At 12:00 PM Sunday 10/12/2008, Rceeberger wrote: >http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm >********************************************************************************* > >[snip] > >7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. >A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not >conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of >nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost >certainly wrong.
I take it that the author has never worked in the areas of cosmology or particle physics . . . (Had the article been published a century or so earlier one could have mentioned relativity or quantum mechanics . . . ) . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
