More Denton: Orbiting teapots theoretically exist (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, March 25, 2016, 13:28 (3165 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I understand your point. My points are (a) that the word “pure” is not used, and an unknown form of energy is not by definition “pure” energy, whatever that may be...
DAVID: You cannot avoid the fact they only use the word 'energy'.-Are you telling us that whenever people use the word ‘energy' on its own they actually mean “pure” energy, though its very existence is controversial? Matt Strassler does talk of “pure” energy: he tells us that “the term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.” But as usual I rely on experts, and if experts disagree, I can't make a judgement.
 
dhw: (b) that cosmologic physicists have been considering the existence of all kinds of things which other cosmologic physicists and you yourself consider to be pie (or invisible orbiting teapots) in the sky. Theoretically, though, anything can exist, including the chance sparking of life, so this gets us nowhere.-DAVID: Life did spark. No good theory as yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics won't join. But thinking human keep trying with open minds. That is all I am doing. But I like reaching concrete landing spots, and will change if the evidence changes. Where are your intellectual feet?-No good theory yet: agreed. Keep trying with open minds: agreed. Concrete landing spots: a bit of a problem. If there is no good theory yet, how do you justify a concrete landing spot? My intellectual feet are dangling down, one on each side of the intellectual fence. I will reach a concrete landing spot if and when the evidence provides a good theory.