Skip to content

The Limits Of Science

The title of this article could equally well be “The limits of philosophy” or of theology, or of any intellectual endeavor. The question is: can we continue to learn indefinitely?

John Horgan at the inaptly titled Scientific American asked a similar question with his Is Science Infinite?

He thinks, and I agree, that it is “already bumping into limits”, as he wrote in his book The End of Science? (which I haven’t read). Those are our limits, and not the limits of things to know. God is boundless, but our intellects are not.

Horgan spoke to Martin Rees (ellipsis original).

Rees, speaking via Skype from Cambridge, reiterated points he made last month in “Is There a Limit to Scientific Understanding?” In that essay Rees calls [physicist David Deutsch’s book] Beginning of Infinity “provocative and excellent” but disputes Deutsch’s central claim that science is boundless. Science “will hit the buffers at some point,” Rees warns. He continues:

There are two reasons why this might happen. The optimistic one is that we clean up and codify certain areas (such as atomic physics) to the point that there’s no more to say. A second, more worrying possibility is that we’ll reach the limits of what our brains can grasp. There might be concepts, crucial to a full understanding of physical reality, that we aren’t aware of, any more than a monkey comprehends Darwinism or meteorology…Efforts to understand very complex systems, such as our own brains, might well be the first to hit such limits. Perhaps complex aggregates of atoms, whether brains or electronic machines, can never know all there is to know about themselves.

There is the danger here of scientists assuming philosophical problems can be answered via scientific explanations, and thus (of course) failing to answer them and so incorrectly announcing answers do not exist. As an example of this hubris, Horgan “asserted that scientists are running into cognitive and physical limits and will never solve the deepest mysteries of nature, notably why there is something rather than nothing.”

But excepting mistaking philosophy for science, we will still hit a wall. Barbara Tversky,
Professor Emerita of Psychology, Stanford University, hinted as such in her “last” question to Edge. “How do the limits of the mind limit our understanding?”, she asked.

Anybody who has spent any time with students knows that such limits exist, and that the limits are not just on a per-person basis, but exist for our race as a whole.

Each person has, say, forty, fifty productive years at best to learn all they are to learn, with most of that learning concentrated into half that period. It is clear that that which can be known is infinite; thus, given our built-in time limitation, we’ll never know everything. That what can be known is infinite is known to be true based on even a small experience with mathematics.

You may say that we can continue to build on what was known before, and so increase knowledge. This is true to a certain extent. But as that pile of prior knowledge grows, it takes longer and longer to get through it before one can learn new things. And even if we only have to learn part of the pile to continue advancements, any individual cannot know it all, and we as a species cannot do so forever. And forever is what is required.

Of course, I have no idea if we are anywhere near our capacity. We do at least seem near an inflection point in many sciences. But that could equally be the result of being beholden to stale ideas or the increasing politicization of various fields as a result of our lack of intelligence.

It is more than obvious that scientists need a healthy dose of philosophical training. That lack holds them back and sends them into blind alleys. Horgan:

In Switzerland I suggested that the riddle of consciousness is a synecdoche for the riddle of humanity. What are we, really? For most of our history, religion has given us the answer. We are immortal souls, children of a loving god, striving to reach heaven or nirvana. Most modern scientists reject these religious explanations, but they cannot agree on an alternative…We are clusters of neurons awash in chemicals, genes shaped by natural selection, egos keeping a lid on ids, software programs, nodes of information in a cosmic web, quantum wave functions…

It is precisely because we can never achieve total self-knowledge that we will keep seeking [the riddle of consciousness] forever.

Nope. The riddle about the what is well solved. The question of how is wide open. Not that we’ll necessarily figure it out.

32 thoughts on “The Limits Of Science Leave a comment

  1. To solve this, we need literal ‘think tanks’; take a brain and keep it alive in a fish tank.

    Let the brain communicate with the rest of the world through some electronic means, maybe charge to have people walk up and ask a question using a microphone and speaker!

  2. Each human has a limit to the amount and types of knowledge known and understood. Science can not progress beyond that hard limit. Even now, scientists over-specialize like tropical fish. And the culture of science most certainly holds back its own progress. As has been aptly stated, science progresses one funeral at a time.

    Example – in quantum physics, the “Copenhagen interpretation” has been the reigning orthodoxy for eighty years. It’s not only wrong, but nonsensical. It was originally intended to be nonsensical, to help break the older scientists of the day from thinking about quantum events as if they were normal-scale events. Schroedinger’s cat was a parody (and paradox), not meant to be taken either seriously or literally. Why does this matter? Because physicists are still taught that the Copenhagen interpretation is literally true. This mind set limits their thinking, and holds back progress. They confuse human ignorance for literal unknowability – if we don’t know the exact state of a particle, then it has no definite state, and exists in a superposition of all possible states.

