Merl,
My apologies if you misunderstood my post. I was NOT being sarcastic. I have long ago stopped being sarcastic
with you. I consider you to be one of America's national treasures, one of our secret weapons.
I was simply jesting with you because usually I have no idea what you are talking about.
I doubt there are
more than a small handful of people on these boards that do know what you are talking about and even when they do
know, there are even less who can keep up.
Nahh... I didn't think you were, I was just remarking (in a left-handed way) that my reply would have been pretty funny if you were being sarcastic. Either way, I would have posted just the same. Thanks for the compliment though, it's nice to feel treasured.
I am usually considered a fairly intelligent person, even flirting with Mensa standards, but have learned over the years that there are some people who are light years ahead of the herd. I would imagine that you are in that savant catagory from what I have seen. Comparatively, when it comes to physics, I am in the autistic camp.
I have no doubt that you are intelligent, hence why I debate with you. Over the years, it has become obvious that you are definitely one of the "bright-bulbs" in the box - leaving many a burnt ones behind. I'm sure that we could both remember a dim-one or two if we put our minds to it.
I know that when we first encounterd each other I termed you a clown rather than a magician. I am almost ready to give you back the magician title.
I don't mind being both.
I came across an interesting post by another scientist which rang very true.
"in the classrooms of today, anything which cannot be proven by the scientific method or by traditionaly accepted academic sources is prohibited, and personal opinions of religious faith presented as academic fact, could easily cost me my prospective profession, and may actually result in incarceration. Teachers are paid to teach; not proselytize."
Well, he's right - on a couple of counts. To a degree, it's unfortunate; however, without guidelines - our schools could very well wind up teaching some real nonsense. I have enough problems keeping a pair of elementary school teachers from dipping into the bible for anecdotes, history and morality as it is - I certainly do not need the regulations loosened.
On the other hand, as I have often said, many aspects of today's science smacks of "faith", and to teach it based upon theory, anecdotal information and the application of minimalist logic (even though it goes wholly unproven/substantiated), is likened to Biblical Science of the Dark Ages. I think a case could easily be made, if the "Intelligent Designers" had their act together, that astrophysical theories are now bordering on the preposterous. There is a growing body of theory (typically intersecting with observation) which would have us believe that 99% is "known", and that the rest is simply "unknowable". It reminds me of a story.... We won't go into that. At any rate, once you delve into the details, you find out that, of "all that is known" - 70% is in the form of something we cannot see, measure or test, only it's effects remain - 25% can also not be seen, measured or tested, but it is different from the aforementioned unseen, unmeasurable and untestable stuff. Of the remaining 5%, 3% exists in the form of gases and energy streaming through the "known universe" and 1% is the matter that we can see in the form of stars, planets and debris. Remember, the remaining 1% is unknowable unless you were here at the Big Bang. Sadly, that goes against the tenaments of the standard theories (Energy Conservation), but it gets swept under the rug in the form of "anomolous results", "Oddities", "irregularities", "cancelled inifinites" and my favorite - "Renormalization". The mountain that has grown under that rug has become so large that most don't even realize it's there anymore. That non-glacial and unnatural super structure on the face of the planet is the physical representation of all that we have sacrificed in order to maintain the direction of the status-quo, and by this time, most don't remember what they put there, when or why.
I am in the process of auditing a course in Astronomy that is taught by a former NASA scientist who lead a team in the development of Hubbell. I have to tell you - to sit down at night an read my notes on the subject makes me think an altar needs to be erected in that auditorium where he teaches... So much is professed on faith alone, as little science manages to creep into the affair. It's difficult to bite my tongue - so I chew a lot of gum...