Quote:
Originally posted by CheapBastid
Not only temperature, but actual molecular weight is going to vary dependent on the interactions with the surroundings. So you cannot have a real exact measure.
"WRONG!" One could reply. "I can get the exact measurements if I get one within a snapshot of time."
Well... with chaos theory, fractals, and subatomic particles it is even complicated if one tries to get a fully accurate measurement of an object in a snapshot of time as well.
|
Not being able to measure precisely is nothing new to science. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle assures us of this quite plainly, and is one of the tennants for that "whole-other science" quantum mechanics.
There is however, one thing that science is relative to: That is our perception of reality. We can only scientifically theorise about phenomona which we can observe in one way or another. This is ultimately where the boundries of science lie.
To give an example. We are living in what we have called a
universe. We have no PROOF that thiis is the
only universe. If we take the distance across the universe to be billions (?) of light years, who is to say that if we (somehow) travelled trillions of lightyears from the edge of the universe that we wouldn't come across another "universe". Then we also have to take into account the possibility of other spacial dimensions, wherin other. completely alien universes could exist. Further from that, there is the current, rather popular idea of an infinitude of universes termed a "multiverse" being an explation for some of the strange quantum behaviours.
so essentially science is there to explain what we
see. Based on that, we can conclude that science is relative to what we can experience.