Thanks for the gracious invite, indulge me if you can since I would like to learn:
Yes, I repeatedly make a point because 1) you were and are wrong on it and, 2) you dance and dodge. You have nothing to put in science class. Do some research, teach us something new, then get back to me.
You have got really lost here. If someone wants to read science outside of science class, fine and dandy. Wouldn't hurt you to try it, for example
I don't think you are really being intellectually honest here or either I lost you in my long-windedness and you missed some of the references I made to science and posed questions in simple black-and-white. Speaking of dancing, I asked you three times over the course of this thread when science would present us with the HOLY GRAIL promised by so many and referred to here:
The term unified field theory was coined by Einstein, who was attempting to prove that electromagnetism and gravity were different manifestations of a single fundamental field. When quantum theory entered the picture, the puzzle became more complex. The theory of relativity explains the nature and behavior of all phenomena on the macroscopic level (things that are visible to the naked eye); quantum theory explains the nature and behavior of all phenomena on the microscopic (atomic and subatomic) level. Perplexingly, however (science is perplexed here? hmm...), the two theories are incompatible. Unconvinced that nature would prescribe totally different modes of behavior for phenomena that were simply scaled differently, Einstein sought a theory that would reconcile the two apparently irreconcilable theories that form the basis of modern physics.
Am I behind the times? Did I miss the announcement?
I know I sound like a dumb-ass hick, but I also read Archimedes in about 4th grade-boorrring. I'll take Aristotle for a greater understanding of the world. I think I had s**t in the tub a few years earlier as a lad and didn't think an observation and understanding of displacement took a lotta brains. I also referenced Planck, not through an oracle, not through a google, and had previously read (shock!) parts of his work during discussions over the nature of reality with people I considered bright. You say I have nothing to put in science class (don't really need to) and I say you have nothing to put in the understanding of reality or man's search for meaning. Doesn't necessarily make anyone superior, or am I mistaken? I don't appreciate the contempt Dawkins and his ilk display towards those whose life experience and education might have them understandthings in a different light.
You have got really lost here
And my assertion that you might be lost in a different sense is just as valid. No hard feelings I hope.
It's very simple. I explained it all in post 379. You don't have the wit or the integrity to acknowledge.
Science is progressing just fine. There's always another set of questions. We don't need no steenkeeng Holy Grail. Philosophy in philosophy class, comparative religion in its own class, creationism in abnormal psychology class.
"I need more paragraphs, Scotty!"
You ought to read "On floating bodies" by Archimedes.
Check this. There are damn few calculus students who could solve the problem of the floating paraboloid.
. I'll take Aristotle for a greater understanding of the world.
I'm not so sure. He just reasoned (no experiment) his way into the false assertion that heavier things fall faster; Archimedes, trying to find the formula for the area of a parabola, cut models out of sheet metal and weighed them, the proved the result rigorously.
Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor. Archimedes held off the Roman Army and Navy for a year. See the life of Marcellus by Plutarch. or here
Unfortunately, there is no contemporary evidence that he set fire to Roman ships with mirrors. However, ships have been found in Syracuse harbor with boulders on top of them.