I still hold thatthe current theory of the universe is just part of, certainly not the end link, of a chain of theories.
The flat earth and centre of the universe theories were founded using the same scientific principles as todays theories. It's only the fact that we've now proven, due to more research and observation, that they were not only wrong, but quite nieve.
You can only prove that things cannot break the second law of thermodynamics if you use that law to prove it. It's a circular argument that has no answer.
I think we're arguing the same thing. I agree with you that the second law isn't likely to be broken by conventional means. I just don't like using theories as absolutes.
(The flat earth and centre of the universe theories were founded using the same scientific principles as todays theories. It's only the fact that we've now proven, due to more research and observation, that they were not only wrong, but quite nieve.
You can only prove that things cannot break the second law of thermodynamics if you use that law to prove it. It's a circular argument that has no answer.
I think we're arguing the same thing. I agree with you that the second law isn't likely to be broken by conventional means. I just don't like using theories as absolutes.
Evil Prof. Pixel Masher I made this!,
Sat 6 Sep 2003, 20:54,
archived)
there is afield of philosophy (field= grass is greener) which portrays science as the modern religion - ie *100% of FACT* as seen through calculatable data - if you THEN perceive this data through several stella and an undisclosed alcoholic beverage there has been a noticable trend to piss in the metaphorical wardrobe...
so to speak
er... in short - perception - thank god for beer!!
(so to speak
er... in short - perception - thank god for beer!!
Kamikazee Killmouse,
Sun 7 Sep 2003, 0:59,
archived)
