|
"Particle accelerators use empirically derived data."
Wrong. Utterly wrong. Do you seriously think that equations like E=mc^2 and the Lorentz transformations were empirically derived? Not only did Einstein's theory automatically give equations that described observations, but they PREDICTED equations for future observations. Now, here's the key point. The predictions were not just general conceptual statements like you give, they were exact formulae! For a given mass and radius from the sun, he could tell you exactly how any planet would precess, not just mercury. He could tell you exactly where that planet would be at a given time. Anytime that something which cannot be explained with current theory, it is reported and debated by the theorists. Ray, I do this for a living. You MUST understand math if you are going to refute modern theories.
Accidents that occur in nuclear power plants (or in planes, for that matter) are rarely a result of a failure to understand all of the physics. They are a result of a human error. We understand why things fail most of the time, but that doesn't mean that people will always do the right thing in any given circumstance. If a pilot forgets to drop the wheels before landing a plane, you can't blame it on the physics.
"Like Bruce, you're paying attention. Pretty soon it'll start to come together for you. "
If only you had any idea how clueless you are. Your arrogance is almost depressing to me, because it means that humans are so stubborn and deluded that they will believe anything that gives them a feeling of importance. As for the rest of your ramblings, I'm getting really tired of refuting virtually everything you say. My main point is at the top of this post and in several others I've posted. If you can't predict anything useful, shutup. Let us do our jobs and you stick to something that you know about. I don't care if you believe in it or not, you have to learn math before you can be of any use in something like this. |
