On May 9, 5:48*pm, xxein wrote:
On May 9, 4:39*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Sanny wrote:
[...]

I think that 5 minutes using Google will teach you more about this than
any amount of discussion in these newsgroups.

Tom Roberts

xxein: *I don't really want to get into an argument here but Google
can probably give support to any thought you may have. *It is not an
authoritative document or physic.

If you mean looking at web pages that support your view, there are
plenty. *There are plenty without rhyme or reason also. *It becomes a
matter of belief.

I know and you know that 'systems' of scale have behavioral qualities
and quantities that are supposed to have a 'definable physic'. *Are
you saying we have achieved this understanding of the physic?

I don't think so. *We may get results for the applications we seek to
apply, but are they the 'direct' consequence of a physic, or just our
understanding and use of it? *We can make Jello anytime without
understanding how it gels.

So, this is the point of consideration. *We give reason for physics
through repeatability. *This is what we have developed as our
physics. *Do we really understand it yet? *I doubt it.

We thought we knew physics from Archimedes to Newton. *So now we have
Einstein. *What's the difference for tomorrow? *We were relatively
stupid then, and now we think we know it all? *Give us a break.

Particle accelerators, computers, and GPS are good arguments in
counterpoint.

[snip remaining]