    This error of scientific hubris is the corner stone of quantum computing. It may be the reason that quantum computing is currently a rat hole that billions of dollars gets flushed down. Despite several different manufacturers producing competing products, no quantum computing device has ever shown any benefit, or definitely been shown to act as advertised. (The state of the art has a finely tuned circuit, operating at near zero Kelvin, that utilizes equal currents in both directions. It works remarkably like a circuit with no current at all.) Never mind the fact that human brains have a hard time programming computers to behave predictably, much less in an inherently unpredictable fashion.

  3. What would be the cause of the limit? Memory capacity? Processing speed? Memory retrieval speed? Algoritmic limits?

    If Minds are not Material, you would still have limits. Poeple advocating a non-material Mind are not very much into specs, but I don’t believe I have ever heard the argument than non-material Minds have infinite capacities for different areas of thought.

  4. An argument which relies on infinities is philosophical.

    Regarding individual capacities, most humans use less than 10% of their brains, and most of what you think you know is wrong anyway.

    Science is in its infancy, still swaddled by Dark Age myth, as is the culture at large.

    So take heart. People will be less stupid in the future, if we get there.

  5. When I was in high school and college I read Scientific American every month. They had great articles and I especially enjoyed the amateur scientist section. Alas, it was taken over by leftists and is now Pseudo Scientific American.

  6. The 1899 edition of Punch Magazine had bit of dialogue between “Boy” and “Genius” where the “Boy” says: “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” That quote has been attributed, probably wrongly [and/or out of context] to Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the Patent Office in 1899.

    Of course, that view/quote couldn’t be more wrong.

    Just like the views expressed about understanding–more precisely the assertions humans will never understand consciousness–are likely to be just as wrong. That’s a view that reminds me of old disproven views that include:

    Heavier than air machines can never fly (balloons are lighter, why they float).

    Trains will can never go much faster because the air will pile up in the back and passengers will suffocate.

    Flying faster than the speed of sound is impossible.

    And the list can go on and on….

    One ought to observe that for each of the above views, when they were made and widely held there was considerably more scientific information, objective tangible measurable facts, available than what science has yet revealed about consciousness. There’s a long way to go, ooodles of learnings to come, before anyone can even be close to being in a position to predicting what more we’ll know, etc.

    That people are saying things about consciousness as they are is a good reminder of the old adage, ‘if history teaches us anything it is that history doesn’t teach us anything.’

  7. This piece is so silly it’s not even wrong. (a) All probability is conditional. Define the premises and we can talk about Pr(‘science’ has ‘limits’ | E, X). (b) Are we talking about a testable prediction here? Viz., our model M predicts… what? when? A diminution D of ‘science’ at time t? At what time t do we get to test model M? (c) What is the current evidence E for a present diminution of… I don’t know… the rate or the quality of science-y knowing stuff? (d) Even postulating a current diminution, by what sort of reasoning and observation do we observe and deduce that ‘science’ is inevitably going to asymptote out? And for whom? For you and me? For some guys in One BEEELLION AD?

    Bueller? Bueller?

    And so forth.

  8. I’m surprised that Fr. Stanley Jaki’s essay, “The Limits of a Limitless Science” wasn’t mentioned. (See here: )
    Fr. Jaki’s argument that science (basic science–e.g. physics, not “historical science”) requires quantitative verification clearly limits the domain of science. Even if historical science is admitted to the discussion, there are still domains of knowledge which are not susceptible to repeated, empirical verification which is a necessary condition for scientific enterprise.
    So we have ethics, aesthetics, theology and ??? that will never be a part of science.

