Good comeback Francois.

You weren't hiding behind the door when they gave out the brains.

I know I'm French but I can't be hiding all the time.

"If you have a hypothesis you'd like to put forth which can replace any of the BS the idiots in the physics world use, then please, write a paper, submit it, and usher in a new paradigm. Do you have one?"

Laughing. You make a good assumption. I don't know diddle either. The only difference is that I admit it.

It would be nice if the scientific community acknowledged once in a while that they are barely moved out of the stone age.

13.7 billion year old universe? To three significant digits? Give me a break. How about a caveat that this estimate assumes the accuracy of their model which almost certainly will change once our knuckles finally heal from dragging on the ground.

Sorry. When some pinhead extrapolates 100 years of observations to 13.7 billion years including periods when essentially everything was completely different by many orders of magnitude, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.

When they develop a model to explain why the value of G or the speed of light or Planck's constant is what it is, then maybe, just maybe they have a foundation to try to make extrapolations.

Bottom line is we have no clue why the apple hit Newton in the head. How about if your peers admit that once in a while?

Art,

you're just playing devil's advocate and you know it.
We are far from the stone age in many areas of science. Theoretical physics is a very complex field and the models built are actually very very accurate in many situations.

Well, maybe a little devil's advocate.

I am not questioning that we have a bunch of recipes, and that if you put in all the ingredients just so, you can predict what the cake will be like with great precision.

This is all very nice. Very impressive and great work.

We still can't explain why it is that the apple hits Newton in the head in just the way it did. Yes, given all the conditions ahead of time, we can describe with great precision just how it will fall, but not the underlying mechanism.

So, we don't even know what gravity is, but we can explain the formation of the universe to three significant digits. Do I look like I was born yesterday?

Never heard of Metamath. Is this a book I should read?

Your paper is way above my pay grade. A brief look seems to indicate that the theme is here is the data we got back and here is a model which fits that data. So we have another recipe for the cookbook.

This may well be very important and great work, but it is another variation of F = G*m1*m2/r**2. We observe data. It fits this formula. That is terrific that we have the formula. We still have no clue why that is the formula rather than some other formula.

We don't know for sure what Gravity is but it doesn't prevent us to describe the orbits of the planets.

We have models for the underlying mechanisms, and these models are very good models that do the job. They work in specific conditions. For instance galilean physics works fine for relatively large (understand bigger than atoms) objects, that do not go too fast, and that are not too close from massive objets (See for instance Mercury whose orbit is not explained by Galilean mech/Newtonian physics but by relativity theory).

All these models work fine. Just need to know what are their limits. The issue we have is when we get to border cases which is why a unified framework of physics is needed.

The field of quantum particles is also very very recent. Barely a 100 years old. And is extremely complex. There is a lot to be done but it's nowhere near as stone age as you say. There are many applications of quantum physics.

As for the age of the Universe...I'd agree...it is the age it is provided the model of physics used is the right one.

And Newton was hit by an apple because he was sleeping under a tree. What else is there to know?

"And Newton was hit by an apple because he was sleeping under a tree. What else is there to know?"

Damn. It is all clear to me now. Why didn't my Physics prof explain that one to me?