...... For example, Special Relativity is just a theory.


Vito wrote:
Good example. A scientific theory is a construct, usually mathmatical, that
allow us to predict things, onten under limited conditions.

"Usually mathematical"??
Without the math to apply it, a theory is useless.

The "limited conditions" you mention are imposed by two hard
& cold facts of reality- nobody knows everything, and while
everything affects everything else, in many cases the effect
is very very small and/or takes a very long time, and so it
can be left out.

So, please allow me to revise your statement above, it is
accurate in it's way but could be much closer to the truth
with slight & simple revision: A scientific theory is a
construct that allows us to predict things, within the
limits of what can be known & observed.


... It may or may not
describe the real world. Faced with an infinite universe with no obvious
reference points Albert set about constructing his general theory perforce using
finite mathmatics (all we have) and when that showed flaws, added his special
theory to fill the gaps.

I like you Vito, you make me laugh.

Einstein invented special relativity first, to explain a
very simple but otherwise unexplainable glitch in the theory
of gravity (as defined by Newton and refined by other
physicists over the generations). It was really a neat
exercise in theoretical mathematics, not expected to ever be
proven.

Einstein then dabbled with a more general theory, ten or
twelve years later he published a few papers on it but
immediately realized he had made some mistakes and began
revising his work.

At that point, somebody mentioned to him that recent
refiniments in the observations of the orbit of Mercury
"proved" that special relativty was valid, and Einstein was
off on his path to become the definitive genius of his time.




.... However, less wise
users of these theories came to believe that the real universe was bound by the
limits of his mathmatics, which isn't necessarily true. For example, it may well
be possible to exceed 'C' altho the equations seem to say it is not.


When we can get better & more accurate observations on the
effects of velocities approaching the speed of light, we'll
have a better idea of how relativity applies. It's true that
relativity "seems" to say that it is impossible for an
object with mass to exceed (or indeed, to achieve) the speed
of light, but it also suggests that both mass & the speed of
light can be tricked.

Bob Crantz could give you a much better answer addressing
this specific point, I'm sure.


I see the same thing in all the hubub over global warming. Models using less
than complete data seem to indicate a problem. Others do not.

How is any model going to use "complete data" when a
complete data set would have to include every molecule of
air & water on & around the Earth, plus much much more?



.... I'm told by some
that everybody within X miles of coast will surely drown if we don't act now -
including major cities like N.Y. Well, how much will their drowning reduce
greenhouse gasses?? Sounds like the problem will fix itself - IF there is a
problem. So "What, me worry" is a valid attitude.


You're right, the problem will fix itself.

This may not be an orderly process.

What boat projects are you working on, lately?

Regards
Doug King