  9. The problem with the science of today, proven by the fact that the last 60 years was a first period in history of Western civilization when we invented …..NOTHING. All that babble out there is just tweaking of the old. No WOOOW! new development which would push humanity forward to new level whatsoever. Yup, Elon built the biggest rocket….still only a rocket. Why? For many reasons. We politicized science, left it to hacks and women (boy, that is politically incorrect….but also an undeniable truth) and so we are building for the last 100 years on the entirely wrong base getting farther and farther from the truth. Everything is geared to only one goal; to prove that GOD does not exist. Funny considering that all that science out there has an easily traceable beginning in the THEOLOGY of the Catholic Church. Yup, those pesky Catholic Monks were originators of all science. And our civilization was the most dynamic out there when everybody, or at least most were OK with that. We were going places in huge bounds. Then poor Albert came with his “Theory of Relative nonsense” just to make sure that we would not allow God to be, and destroy that unpleasant Michelson-Morley experiment which proved that the Earth is not moving. Now we do know that they, the M&M duo, were correct, plus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, at least of the one we know. But we would not have it, and so we still teach our kids utter nonsense of Darwinism (Snow White has to be spinning in her grave), Copernicus principle instead of Tycho Brahe’s, man made global warming,…etc. Every next generation is “stupider” that the previous one, astro-physicists had to declare; “Everything we know about our Universe was and is wrong”, and do not start me on the insanity of the “Shoe string theory”. I tried to use it to tie my shoes… did not work! Would not that be by itself suggestion that we truly do have a limit? We imposed it on ourselves by sheer stupidity of embracing every idiotic idea the socialists came up with.
    And here is one beyond comprehension level of the average Western scientist; The Religion, Ideology and Philosophy (RIP) were pretty much up to the “Age of Enlightenment” (Boy there is a misnomer extraordinaire, brought to you by the same people who think that the Dark Ages were due to the oppression of the people by the Catholic Church…miss-educated simpletons downright ….idiots) were one and the same, inseparable. And so we prospered as civilization. It is mildly entertaining that precisely with the commencement of the AE the decline of our civilization started. Now we are in a free fall, but few would notice, even fewer would admit.
    Deus Vult.

  10. @ Bob “knowledge which are not susceptible to repeated, empirical verification which is a necessary condition for scientific enterprise.”

    “Empirical verification” is not fundamental to the general definition of science unless one irrationally assumes Materialism as the fundamental premise of science. Empiricism , in that context, is absurd because it cannot even be defined or described according to its own assumptions. The empirical is just a tool that is useful in some scientific disciplines and it requires metaphysics to explain its existence, validity and its usefulness as a tool.

    “So we have ethics, aesthetics, theology and ??? that will never be a part of science.”

    You glaringly left out one of the most fundamental metaphysical prerequisites… Logic!
    Logic is the scientific rules for coherent, consistent and effective reasoning.

    I can easily see why logic is anathema to your brand of “scientific” Materialism (i.e. “scientism”), but without logic you are left in a maze of dead ends of your own making. Each of the dead ends represents a “limit of knowledge” which cannot be passed without denying the irrational premises of scientism.

    Your version of “science” is a corpse sacrificed on the altar of autonomy.

  11. If science were a serious undertaking, scientists would number their findings with a finite number of digits to recognize them. It follows that science sets itself a finite limit, deliberately or accidentally.

  12. “It is more than obvious that scientists need a healthy dose of philosophical training.”

    Why? Philosophy hasn’t provided a single definitive answer to any question ever!

    Science has easily demonstrated its superiority as a method of investigating the world, and has led to huge benefits to mankind. I don’t see any sign of it slowing down, either – that just sounds like sour grapes from philosophers. We might be reaching practical limits in some areas, like the expense of ever larger particle accelarators, but even those limits may be breached by new technical discoveries.

    As for Horgan’s silly “For most of our history, religion has given us the answer.”

    Not the answer to any useful question, like how to cure disease, or even how to improve people’s behaviour.

  13. @ Milan,

    “the last 60 years was a first period in history of Western civilization when we invented …..NOTHING”

    Apart from the Internet, Integrated Circuits, and Lasers (to name a few). If you mean scientific discoveries in general, there’s the Standard Model of particle physics, Pulsars, and the sequencing of the human genome (to name a few).

    Google is your friend.

