Talk:Science studies

Expansion

This article is very short, and hardly describes anything about how science as a social enterprise works. It's at least got to start with peer review, and should cover how explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge about techniques are dispersed throughout the community, the incentives to do science (economics, the reputation system, the tenure carrot), standards for behavior (and examples of violations), the peculiarly open nature of the enterprise, and its relationship to other social system, like government, the economy, and culture. -- Beland 02:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should the article be about Science studies as a subject/discipline/approach or about one particular set of conclusions about how science works? I think the former—I don't think you'll ever come up with a model of "how science as a social enterprise works" that will really be representative of the gamut of even the most popular scholars on the subject. Additionally, it looks like you are just describing 20th century scientific enterprise at best. And Latour at the very least would object to any categorization which contains "economy," "government" and "culture" as entities independent from themselves, much less science! ;) --Fastfission 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I vote for a description of "science studies" as a research area; you'd need a book to do what Beland suggests--it's a good suggestion, but Ziman has already done it! Bryan 00:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fastfission about the focus of the article. But Beland is right to point out that the survey of the object science studies (i.e. science) is very thin. Can the technology studies stuff be moved to its own entry, which could then be linked to? The subdisciplines of STS could also get their own entries. Things that are POV from the POV of STS, may be wholly objective from within, say, ANT, social epistemology, SSK, etc. The fact that these fields are part of STS, however, seems to be beyond dispute. As would be a history of STS as an "open site" for various approaches to the study (descriptive, empirical) and policing (prescriptive, normative) of research. An important turning point here is the status of Kuhn and Foucault in the late 60s, which seemed also to mark a convergence of concerns derives from Phil og Sci, Hist of Sci, Soc. of Sci Know, etc. In any case, the dominance of technology in the article is a bit odd. I'm new here so I don't know how one goes about moving a big chunk of text like that into its own article or how one makes the decision to do so. But I'm looking forward to getting to work on this. (I'm going to be working more or less simultaneously on the social epistemology entry.)--Peloria 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa

I haven't looked at this article for awhile and now it has gigantic Excel images pasted in. I'm not sure I understand what they have to do with science studies or even technology studies. I am thinking that, if they belong somewhere, they don't belong in this article, which is on an academic discipline. Anybody else have thoughts on this? --Fastfission 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. An article on "Science Studies" should not have such a strong emphasis on "communication mediums and data storage mediums" - looks like someone pasted their school project or something.--mtz206 14:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. I've removed the passages and images and brought the article into sharper focus. Hope you like it.--Peloria 22:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some changes

I've tried to be a little more specific about SS's interdisciplinary history, making it clear that SS emerges from SSK (among other things) rather than SSK being a subfield within SS. This also allowed me to free the names of Kuhn and Foucault from any direct association with these large background contexts, respecting their canonical status in many different fields. I'll be re-reading the whole entry and fixing the sentences as I add things over the next few weeks.--Peloria 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Science and technology studies, not Science studies

I'd like to hear from contributors about changing the name of this article. I believe science and technology studies (STS) is a more inclusive and more accurate name than science studies, for the following reasons:

1. There is a thriving multidisciplinary research area that self-identifies itself as science and technology studies (Janasoff et al., 2001). Doctoral programs that specifically use the phrase "science and technology studies" to describe the degree are offered at Cornell Univ., Georgia Institute of Technology, Gothenburg Univ. (Sweden), Lancaster Univ. (UK), Virginia Polytechnic Institute, University College (London), and several other institutions. Roughly 25 universities offer bachelor's degrees using this nomenclature (the most up-to-date [list of STS programs] is maintained by the University of Virginia's Department of Science, Technology, and Society).

2. The term "science studies" is sometimes used inclusively to refer to STS, particularly in U.K. (see, e.g., [Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University], but the term "science studies" is more closely associated with the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). There are numerous science studies departments that place little or no emphasis on the study of technology, despite the growing evidence that the two are so closely intertwined that they cannot be studied in isolation (see, e.g., Latour 1989).

3. STS programs and organizations (such as the Society for Social Studies of Science, or 4S) view STS as an umbrella term, one that encompasses a variety of subdisciplines, including the following (minimally): sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), sociology and anthropology of science and technology, science and engineering ethics, science and engineering policy, history of science, history of technology, and philosophy of science and technology. STS departments reflect this heterogeneity, yet their faculty generally self-identify as STS scholars.

