Re: Space and spacetime

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:

>
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

>
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise.  Science is NOT
based on what is said or written.  It is based on whether the
analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of

experiments.

 This is science as you imagine it.
This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.

Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?
What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?

Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical science

where you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make money.

I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide. Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust,
sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
 -- Douglas Adams

What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.

Nope.  The foundation is what has been written about a phenomenon AND
what
has been verified by repeated experiments.  Theoretical physics is not
in
the same category - until it has been verified - by observation and/ or
by
experiment.
There are phenomena that are not exactly repeatable, subject to unknown
factors (human or otherwise), that are another category.

Science is an advanced informational system.

That's too narrow a definition.

And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.

That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)