  14. Dear “Fishytuba” yup, clear sign of enlightened thinking. So you automatically assume I do not know that. And I do admit I was not trained by the Google, for ever Thanks to God for that. I guess I will have to write a book to explain myself. The internet is nothing more than improved (questionable) mode of communication, integrated circuits are just improvement with time on the first electric wire ever pulled, knowing that there is such a thing as Pulsar benefits who? A few scientists? Columbus discovering America, that benefited many, including those Indian savages, which were brought from the stone age to the civilization. So how exactly it put humanity forward in a same sense of inventing Penicillin, car, aircraft,……. by a couple of bicycle repairmen while the Smithsonian scientific organization spent millions of $ to get nowhere. The present crop of scientists have no clue (of course there are exemptions to this fact) that RIP is a major part of the thinking process. Actually Logical thinking is impossible without it. The question which makes a difference is; WHICH RIP. Since most of the folks today are trained or rather indoctrinated in the socialist ideology, the inevitable result is very visible. The Christian philosophy turned out to be the greatest one in the history of human kind. that is why the white Christian Man invented 98% of the entire human development. rejection of that RIP is is why we do live the AGE OF STUPID, now. And it truly does not matter how many precious feeling get offended by this statement of reality. If you would look around you, you might be able to recognise this reality.
    I hope you are not one of those smug sophisticated people who thing that the people living in the Dark ages were just superstitious simpletons. For those are the very same people who built Gothic Cathedrals, and put down base of every science we do now today. But yes they did not have computers……we do, only for one reason; we had a few more centuries to play with the stuff. We are actually not smarter one iota than medieval folks, or Romans. You might be surprised to find out, if such a comparison would be possible, that most likely they would outperform the today’s man on the ability to think logically. Hands down, for they subscribed to correct RIP. How do we know? They did built this civilization and we destroyed it.

  15. Philosophy hasn’t provided a single definitive answer to any question ever!

    Of course it has. It just hasn’t stopped anyone from emotional denials of those answers. Just a simple example: philosophy has demonstrated that from true premises and a valid syllogism, true answers will be obtained; as for example, modus tollens, which states
    If P then Q, and P is true, then Q is true.

    This is often misunderstand.
    IF the premises are true AND the syllogism is valid, then the conclusion is true.
    But this does not mean that if the Syllogism is invalid the conclusion is False. This itself a formal fallacy known as Negating the Precedent. Hence, all the bleating one sees on the Internet about “fallacies” is so much dreck.

    Science has easily demonstrated its superiority as a method of investigating the world, and has led to huge benefits to mankind.

    Science has easily demonstrated its superiority as a method of investigating the metrical properties of material bodies, and has led to huge benefits and disasters to mankind.

    There, fixed it for you.

    “the last 60 years was a first period in history of Western civilization when we invented …..NOTHING”

    Apart from the Internet, Integrated Circuits, and Lasers (to name a few).

    1. Internet. The telegraph was the more significant invention, “since the ability to communicate globally at all in real-time was a qualitative shift, while the change brought on by the modern Internet was merely a quantitative shift.

    2. Integrated circuits. These are simply miniaturized electrical circuits placed on a single substrate. The key invention – the transistor – is from 1947. Jack Kilby presented his integrated circuit at Texas Instruments in September 1958, just about 60 years ago. But again, the electrical circuit was the qualitative scientific breakthrough. The IC was a quantitative improvement.

    3. Laser. In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretical foundations for the laser and the maser in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung via a re-derivation of Max Planck’s law of radiation, conceptually based upon probability coefficients for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation. In 1928, Rudolf W. Ladenburg confirmed the existence of the phenomena of stimulated emission and negative absorption. In 1939, Valentin A. Fabrikant predicted the use of stimulated emission to amplify “short” waves. In 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and effected the first demonstration of stimulated emission. In 1950, Alfred Kastler (Nobel Prize for Physics 1966) proposed the method of optical pumping, experimentally confirmed, two years later (1952), by Brossel, Kastler, and Winter. That is, the science was all done more than 60 years ago.

    Historian John Lukacs went further. He wrote in The Passing of the Modern Age that in the fifty years between 1870 and 1920, the daily lives of people in the cities of the Western world changed more than ever before or after. To our fathers and grandfathers (he wrote in 1970), railroads, automobiles, the telegraph were old hat and they saw the introduction of the radio and the airplane. Nothing since 1920 has introduced anything that would gobsmack them. Airplanes lost their properllers; the radios obtained picture tubes. Everything got faster and smaller and bigger; ut there was nothing in the world of 1970 that would have amazed someone from 1920 the way the world of 1920 would have amazed a time traveller from 1870. Recall that the Census of 1890 was tabulated by punched cards and an optical scanner; and the hologram was patented in 1910. Goddard would launch his first liquid-fuel rocket in 1926, shortly after the period in question.

    In a certain sense, this period was the Singularity and marked the transition between the horse-drawn age and the machine-drawn age that we all grew up with.