4. The most prominent professional organization in STS, Society for Social Studies of Science, stresses the following on its Web site: "Society for Social Studies of Science is the oldest and largest scholarly association devoted to understanding science and technology. While as many of us [now] study technology as science, we continue to use our original name" (see [About the Society].

To sum up:

1. Remove the redirect from the science and technology studies page and move the pertinent sections of this article there. 2. This page should portray science studies as part of STS, and link to SSK.

Bryan 13:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

REFERENCES

Jasanoff, Shiela, James C Petersen, Trevor Pinch, Gerald E Markle, 2001. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Sage Publications.

Latour, Bruno. 1989. La science en action. Paris: Editions La Decouverte

• Well, the real question is whether or not STS (either as Science Technology and Society or Science and Technology Studies) and Science Studies are different and if so in what way. I have always considered Science Studies to be the bigger umbrella term over STS, and in the U.S. at least it would not be considered the same thing as SSK strictly speaking. Hmm. It's also a hard question because some of the people and groups you've cited have been involved in major disputes about the nomenclature of the field (Jasanoff and 4S, for example). --Fastfission 14:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ontologically, sts is the larger field, as it encompasses both science studies and technology studies. however sts also is science and technology in society, which is a somewhat different field too. but in the end, brian is right, either we need sts or we need a new article that is sts. Buridan---
    • There's a historical dimension here... it seems to me that science studies was the umbrella term in the 1980s (as fastfission's reply shows, it still is for some people!); with the 'turn to technology' in the 1990s, 'science and technology studies' gained currency. Today, it seems to me that just about everyone (including people who go on using 'science studies') refer to the field as STS. (How can so many smart people be so maddeningly imprecise in referring to their own field???) How can we capture this in the structure of these entries? How about this?
      • STS - Disambiguation page, with refs to science studies, science and technology studies (STS), science, technology, and society (STS), prefix for numbering of U.S. Space Shuttle flights (e.g., STS-121 will be the next flight. I have no idea what the STS prefix stands for!)
      • science studies - this page
      • science and technology studies (STS) - remove redirect; refer to science studies for introduction, discuss 'turn to technology,' indicate that this has become (for most) the umbrella term; indicate that 'science, technology, and society' is sometimes used synonymously, and sometimes to indicate a slightly different approach
      • science, technology, and society (STS) - indicate that the term is sometimes used synonymously with 'science and technology studies', and sometimes to refer to a similar field that emerged independently from liberal arts programs within U.S. engineering fields. I don't think the latter sense of the term has much meaning anymore - most (if not all) 'science, technology, and society' programs clearly affiliate themselves with 'science and technology studies' and use the two terms more or less synonymously.Still, it's worth covering in the article.

• • • My colleagues and I (we're at Virginia) have thought quite a bit about these issues because we just renamed our department: it's now [Science, Technology, and Society] (formerly Technology, Culture, and Communication). We all agreed that 'science and technology studies' is our umbrella field, but we decided against using this term for our department name because (as we discovered) some people thought it referred to the studies that scientists and engineers do! In contrast, 'Science, Technology, and Society' summed up what we do quickly and accurately.

• • • Are you familiar with Steve Fuller's (1993) distinction between High Church (science studies) and Low Church (sociology of technology; science, technology, and society)? To me, this distinction is both hilarious and devastatingly accurate, and captures a division within the field that persists to this day.

• • • So, if we take NPOV seriously, we have to write these articles in a way that acknowledges the ongoing disagreements, confusions, and ambiguities in nomenclature... Bryan 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

While that is possible. it is probably best to just to split out sts from this page because it is not the same thing. once that is done, then one would use one article to make clear the high and low churches... but there is not enough content differentiation right now as far as i know to require two articles, but if people did want to make those articles and then proceed to wikify them appropriately throughout the science and technology articles, then you'd be fine. Buridan

• Well... I think this discussion proves that there really are two fields (or two ways of seeing the same field): science studies and science and technology studies. I think there should be two articles, related as follows: science studies (SSK + history/philosophy of science), science and technology studies (science studies + history/sociology of technology). The articles should explain that, when people talk about science studies or STS, they might -- or might not -- be referring to the same thing. There still are science studies departments -- UCSD, for instance, that don't do much with technology. To clarify something that is at work here, I think: let me add that STS also refers to "science, technology, and society," which is most closely associated with a "humanizing the engineers" movement in US academia starting in the 1960s; the idea was to bring engineers into closer contact with the humanities, etc. Most of these programs have now migrated to science and technology studies. What's more, there's a significant K-12 movement called science-and-technology-studies (yes, the hyphens are part of the name!) that is trying to improve science education by starting with important social issues and proceeding to science as a "need to know" exercise. SO ... I propose to write two articles, science studies and science and technology studies. I might add that we need related articles on science, technology, and society; history and philosophy of science (HPS); science, engineering, and public policy (SEPP); history of technology; and anthropology of technology. Unless someone objects, I'll do what I've proposed (although I can't do so immediately...) Bryan 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A Start

