| |
VK3ABK > TREK 08.02.04 14:44l 44 Lines 2181 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 14936_VK3KAY
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: Asimov and Sci-Fi.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0BEL<ZL2TZE<VK3KAY
Sent: 040208/1203Z @:VK3KAY.#WEV.VIC.AUS.OC #:14936 [Wendouree] $:14936_VK3KAY
From: VK3ABK@VK3KAY.#WEV.VIC.AUS.OC
To : TREK@WW
Hello all Skeptics.
I have just read a spirited bulletin from Jeff, G4XNH, in which he has
challenged some of my comments in a bulletin about Isaac Asimov, and the
reference to the Dinosaur extinction in particular. Fair enough. There is
a continuing debate about the cause, and much evidence is still being
investigated. The same applies to, say, Einstein's theories.
Jeff's Science Fiction author was simply using a well known (even then)
scenario. A 'what if' approach, but lacking in evidence. This wasn't a
theory: at best, it was a guess. A good one, as the Mexican Gulf is an
obvious choice for a 'deep inpact'!
Science doesn't work like that. An idea doesn't become 'theory' until there
is substantial evidence to support it. Experimental evidence or observation
using genuine methods, and giving reproducible results is paramount. This
is what developed into a theory of mass extinction caused my a meteor or
comet striking Earth. Alverez (father and son) and Muller have produced a
valid theory by using modern Geological evidence and methods.
Jeff's "experts" can be wrong, and eventually they concede. It took the
well known expert Astronomer Fred Hoyle many years to eventually accept the
theory of an expanding universe. 'His' theory was found to be flawed by the
growing evidence against it. Einstein's 'theories' of relativity and space
and time are still theories; but evidence continues to support them.
If "Velinkovsky" had produced evidence supporting his claims, (instead of
writing a Sci-Fi book) he might have been noticed. Today, some prefer to
'publish' on the Internet, or write yet another book of conjecture, instead
of in the scientific world where they can be challenged. History is full of
bright ideas that did not stand up to the required examination. Some of the
'firsts' in the 'aviation' bulletins we are seeing on packet would fall into
this catagory.
Please read some 'real' science and see the rigorous nature of the methods
used, and note the critisims by co-workers and opposition theorists. This is
the 'safety switch' that can be applied to any 'dodgy' ideas.
73. Dick. VK3ABK.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