  16. Ye Olde Statistician, I could not say it better. Usually at this point many would start dissecting examples you so precisely and eloquently explained. The logic of it would most likely escape them. That simple detail; it does not matter what the specific example is, or how many. What matters is that they read something written very logically by the man who knows. And this is a tough one (for an average scientific snowflake); knows, not only because he reads the right books, others do too, but because he also subscribes to the right philosophy, or something very close to it, “thing” necessary to be able to really understand the CONNECTIONS, for without understanding how everything connects, it is all just an incoherent blabber.
    The first rules and principles of the science were very clearly explained in the Bible. For starters it established the numero uno principle; The concept of the Absolute Truth. Yup, measly 2000 plus years back by some crazy “carpenter” named Jesus. No science could function without that principle till St. Al (Gore) came on the scene. Well, actually it was the Psycho Marty (Luther). So yes, the actual base of failure of the science was established 500 years back. It was not noticeable from the beginning (as usual), but especially after the Age of Enlightenment the process sped up considerably to the present terminal velocity of the free fall. How come? Simple. Marty knew better than Jesus, Calvin new better than Marty, so did Zwingly , so did…..and so on to the 40000 different truths. Hence you have your truth, I have mine…..yup, “great” base for any kind of science, art, or any kind of human development. That is why Marty led directly to that swell fella Carlos Marx and to the scientific atheism (lived that, know quite a bit about it). There is one precious ……,wait a minute…..degenerate idiocy. It is an unbroken line of human depravity. Just to demonstrate again how the Science and the Religion/Ideology/Philosophy are totally inseparable part of the same human “scientific” condition. And of course the logical conclusion; why it does not, and nothing could really work anymore. Yes, not only the science…everything around us.

    I could use many other examples, write book about it, but why. There is a complete polarization of this society and any, including scientific, group in it. On the level that any discussion is becoming increasingly difficult if not impossible (as waste of time…….and I am saying it after I just wasted a good portion of it. ;o) .
    Deus Vult

  17. Milan, you have fallen into the silly trap of specious associations.

    Just because “Evolution” is demonstrably an impossible fraud does not mean that the “Copernican” model of the Solar System is also false. Just as the “Evolution” paradigm requires a Universe that runs on magic in defiance of the observed, consistent, Natural Laws of physical reality, so too does the geocentric model of the cosmos and the Einsteinean supposition of bendy, squishy “spacetime”.

    The gross misinterpretation of the MMX (Michelson-Morley Experiment) that you seem to rely on demonstrates ONLY that Earth is not significantly moving through a stationary aether. There is no reason whatever to assume that aether in the vicinity of any moving body is stationary in respect to anything. In fact MMX demonstrates fairly convincingly that it is not. I betcha that the same experiment conducted anywhere else (like the Moon, or Mars, or a space station) would yield similar results.

    Anyhow, as far as I have been able to discover, was popularised in some “Catholic” circles by Rama P Coomeraswamy who, I believe, was a malicious plant to subtly confuse and deride Faith and Reason as if they are incompatible by falsely misrepresenting both.

  18. @ Milan,

    “So you automatically assume I do not know that.”

    You claimed that nothing has been invented in the last 60 years, so yes.

    “Columbus discovering America”

    Isn’t an invention.

    “The first rules and principles of the science were very clearly explained in the Bible. For starters it established the numero uno principle; The concept of the Absolute Truth”

    There isn’t any concept of Absolute Truth in science.

  19. @ Ye Olde Statistician,

    Is there some particular reason why you try to challenge everything I say ever? If I said that 3 is greater than 2 you’d dispute that. You’re making yourself look like a rather stupid bully.

    “the change brought on by the modern Internet was merely a quantitative shift.” [Etc.]

    The claim I was disputing was “the last 60 years was a first period in history of Western civilization when we invented …..NOTHING””

    Which is obviously false.

    Yet you try and argue that the inventions I listed (there are hundreds more, BTW) are somehow insignificant or “merely quantitative”, which is an idiotic claim on every level. Is a container ship “merely quantitatively” better than a dugout canoe?

  20. It seemed as if the claim bordered on what was said by a world-renowned historian to the same effect; viz. that the real transformation of the West took place 1870-1920 and that everything since had been playing changes on the fundamental breakthroughs of that era. Natural science is still dominated by the ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg — that is, of relativity and quantum mechanics, devised in the 1910s — biology is still working variations on Darwinian evolution, the Modern Synthesis having been developed in the 1920s. Naturally, engineering continues to improve on the technologies of the time. You don’t have to jiggle the cradle to get an operator to place a call (“Hello, Central!”) but a telephone is a telephone.

    This seems related to Kuhn’s idea of “normal science” vs “paradigm science.” The former plods along making incremental changes to established ideas; the latter produces new ideas. There is a real difference between making a new thing and making that new thing better, faster, cheaper.

