Callanish forum 39 room
Image by markeystone
Callanish

You are joking sire? lock

close
more_vert
doktoratomik D
doktoratomik Sep 6, 2006 20:02:52
Replying to FourWinds

FourWinds wrote:
doktoratomik wrote:
doesn't have to contradict known physics just coz it ain't understood
Sorry, now I have to be pedantic :-)

If it didn't contradict known physics then it'd be understood. The thing in question might be valid, but not explainable by known physics. Even if valid it would still be ruled out by the 'known physics' criterion.

How does that follow? If known physics doens't explain something, then how can we understand it? I'm having difficulty playing devil's advocate now coz I don't want to end up sounding like a tin foil hat wearer. :D

F FourWinds
FourWinds Sep 6, 2006 20:10:26
Replying to doktoratomik

Something can be valid, but not explainable by 'known physics'.

Gravity has always been valid, but was not understood until relatively recently.

Splitting the atom has always been a possibility, but the science wasn't known until very recently. The atom, obviously, didn't suddenly gain the ability to be split in the 1940s.

The science behind the micro-processor has always been valid etc.

But, if you use "doesn't comply with known science" as a criterion for ruling something you rule out genuinely valid things that we don't understand yet.

I actually think "isn't too outlandish" is a far easier and more useful criterion to use :-)