Any text on monetary metals will present the reasons for the use of such elements as gold, silver, and even copper at valuable objects: resistant to tarnish, malleable, rarity, desirability for jewelry. They are good conductors along with copper. And, since its extraction by electrolysis, aluminum (which, before the Hall process, was deemed more valuable than gold). Scarcity alone has no value, unless there is some positive value associated with it (such as for gems, as opposed to stones).
I don't agree that radio passes through the Earth. Maybe through soil and shallow rock.
The theory of gravity indeed predicts the orbits of planets around the Sun. Learning more physics means learning more astronomy as well.
Your argument seems to be "Well, you don't know everything---and, as I don't know everything either---I am as smart as you!" Good luck with that. I presume you do not have a job in technology?
Silver tarnishes though. There are other scarce metals, and other malleable metals. Desireability for jewelry comes from its inherent value, which we can’t really explain we just accept that it is. Like gravity.
GR cannot predict planetary orbits without dark matter, which is just a mathematical fiction equivalent to putting one’s thumb on the scale to get the “right” result. A greater extremes it breaks down without another fiction, “black holes.”
My argument is that our modern science breaks down at the extremes and thus, while they might be useful models for limited situations, they are NOT an accurate explanation of what is happening. Your argument by contrast, seems to be that we can make nifty doodads with these models and so, despite their fundamental flaws, if I doubt these models I must be less intelligent than you.
Wow, you seem to have a job in technology. I bet you make many neat gadgets and doodads. And yet you still can’t explain what the ancients were up to with the incredible gadgets and doodads they built. And yet! You still assume you’re smarter than they were. Hubris.
Look, read up on monetary metals. They have all the reasons. An attractive sheen and luster comes from the fact that these metals are good electrical conductors. For a related reason, they are also good thermal conductors. There are reasons. It is not arbitrary.
General Relativity does not predict planetary orbits with dark matter. That whole subject arises from problems understanding galactic motion, which is an open subject. I disregard "dark matter" as being a hobgoblin. So also with "black holes."
What accuracy do you need, where? I don't think any life on Earth will be affected one way or the other depending on our understanding of galactic astrophysics. How do you know that there are "fundamental flaws" when the theories work perfectly in the environments where they work? You are just grousing over the absence of perfection. I predict you will be unhappy to your last day.
I can't explain a lot of what the ancients did. I have problems even understanding what my ancestors did. So what? I can explain what I did. And if you like, look up YAL-1A to find an example. You seem pretty clearly NOT to have a job in technology, and it afflicts you with an inferiority complex. Which you cope with by placing technologists in the sphere of Not Knowing Everything, which puts you on an even level. The lapse in logic is really amusing, but it escapes you.
Any text on monetary metals will present the reasons for the use of such elements as gold, silver, and even copper at valuable objects: resistant to tarnish, malleable, rarity, desirability for jewelry. They are good conductors along with copper. And, since its extraction by electrolysis, aluminum (which, before the Hall process, was deemed more valuable than gold). Scarcity alone has no value, unless there is some positive value associated with it (such as for gems, as opposed to stones).
I don't agree that radio passes through the Earth. Maybe through soil and shallow rock.
The theory of gravity indeed predicts the orbits of planets around the Sun. Learning more physics means learning more astronomy as well.
Your argument seems to be "Well, you don't know everything---and, as I don't know everything either---I am as smart as you!" Good luck with that. I presume you do not have a job in technology?
Silver tarnishes though. There are other scarce metals, and other malleable metals. Desireability for jewelry comes from its inherent value, which we can’t really explain we just accept that it is. Like gravity.
GR cannot predict planetary orbits without dark matter, which is just a mathematical fiction equivalent to putting one’s thumb on the scale to get the “right” result. A greater extremes it breaks down without another fiction, “black holes.”
My argument is that our modern science breaks down at the extremes and thus, while they might be useful models for limited situations, they are NOT an accurate explanation of what is happening. Your argument by contrast, seems to be that we can make nifty doodads with these models and so, despite their fundamental flaws, if I doubt these models I must be less intelligent than you.
Wow, you seem to have a job in technology. I bet you make many neat gadgets and doodads. And yet you still can’t explain what the ancients were up to with the incredible gadgets and doodads they built. And yet! You still assume you’re smarter than they were. Hubris.
Look, read up on monetary metals. They have all the reasons. An attractive sheen and luster comes from the fact that these metals are good electrical conductors. For a related reason, they are also good thermal conductors. There are reasons. It is not arbitrary.
General Relativity does not predict planetary orbits with dark matter. That whole subject arises from problems understanding galactic motion, which is an open subject. I disregard "dark matter" as being a hobgoblin. So also with "black holes."
What accuracy do you need, where? I don't think any life on Earth will be affected one way or the other depending on our understanding of galactic astrophysics. How do you know that there are "fundamental flaws" when the theories work perfectly in the environments where they work? You are just grousing over the absence of perfection. I predict you will be unhappy to your last day.
I can't explain a lot of what the ancients did. I have problems even understanding what my ancestors did. So what? I can explain what I did. And if you like, look up YAL-1A to find an example. You seem pretty clearly NOT to have a job in technology, and it afflicts you with an inferiority complex. Which you cope with by placing technologists in the sphere of Not Knowing Everything, which puts you on an even level. The lapse in logic is really amusing, but it escapes you.