    Something similar happened in the arts, though art usually runs a decade or so ahead of the science. Compare the revolutionary nature of the Armory Show versus the 50th Anniversary Show. The 50 years before Cezanne revolutionized art; the 50 years after him saw no basic innovation. Although as you might point out, new paintings continued to be painted, they were all essentially imitations of Cezanne, Matisse, Mondrian, and the other revolutionaries.

    When confronted with a cliche, it is always worthwhile to stand on your head and look at it from another angle.

  21. “There isn’t any concept of Absolute Truth in science.”

    You’ve always got a new spin on old absurdities… “the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth”.

  22. Keep up the good work YOS. I’ve been ignoring the comments from all those who don’t seem to know what science is about, including all the evidence for special and general relativity (e.g. the relativistic corrections to satellite data that make the timing accurate).

  23. This is going as usual, starting to be very funny and entertaining.
    So I fell into the trap…really? Although I have no idea who the hapless Rama Coomy…whatever might be, I would suggest a study of the newest from the field of astrophysics. Then you would be surprised to find out that not only earth is not rotating around the Sun, but it is not rotating at all. And if you ever heard about the axis of evil, that reality tells us that the axis of the Earth and the equator are dividing the universe in equal half spheres…….another 6 hours of explanations. We spend a few hundreds of million $ to prove that MMX was wrong , and those rather expensive pesky satellites proved over and over that MMX was right, and so on …..for MMX was just a beginning. So no my friend, not a trap but the newest we do know. And we do also know that going to the Mars would not change anything. Check it out, do not trust what I would say. Yup, The book of Genesis was right all this time. And that makes it rather difficult to accept by the socialist trained “scientists” . Just like Mr. Kraus said; Yes, the results are there, numbers are undeniable, but that would mean that we would have to accept the existence of GOD. AND WE CANNOT HAVE THAT!” An intelligent idiot, in other more scientific term; BRAIN WRECK.
    @ ….trombone
    OK I will type slowly; Columbus was just a hint how the rational people would think. And now you would have to figure out what is the real difference, if any, between thinking about horseless carriage and eventually build one, and thinking equally hard, considering the tools you have available to find other way to Orient and yes maybe even stumble on other new lands. You might be surprised that it would require the exactly same brain processes. Unless of course you can find where in the brain is you? That is a tricky question, isn’t it?
    And here you are colossally wrong, I assume you are victim of American schooling. The entire concept of the science is the quest for the ultimate answer. No, it is not 42. That means for the ultimate undeniable TRUTH. Everything else is a good mountain of manure. We of course will not get answer to everything, even GOD said so, but we are/were the best civilization in the history to get the most….98%. Ta-daaaaaa, that is a pretty good success ratio. Of course for people like you even All Gore is scientist, and generally everything goes.
    Sadly you still have no clue what was meant and what it means ; Last 60 years……and it is still the undeniable truth regardless that you have no comprehension of it. No, problem you are not the only one.
    OK ,and this concludes my lunch hour with “mahveloes” mushroom chicken Fettuccini and glass of red ….as always, it is a pleasure. Excuse my typos in limited time and English is not my mother language.
    Deus Vult

  24. Well, I don’t know of anyone who would, or could, “spend a few hundreds of million $ to prove that MMX was wrong ” because, for the Einsteinists, it is assumed to “prove” that there is no aether so that they can continue to fantasise about twisty “spacetime”; and for the geocentrists it is assumed to “prove” that there is no movement so that “crude” observations of gravity and inertia do not exist or do not apply.

    Other more rational and scientific observers (who are generally ostracised from the mainstream scientistic establishment) accept what is shown by MMX and the more elaborate Dayton-Miller experiments to formulate more reasonable hypotheses about the nature of the consistent order of Creation.

  25. for the Einsteinists, it is assumed to “prove” that there is no aether so that they can continue to fantasise about twisty “spacetime”

    More precisely, it shows that there is no “lumeniferous ether” as proposed by Lorenz. It never laid a glove on the Aristotelian aether – the “always-running” that we now call “dark matter” or the “quantum vacuum.” (The dual motions of the earth were demonstrated by other means:
    1791. Fr. Giovanni Guglielmini a professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna, drops weights from the Torre dei Asinelli in Bologna and finds an eastward (and southward) deflection. Concerned with windage, he repeats the experiment down the center of the spiral staircase at the Instituto della Scienze and finds a 4 mm Coriolis deflection over a 29 m drop; thus providing direct empirical evidence of the rotation of the Earth.

