It’s like the difference between education and training.
I think we are saying the same thing, at least to a degree.
There's basically engineering and theory. You're describing engineering and refinements. The basic science didn't change. The standard model has been around since the 70's and it took til 2012 to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson which was part of the original theory. Einstein came up with General relativity in 1916 and it hasn't changed much since. Also people who are expecting something radical to happen with new science, well General relativity didn't completely destroy what Newton had come up with, just further refinements on it. As we learn more about dark matter and dark energy, there will probably be additions to general relativity and the standard model, but it probably won't invalidate what we already know and the formulas that we already use.
Sorry Astro, I ain't gonna bite. Technology is applied science. I think you said this in post #338.
I never said the basic science changed.
Basically some people here are confusing the two things, engineering and theory. Some think that we are continually making advances and if we keep up the same trajectory, we'll come up with something super radical that will change all physics. But if you look at the history of physics, it basically builds on what was known about the past, not totally throws it out. The big bang was probably one of the biggest advances and leads to our current understanding of the universe. Further research basically supports it and some may question the foundations of it but nothing has been completely thrown out yet. Lots of popular theories out there like string theory, loop quantum gravity, supersymmetry etc., but they're still theories. The engineering will continue, we've been making refinements to jet engines since the 1940's. But we haven't found a miracle fuel better than jet fuel yet. Well there is antimatter but the cost of it is insane and we don't have the engineering to contain it yet. But the theory is there for antimatter. If someone finds a way to make it cheaper, that would be a tremendous engineering advance, but it's not new physics theories.
You should bite. They are not synonyms.
Okay, can we call the Big Bang, etc., "The BB working Hypothesis" for the time being because I see its many flaws that need to be flushed out that many may not be aware.
I never said they are synonyms. I said technology is applied science.
Well the standard model is also a working theory and works well so far but might have some changes to it once/if dark matter, dark energy and gravity is figured out. I mean you could probably put general relativity in there with that.
And yet you are clinging to just one idea of “other” and repeating the same thing over and over.
Then, you have said exactly what I have posted. So, why are you arguing?
I didn't know we were arguing. I do think you were challenging my post which is completely fair game in conversation.
Yes, there's just a tendency to discount how much we know. Some in this thread have said we basically are just getting started and we know very little about science and my point is we know A LOT about science - so much so that we can explain and test just about every phenomenon that occurs around us so long as it's testable. We have a really great handle on how the universe works for a species that has only been working the scientific method for a couple of hundred years and really getting at it for just the past 100.
It might be more accurate to say that people in general know very little about science in general although mankind itself knows a lot about science. I bring up the standard model once in a while and pretty much no one I've really run into knows anything about it. Including I think, several people on this thread.
The last official investigative document I remember seeing was blue book.From I understand about the DNI, they never reversed themselves on this issue, but were given a new assignment category, i.e., the new assignment is to investigate the UAP phenomena and gather as much data as possible from credible witnesses and the scientific community, so I don't see how this is a reversal.NCBC Home
National Counterproliferation Center Who We Are The National Counterproliferation Center (NCPC) was founded on November 21, 2005 in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to help the Unitwww.dni.gov
UAP's could pose a threat of safety of flight issue and MAY pose a threat to National Security, but so far we have no unequivocal proof they have done so.
As to the military eye witnesses, I believe they saw something and reported it in real time and at this time I have no reason to 'not' believe them. Now comes the task of scientifically determining and explaining exactly 'what' they saw.
