[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

[Winstonm]

If these photons move faster than the speed of light, we wouldn't know it until tomorrow, would we?

[MattieShoe]

mike777, on Oct 27 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

MattieShoe, on Oct 27 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

I thought this was pretty normal type stuff for quantum physics.  Haven't we known for 40+ years that either time travel or spooky action at a distance is required to explain observed weird quantum effects?

I think you assume "normal" or "everyone knows this" is a bit too much

Lets back up and assume 90% of us do not know this or understand this.

I grant I read this stuff 30-40 years ago and I am non math guy.

By "we", I meant us humans, not us bridgebase forum folk. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of quantum physics, but I find it interesting so I read about it occasionally. And from my understanding, we've been dealing with interactions that happen instantaneously across distance for a while now. Variations on Schrodinger's cat suggests it way back in the 1930s. So while the experiment might be something to be excited about, I don't think it's because we found something propagating faster than lightspeed...

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

yeah, but ... why?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 05:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

yeah, but ... why?

Taliban, al-Qaeda, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Crusades, Inquisition...

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 28 2009, 07:05 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 05:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

yeah, but ... why?

Taliban, al-Qaeda, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Crusades, Inquisition...

ahh... ok, now i see the link between the thread subject and this... i suppose it should have been obvious

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 28 2009, 07:05 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 05:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

yeah, but ... why?

Taliban, al-Qaeda, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Crusades, Inquisition...

ahh... ok, now i see the link between the thread subject and this... i suppose it should have been obvious

Jimmy,

The reason I originally used quotation was to respond to the poster's thoughts. Isn't that a proper method?

I think the original thread is rather interesting, but I cannot contribute to it in any meaningful way - however, I thought I should be allowed to point out a different take on his someone else's view.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Oct 28 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 28 2009, 07:05 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 05:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

yeah, but ... why?

Taliban, al-Qaeda, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Crusades, Inquisition...

ahh... ok, now i see the link between the thread subject and this... i suppose it should have been obvious

Jimmy,

The reason I originally used quotation was to respond to the poster's thoughts. Isn't that a proper method?

I think the original thread is rather interesting, but I cannot contribute to it in any meaningful way - however, I thought I should be allowed to point out a different take on his someone else's view.

I didn't construe your original response to my post as a "different take."

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Oct 29 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 28 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 28 2009, 07:05 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 28 2009, 05:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 26 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

It means a few more people might realize that the pronounements of scientists are not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

Hopefully, people will learn the same truth about religious doctrines, too.

huh?

I was referring to this: That hopefully mankind will learn that religious doctrines are...

Quote

not unassailable truths, but the best explanations available at the time.

yeah, but ... why?

Taliban, al-Qaeda, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Crusades, Inquisition...

ahh... ok, now i see the link between the thread subject and this... i suppose it should have been obvious

Jimmy,

The reason I originally used quotation was to respond to the poster's thoughts. Isn't that a proper method?

I think the original thread is rather interesting, but I cannot contribute to it in any meaningful way - however, I thought I should be allowed to point out a different take on his someone else's view.

I didn't construe your original response to my post as a "different take."

Neither did I. But it seems Jimmy did. i thought my comment was simply an extension or yours - which I happen to agree with. I only meant to point out that science and religion both share a commonality of ignorance.