    1806. Fr. Giuseppi Calandrelli, director of the observatory at the Roman College, publishes “Ozzervatione e riflessione sulla paralasse annua dall’alfa della Lira,” reporting parallax in ?-Lyrae. This provides a simple direct observation of the revolution of the Earth.

  26. @ YOS “More precisely, it shows that there is no “lumeniferous ether” as proposed by Lorenz. It never laid a glove on the Aristotelian aether – the “always-running” that we now call “dark matter” or the “quantum vacuum.””

    More duplicitous twaddle is hard to find. The Lorenzian model fits the observations without gratuitous “fudge factors” applied.

    Is there no depths of deception that you Materialists will not stoop to?

  27. @YOS….not so fast. Fr.Giovanni only proved that there is a relative movement. And in both cases, Static Universe and rotating Earth, or Static Earth and rotating Universe the observation would be exactly the same. The same problem as Michelson and Gale experienced. Their X proved rotation of the Earth while the earlier X was negative for run around the Sun which is ever so slightly faster. As an admirer of Copernicus principle he would not allow himself a correct conclusion.
    @Oldavid….yes you do know, the TAXPAYER. You contributed too. You bought some screw or two on the Cobe ……all the way to the Planck satellite. Interesting measurements, always in higher and higher quality destroying Copernicus, Einstein theory, Big Bang, …etc. and placing static Earth at the centre of this Universe. That is sadly also why so little data got to the public. Yup, the special place we occupy. Isn’t that crazy! But also incredibly logical, simple in a way. The difficult part is to get over everything we ever knew, and for the last 100 years at least it was and is mostly wrong.
    Just a little teaser I was wondering about as a little kid trying to fly gliders. The knowledge of weather works is rather important in that discipline. Jupiter is rotating and so weather really sucks over there. Hence the horizontal stripes and rather sizeable eye of the storm which is looking at us. It is always same ….hurricane from one side to the other millennia’s going. So earth is “rotating” , what…about 1600 km/h at the equator, and we have these huge mountain ranges going North to South, how come we have a weather we do have? I asked my Dad who was working for the country’s “Academy of Science”, smart guy. And his answer was; I do not really know, after a week of discussions with other super “smarties” they still did not have an answer they could truly present as the fact. And some sure did try. Not even hydrodynamic and aerodynamic guys could answer. O, yes they had many theories, but in the end they were defeated for they could not accept that earth is not rotating. The simplest answer. The friction (just to simplify it to the hilts) from the surface of the earth is obviously different than friction from the presence of the space. One allows for our weather the other not so much. Maybe the jet streams are so fast and so high for a reason…… I know, crazy teenager. I say there are different laws of physics on the Jupiter…..;o) ;o) ;o) But the whole Solar system is a mess, our theories about it are mostly laughably stupid, yet we are teaching our kids this stuff and than we wonder why they are so stiff, uninventive, immoral ……and more often now, murderous.
    Deus Vult

  28. @ Milan Yair, I’ve heard of all that and more before.

    At least you’re part way to admitting that you require a fickle, inconsistent, arbitrary Universe for your beliefs.

  29. The Lorenzian ether was supposed to be stationary in the universe — a state of absolute rest. It was supposed to carry light waves. How can there be a wave without something waving? However, if that were the case then a beam of light directed parallel to the earth’s motion would differ in its speed of propagation from one directed normal to that motion. Michelson and Morley tested that hypothesis with rotating mirrors and found no such effect. Therefore, either:
    a) the earth is not moving
    b) there is no Lorenzian ether
    c) the ether is moving with the earth
    d) the Aristotelian aether is a better model

    Since a) had been eliminated independently, the next obvious choice was b). But the lack of a Lorenzian ether does not mean there is no ether, simpliciter. For example, it is well-known that the earth’s magnetic field spins because the molten core rotates (and at a different inclination than the globe itself, which is why the magnetic poles differ from the geographical poles). Now, if a luminiferous ether carried light waves as the 18th and 19th century assumed, and light is itself electromagnetic in nature, then it makes sense to suppose that the lightwaves (and/or photons) might move with the electromagnetic field and the major premise is wrong.

    In 1920, at Leyden University, Einstein famously resurrected the ether from the grave in which M&M had laid it. (Michelson never accepted the results.) It was not the Lorenzian ether — even Lorenz accepted that much — but what was called the relativistic ether: to wit, the field of Ricci tensors that defined the space-time manifold. How any of these immaterial ethers, whether Arsitotle, Lorenz, or Einstein, would appeal to materialists is unclear.

