-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Dewey B Larson
- Thread starter Resha Caner
- Start date
Upvote
0
I am too. He seems to be on the fringe, and there could be several reasons for that, but I won't poison the well by listing them here. My first goal was just to understand the crux of his idea.
Upvote
0
Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Judging from the RationalWiki article, it sounds like another crackpot physics hypothesis on par with Time Cubes and the like. Eschewing from mathematics and falsification is not the sign of a good science.
Upvote
0
Agreed. It's not. I'm not sure the wiki article is fair, though. It seems Ronald Satz may be more the crackpot than Dewey himself was.
With that said, I had noticed a few troubling issues myself - the lack of mathematics (despite touting mathematics) being one of them. Another was his description of motion which immediately prompted me to ask, "Motion with respect to what?" One could say that question reveals my biases, but it would need to be answered in some form.
My reason for asking is that I was wondering if this might be a basis for formalizing some of the ideas of Jean Buridan ... but, oh well.
Or maybe it comes down to this: we talk of how physics may be different in parallel universes or even that it may be different at different times or in different places - but are we actually capable of recognizing what "different" would look like?
Another interesting paper on the topic (which, though also appearing to be largely ignored seems more credible) is "Are There Alternatives To Our Present Theories of Physical Reality?" by Rowlands.
Upvote
0
What is the Reciprocal System of physical theory? | The Reciprocal System of physical theory
FYI, that was the best introduction to the idea I've found so far.
FYI, that was the best introduction to the idea I've found so far.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
