notion of scientific dogma arose. > > > Please tell me it ain’t so Joe! > > > Uhhhhhh...... Pseudoscientific? A strange view? WTF? Please > > elaborate on these claims. > > His description appears to be right on the mark. Research E&M and > > spectroscopy, for starters. > > -BC- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
