Forum Replies Created
-
September 8, 2020 at 4:49 pm
I’m not convinced.
This method doesn’t allow use to see the future. It only reduces the delay in seeing (do to the speed of light.) The best we can do is to go the speed of light, then there’s no delay (even tho the object maybe light years away. )
A distant observer sees our past do to the speed of light. This method also allows seeing us with a greater delay.September 7, 2020 at 8:03 pmWhen ones telescope points on a small patch of sky, on the night that time on telescope was available, and a rare unpredictable event happens in the field of view, that’s good luck, no other explanation possible.
Luck only, isn’t good enough, but without it things can be different.September 7, 2020 at 6:38 pmWe create equations and mathematical methods. Some times we discover aspects of reality that we can shoe horn into those equations, sometime it happens the other way around. As we go deeper down the rabbit hole, I see no reason to believe reality is such it can be fully described by any language including math.
Of course we will have more math and language as we try to spiral into deeper aspects of reality.
I see no end in sight.The best theory can be is consistent, This is necessary but not sufficient. However valid experimental results gives us reality.
Although I do find theory fun.Furthermore, From Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. In a non trivial system of mathematics there are trues we know that cannot be proved.
We can never have a complete theory. If we get a theory of everything, that’s complete, science will get a bit boring. I don’t like boring, maybe this is why I think this way.
