 |
It may not answer the question posted.
I understand that JD300 has attempted to reject the "hypothesis" stating that the naka fireball is a natural phenomenon, which is very unlikely based on scientific theories. He then proposed the alternative explanation that the naka fireball is human-made. There are many experiments or even demonstrations to support his alternative hypothesis, one of which is to imitate the phenomenon by means of human manipulation, not by the "nature" such as some mechanisms of gas and/or liquids. His task is to gain as much as possible evidence supporting his alternative hypothesis. Let's assume that the alternative hypothesis and the "nature" hypothesis are incompatible (i.e., either human-made or nature-made, not both); the more evidence he has, the more likely to reject the nature hypothesis.
I fully support his attempts because in order for scientists to prove (or disprove) something, objective replications are very important. By objective, it means that different people can observe, measure, or replicate the phenomenon (or the results) in certain conditions. Please do not think of objectivity and subjectivity as something dichotomous; it is continuous in this sense. I also think that his attempts are more on the objective pole.
For the "scientists" who hypothesize that the naka fireball is a natural phenomenon, the easiest way to find good supporting evidence is to experiment or demonstrate the phenomenon. It does not require something that is exactly the same, only something that is close enough, because at this moment it is difficult to find or identify what is a "real" phenomenon.
My argument is based solely on two sides of scientists who have attempted to gain support for their own hypotheses even though thus far only one side have done empirically. Please do not misunderstand this argument by confusing with other beliefs.
จากคุณ |
:
STN
|
เขียนเมื่อ |
:
13 ต.ค. 54 03:38:07
A:143.88.87.51 X: TicketID:333337
|
|
|
|
 |