On Aug 30, 12:49 am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> On Aug 30, 3:45 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Aug 29, 6:26 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>> wrote:>
>
>>> Thomas Smid seems to be one of those rare academics that have a much
>>> deeper uderstanding of life, the universe and everything.
>
>>> Quite 'mystical' from where Im standing.
>
>>> BOfL
>
>> The example below makes this guy seem like he is just pointing out
>> some competing theories which don't have as much evidence in their
>> support; "due to a hitherto unknown radiative enhancement effect
>> occurring in plasmas" in physics thats like kook man.
>
>> Nuclear Fusion: The fusion of hydrogen to helium is claimed to be the
>> energy source of the sun (and other stars). Whether or not nuclear
>> fusion as a physical mechanism actually exists, there is theoretical
>> and observational evidence that the energy output of the sun can be
>> fully accounted for by electronic atomic processes due to a hitherto
>> unknown radiative enhancement effect occurring in plasmas
>
>
> Which is why I saw him "more" of a mystic. I traced him through a link
> refering to Quantum Pythagoreans, where he was being questioned by one
> of their members, Michael Ivsin.
>
> I didnt know of these guys until yesterday. Like meeting a long lost
> family..;-), not that I have read much. Just a 'feeling' so far
> .
Personally I like the page, I think it would be a better science that
would show all the main competing theories descending from the ones
that have the most evidence to the wank and all between. But the
premise and tone of that page is all wrong. He gives info on all these
similar theories but acts like they are refutations of something
instead of a description of the human predicament of what and how we
can know the world.
> I got the impression that Ivsin was asessing what Smid actually knew
> as opposed to what was speculation.Smid will likely be geting hit from
> both sides, which makes sense.He is starting to see the mystical side
> of Py (I suspect) and is trying to open up new levels of understanding
> to his fraternity. Usually the road of a martyre
>
> Scientific theory is obselescent by its own nature. Fully accounted
> for? Thats an interesting use of cross professional speak.An
> instnctive attempt to rationalise by association perhaps?, accounting
> being a very precise process.
>
> BOfL
