Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PCModem who wrote (36500)	8/29/1999 1:36:00 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	Respond to of 71178

No, I was responding to this: Sometimes the only evidence available which is in support of the generalization is "I've thought about it and that's what I've come up with." That certainly is not sufficient to "prove" any particular point, but it is where a lot of ideas come from (Einstein comes to mind). Einstein and his contemporaries were working from some of the most highly specific evidence imaginable. Physics is almost entirely measurement. His modelling had to fit specific and particular evidence. Which it has, having been subjected to around seven empirical tests. Einstein is the wrong figure to cite to bolster unsupported speculation. His one notable attempt at unsupported speculation was to insert a fudge factor in his equations to try to get rid of the implied moment of creation, an attempt he quickly had to abandon.