  30. Fr.Giovanni only proved that there is a relative movement.

    He dropped balls from a tall tower and observed that they did not fall directly below the drop point. If the earth were rotating toward the east with a diurnal motion, an object at the top of the tower would already have a higher eastward velocity than at the base of the tower. (This is basic Euclidean geometry.) Therefore, it will arc slightly and land a few centimeters to the east of the plumb line, a distance that can be calculated from the speed of the earth’s rotation at that latitude. To avoid the problem of winds, he dropped the balls down the center of the spiral staircase and the deflection observed is about what you’d expect from a rotating earth. The experiment was repeated numerous times by others — in Germany down a vertical mineshaft, and in the United States by Hall — and the results were commensurate.

    It is not clear to me how such an impetus would be imparted to earthly objects by the revolution of the heavens. Unless you still accept the “crystalline spheres” that were debunked by Cardinal Bellarmine back in the day.

  31. @YOS
    The same way as Coriolis force which has a tendency to confuse molecules of air (and many other things) so they cannot even agree in which direction to rotate from south to north part of the neighbourhood ;o). It might even lead to another North/ South air war. How ever complicate it seems to many…actually to most, Coriolis totally ignores which one is rotating and which is static. Works the same no matter what Euclid and his formulas would think about it. The funny part is that even Earth itself which as we know has a bit of a problem being challenged on the “height” issue in comparison to the waist line cannot do anything about it even in static existence. For the rotating universe and all that “incomprehensible” gravity of it still pulls the heft over the belt. I found “crystalline spheres” rather tasty taken with a ketchup. But all the kidding aside, we could start exchanging some beautiful mathematical formulas at this point and still get nowhere. That would bring us back to the original idea of this discussion about science and limits of it. Unfortunately for bit over 100 years we were sold on the idea that everything could be calculated. And so guys like Alberto E. or Stevie H. calculated and calculated, and because they started with the entirely wrong numbers inserted into their otherwise fine formulas due to the faulty RIP, we just got further away from the reality every time they adjusted their calculations. Without the proper religion one is just like a computer, even the most powerful one; you can get out of it only what you put in. In other words, the saying; “numbers do not lie” is only partially truth, by itself they do reflect the absolute in their quanta but based on how we the fine representatives of homo sapiens carbon-based living form (hopefully), arrange them, they could sure deceive us no matter how splendid the formula is. That is why as I probably mentioned before we are finding that the calculated and the observed and measured reality in the universe do not agree.
    Another example from different field which might open the eyes for some, or make many mad especially if they are Americans;
    All (OK most) Americans swear by their CONSTITUTION. And yes, it is a document closest to perfect constitution ever written in human experiment ……. but far, very far from perfect. When one tells to the Red blooded American that it was his Constitution which doomed the USA to become what it is from the get go, result is the angry reaction or dismissal. Why? For they cannot see what is in front of their eyes. The truly funny part is that they actually want to “fix” the USA by “returning to the (very same) Constitution”. Crazy. Why? Because of their RIP (in this case purest of Protestantism) Read that Constitution very carefully and think and question. It should not be hard to see the reasons why the USA is a failed self-destructing society now……. And now apply it back to this “very scientific” :o) discussion. The very same principles apply to everything.
    And that pretty much concludes everything I ever wanted to say to annoy unsuspecting readers.
    Deo gratias Fratres,
    Deus Vult

  32. @ Milan

    It may surprise you that some of your “unsuspecting readers” are not quite as gullible as you might hope. Leaving out the “Constitution” of the Yanks that was fashioned after the French ‘Masonry’s “Rights of Man” there are many con men floating on the ridiculous assumption that “the figures don’t lie”. There are thousands of “creative accountants”, statisticians, theoretical physicists, etc. “out there” whose whole skill set is to make the mathematics lie. I’ve never even tried to count the number of “sub atomic particles” that have no existence other than something inserted into an “equation” to make it deliver the “required” result or “answer”.

    “Reason” and mathematical results are a “loose” missile that can be fired from anywhere and go anywhere unless certain premises (undoubtable commonsense) are applied to the start point and the principles of logic are applied to the plotting of the trajectory. Magic, on the other hand, assumes that there is no consistent order to Creation and that reality is a product of arbitrary papal edicts if you are a “Catholic” fundamentalist (that necessarily hates the Thomistic precepts that Reason and Faith are consonant because they come from the same Mind) or you subscribe to the Voodoo idea that there is no consistency and that reality is a product of ideology and convenience.

    All perceptions of space and movement are relative to something. You can arbitrarily declare that Mecca or your right eye is the centre of the Universe if you like but I would have serious concerns about your sanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *