What if Galileo Galilei had respected and admired the works of Aristotle?

He didn't, of course. Galileo failed to get his degree because he detested Aristotle, and the concept of theory in general, which is such a seminal aspect of Aristotle's writings. This was at a time when University education consisted pretty much exclusively of Classics, and Law. Galileo pretty much followed the dictum coined by Steinbeck in "East of Eden": "like all true empiricists, he had a horror of theory." You see, there exists a certain conflict between empiricists and theoreticians. Theory constrains perception to some extent, it requires assumptions. And empiricists like data, and fear assumptions. To some extent, perception is reality, and theory constrains it, of course. I strongly suspect that one of the reasons Galileo didn't come up with Newton's concept of Universal Gravitation is that he simply wouldn't have liked the idea. Perhaps it occurred to him, but he rejected it, as totally unnecessary to understand the Universe. After all, the data could determine the structure of the Universe, there was no need for underlying assumptions, at all. That's why he preferred Copernicus to Ptolemy, and turned his telescope on the heavens. He liked data, and simple, Occam's Razor type solutions to problems. The Holy Inquisition put him on trial, and condemned him not for supporting the Copernican Doctrine, but, for failing to come up with a theoretical model of the universe consistent with it. Of course, Galileo saw no need for this, at all. But, for authorities, pure data is too uncertain and unpredictable, of course. I doubt Galileo would have particularly cared for Newton's Principia, if he'd lived to see it. Too many assumptions. I strongly suspect he would have thoroughly loathed Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It assumes the existing electromagnetic spectrum is all there is and can possibly be, thus pretty much putting an end to possible progress in physics, assuming it is true. Not really Galileo's cup of tea, at all. But, of course, very popular with authorities, institutions, academics. Very stable, and predictable. So, I would say that had Galileo admired and respected Aristotle, he simply wouldn't have been Galileo and wouldn't have made any of his discoveries. I suppose someone else would have, eventually. Some other strict empiricist, who got on the nerves of the authorities. Any thoughts?

SF possibilities of "Dark Matter"?

Anyone know of SF books, films or videos that make significant use of the discoveries in physics in the past few decades regarding "Dark Matter"? I've seen a few, but not many. I think the reason for this may be that physicists are very uncomfortable with "Dark Matter". I've had correspondence with physicists online indicating that they'd very much like to "get rid" of Dark Matter. There's an entire sub-industry in physics these days of mathematical "tweaks" to General Relativity, attempting to reconcile Einstein's theory with the empirical observations of "Dark Matter". You see, the fundamental assumption in Einstein's theory of Relativity, Special or General, is that the electromagnetic spectrum as we understand it, is all that there is. That's why light -- the fastest electromagnetic wave -- is the ultimate limit. So, nothing can go faster than light, because, as far as we know, nothing does. But, Dark Matter does not interact with the conventional electromagnetic spectrum, at all. Dark Matter seems to exist entirely outside of the electromagnetic spectrum as we understand it -- doesn't generate or reflect electromagnetic waves, at all. Doesn't interact with them, at all. We can only detect it by its mass, which seems to represent 90% of all matter. So, there's no reason to think General Relativity need apply to Dark Matter, since the electromagnetic spectrum, and light specifically, don't apply to it. So, what exactly, are the SF possibilities of that? Any thoughts?

The Nobel Prizes should be renamed

Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander the Great. Sir Isaac Newton obtained his position as Master of the Mint -- more or less equivalent to head of the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S. -- by pimping out his beautiful young niece to British noblemen. Charles Darwin provided a rationale and justification for British Imperialism by arguing that Africans, Indians and Orientals were racially inferior to Anglo-Saxons. Albert Einstein obtained much of his influence and power by fundraising for the state of Israel, and was offered the position of President of Israel, in return. In all cases, these "Great Scientists" obtained their influence by groveling at the feet of the rich and powerful, regardless of truth or social utility. Hence, I believe it might be appropriate to understand what the Scientific Method truly is -- the Scientific Method is kissing ass. Specifically, the Scientific Method is kissing the ass of the rich and powerful. So, I would suggest, at this point, in the light of the continuing crisis over COVID, we should rename the Nobel Prizes accordingly. They are, in fact, The Ass-Kissing Award in Chemistry, The Ass-Kissing Award in Physics, and the Ass-Kissing Award in Medicine and the Ass-Kissing Award in Economics, respectively. Of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, is the Award for Ass-Kissing the nations of Sweden and Norway, specifically. But, we already knew that, didn't we?

What if Albert Einstein hadn't been a Zionist?

What if Albert Einstein hadn't been a Zionist? by No-Fruit-4493 in HistoricalWhatIf [–]No-Fruit-4493[S] -3 points 3 days ago It's an excellent theory, and it is the best theory available to explain gravity. However, it's still just a theory. To draw an analogy, Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was very popular with the authorities, because it provided a very systematic theoretical formulation for the Universe that could effectively replace the Ptolemaic System. Galileo was condemned by the Holy Inquisition not because he supported the Copernican System -- which the authorities were still ambivalent about -- but because he was a strict empiricist who rejected the concept of theory itself. Newton, shrewd politician that he was -- he became Master of the Mint, after all -- was quite willing and able to fulfill what the authorities demanded. Similarly, is it so inconceivable that Einstein's political significance has something to do with a certain unwillingness to accept flaws in the Theory of Relativity, and an inclination to reject evidence inconsistent with it? Do you really believe scientists are totally immune from political influences, now, or in the past?

COVID is Good!!

COVID is, actually, a great blessing in disguise. Great plagues frequently are. They shake things up, they make people think, they upend the status quo, they eliminate corruption. We can see, in real time here, the utter and absolute incompetence and corruption of the scientific community and the health care industry as a whole. They have feet of clay, they lie systematically, they pretend to understand things they have no actual comprehension of whatsoever, and they make a fortune doing so. They are snake oil salesmen, and are genuinely proud of it, as a group. And now, this is perfectly obvious, to almost everyone. As a result, we can, possibly expect some constructive change in the near future. Some meaningful science for a change, instead of mere bureaucratic corruption. Remember, the Black Death was, effectively the best thing that happened to Europe in a thousand years. It triggered the Renaissance, and the birth of modern science. God Bless COVID!!

COVID vaccines favor the evolution of the Coronavirus

Quite aside from the possibility of direct mutagenic effects from the anti-viral drugs used in vaccines, there is the very basic evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. Obviously, the very intention of the COVID vaccines is to create a hostile environment for the Coronavirus, one in which the standard versions of the virus cannot survive. Consequently, competition for any viral mutations is dramatically reduced, making it much easier for them to survive and reproduce. Hence, the survival of mutations is directly favored by the very vaccines intended to destroy them. Now, if it were possible to create vaccines that were 100% effective, and could instantly be applied to 100% of the world population, this would not be a problem. However, this is not close to being possible. If a disease is not extremely contagious -- like Polio -- mutations are much less of a problem. If a disease is extremely contagious, like COVID, the Flu or the common cold, mutations occur so readily that it is virtually impossible to eradicate. Mutations will overwhelm any attempt at vaccination, very quickly indeed. As we are seeing, right now.