Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Here we go again. WTC brought down by aircraft, not.



I read through most of his paper and while it is obvious that he has
an opinion as to what happened, what he is actually asking for is
further inquiry because the initial inquiry did not provide a
satisfactory understanding of the event.

It seems to me that we should always support additional inquiry if we
don't understand an event. I believe that is really the whole point
isn't it?

Attacking someone who says "I don't understand. I need to ask more
questions to help me understand." seems strange from this list.




On 11/16/05, Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
At 01:26 AM 11/16/2005, you wrote:
Here's a preprint of his paper. It's long and I've only skimmed part of
it, but unfortunately, he brings up further questions that demand answers.


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

bc


I don't think so. Look at it this way: "I don't understand how this
could happen from the known stimuli therefore there must be an ulterior
cause."

That's another variation on this one: "This structure is too complicated
to have happened by the known moduli, therefore there must be an ulterior
mechanism, which I call 'Intelligent Design.' "

Some physicists fail the most elementary test of humility in the face of
uncertainty. Something about the gestalt.


Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!



--
William Thomas
william.r.thomas@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l