Bartholomew Jones

Lose the flower garlands. The way I see it is that even in our earliest histories humankind was "towards" trends, which is always hurtful. Our food regimen haven't ever really gotten better, only more conventional, at the expense of the furthest reaching convenience. In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods. That's just my point of view. That's the way I would have it; and the thing is, that's what I'm towards. For example, my refrigerator is shut down. I've discovered (as a personal convenience) fermentation is always a safe preservative method. And folks love my Mediterranean style hospitality.

Yeah, you shoot an arrow from a bow. The velocity constantly diminishes, correct? But then with gravity it accelerates, so it's negative. With a beam or a bead of light it would seem to have to diminish. It seems the velocity of light can't be constant.

Can you exemplify? My understanding is that a hypothesis might lead to a theory. And the next logical progression might be scientific law. That's how I was taught.

With due respect you're missing my point, which is incidental anyway. A theory to me should go like this: "this seems to always lead to this..." I'm not saying that everything that sounds like "this seems to lead to this..." is a theory. It's the converse, the former, that should always hold true, it seems to me.

You're right. I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary; I'd rather everyone stay close to home and get around on mules when they had to. Yeah, pretty radical. And I hated trig and calculus. Barely passed.

I know. It's a theory. Theories are stated as fact. That's science. It's an explanation, right? Not an answer. No, it's just that a theory to me goes like this: "it seems..." But science people (pardon if I seem to use a slur) say it like this: "such is the case." That bothers me somewhat; actually a lot. But I can't abandon science because regardless, I always say, science (in its purity) is one very useful way of looking at nature.

Do we really even know the speed of light? How can we? A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point, correct? It also must of necessity arc, yes? Somebody said curiosity killed the cat. Then they said, how curious was the cat?

Arts and science, like left and right.

I hardly lean too much on dictionaries, as I suppose I might/ought, for science; I tend to lean on those few things, principles, learned over the primary through post-secondary years (long ago). I tend to favor the old, in every case, science or otherwise; perhaps prejudicially. That preceding intended as reply, above. Anyway, carry on.

I've always thought I've understood the notion of hypotheses, as equivalence functionally with questions; although by definition a hypothesis is an educated guess. Am I incorrect treating them the same, functionally? An educated guess is an attempt at something, a theory. Aiming, yes? But a question is more voluminous? Because you're seeking? Yes? So science as it stands today is a way of aiming; by extension, not "biting off more than we can chew." Yes? I ask, seeking (nonetheless), insight into a certain young man's capacity among the figures of the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic texts to explain certain phenomena, having acquired unheard of capacity to predict certain events through certain studies of science, and certain other exercises, while he himself was under certain Babylonian enforcements. Or rather, a question predicates, or is a necessary aspect of aiming. Yes? So for more discrete theories, predicating the figure, if you will, of scientific law, or generally, natural principle, should we predicate (pardon the overuse) hypotheses and theories with originating questions? Rather, so the individual aspect is framing a question. The scientific aspect disregards the question, preferring to aim at a theory; separating the individual aspect from the scientific aspect. Yes?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're right. I don't have the answer. Maybe modern science is an answer. I don't know.

Please read with less haste. I said "Babylonian-era science," not Babylonian science. In that case, crucify.

Then why am I commanding your attention?

Not scientific principle; these are principles of natural discovery; closer to which Babylonian ERA-science was. These are examples of more antiquated scientific observation. As has been stated, I have an agenda.

For example, commercial toothpastes foster bad breath because it sterilizes, by its exclusions of flora, rather than sanitarily activating hygienic salivary enzymes; which bad breath is profitable to mass manufacturers.

Good question. I had stated before, something like, "I expected an answer such as: over the years, subsequent generations, through communications between radiant energy and enforced conditioning (rock), more rock-like minerals had formed as was evident by the 9 inches that were stratified between the rock and the vivid green moss." I was trying to show somewhat of my observations of moss in a nutshell, over the past two years. I don't take an interest in this kind of stuff for amusement. I'm a reclaimer of lands for their restoration to their natural conditions, and here in the u.s. their return to the natives, particularly, who are households done wrong in any way by anywhom, and not done right by the justice system.

This was duplicated by mistake. Deleted now.

Which question is foremost? Come again?

This is a truth.

You're either a very poor reader or very hasty "(or worse)".

How long did it take the Wright Brothers?

What I put forward was not a generalization: "you noticing something about a broken rock," as you say I said. What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals." The question, "what are the implications," follows from that.

The figure is not in the pronoun. The figure is in the predicate, "let them think." It would read, "because we don't object that they think they invented the calculator when it was on our two hands."

The fact is, science that is authentic is rooted in a love (brotherly) of something, that being wisdom; which isn't exhibited here. Philosophy is the parent. https://www.google.com/search?q=word+origin+philosophy&oq=word+origin+philosophy&aqs=chrome..69i57.12449j0j9&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

It's a figure of speech. As in, we don't object.