The preceding proposal has survived three weeks without comment, so I'm going to proceed with my proposed changes. Please help! Bryan 23:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A little more development. Bryan 22:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification or correction, please

of the following sentence: "Previously, successful scientific theories were attributed to having discovered the truth of the matter, while failed theories were attributed to the bias introduced by social factors, such as religious belief or racism." This strikes me as a straw man argument that does not honestly represent the kind of philosophy of science that the Strong Programme is intended to oppose or supercede. For instance, the Popperian philosophy of science never fell into the error of believing that the "truth" could be discovered (indeed, it holds the opposite to be true); and the Popperian point of view, whatever its flaws, was extremely influential for much of the 20th century, i.e. it was previous to the Strong Programme. And it appears to me that attributing the failure of a theory to social factors is purely postmodern. For instance, even if we accept that the value that causes us to hold quantum mechanics as higher in value than Newtonian mechanics is a social value, none of the *classical* philosophers of science held the failure of Newtonian mechanics to account for the discrete spectra of atoms to be due to social factors. Thus, as a description of a type of philosophy of science that contrasts with the Strong Programme, the quoted sentence strikes me as unclear at best, and probably just plain wrong. 67.186.28.212 04:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the problem is "failure of a theory" -- my understanding of it was not that this was about theory failure at all, but question of "good science" and "bad science". "Good science" is about objectivity and great ideals and pure logic and etc. while "bad science" is about politics and superscientific factors. It is not meant to imply that people thought that politics is behind, say, Newtonian theory being superceded by Einsteinian (at worst, it would be about how those who clung to the aether were letting their politics get involved, but that would be pretty crude). --Fastfission 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

and there you would be slightly off target. It isn't about good or bad science. it is about contextualizing the history and progress of science and thus finding the the origins of scientific theory. it is not 'postmodern' either. the strong programme uses social science to resolve what used to be considered a philosophical problem. if you read it as a popperian, you will get confused because popper is fixated on defining what is or is not scientific, amongst other things. he is working on a principle of exclusion for science. the strong programme on the other hand is describing science as it exists. --Buridan 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the "good/bad science" distinction is one used by the strong programme at all, but as I understood it the principle of symmetry, simply put, is that if scientists usually invoke social factors to explain things that go "wrong" in science, you should also be able to invoke social factors to explain things that go "right" in science too. In either case it is somewhat of a straw man when put up against Popper qua Popper but it is, I think, not an entirely unfair way of characterizing an extremely common way of discussion the effect of social factors on science. --Fastfission 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

wow

This article is so unbelievably pompous, one hardly knows where to begin. --Deglr6328 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. --Fastfission 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Why bother? I doubt it would take a mere few weeks to revert back to its former pseudointellectual pomposity like so many other sociology articles. I'd rather not waste my time. --Deglr6328 05:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

pompous? perhaps you can point us toward where it is being pompous instead of say, just flaming us.--Buridan 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're not going to bother to even organize your grievances about the article content, then I fail to see why you are bothering to complain. Surely you have better ways to spend your time on here. --Fastfission 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I never understood this 'wikimantra' that criticism of aticles is basically verboten unless the person criticising also fixes the article. Just because articles CAN be altered by anyone doesn't mean anyone making critical observations must do so.--Deglr6328 03:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't made any critical observations, you've just made vague and unspecific complaints. And you've insinuated that the other editors on this article are interested in "pseudointellectual pomposity". I fail to see how this isn't just trolling. --Fastfission 12:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

K. bye. --Deglr6328 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Two (stylistic) critiques

I have two critiques with this article.

1. Too many abbreviations. In my eyes this gives the impression of "pomposity" that I think Degir was referencing. I recommend elimination of moar of them... especially those that are only once used in this article.

2. Two many red links. Again, it has the same effect... like "Science studies" has its own vocab that only the initiated can understand. The way to fix this is to delink or to create articles. (I'm not saying other Wikipedia articles aren't similar.)

I think I can fix in a bit. I don't know anything about the red-links so I can just delink them for now.

Thoughts? Thanks! --M a s 01:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done... Could someone please expand the "principal of symmetry" or determine if it's worth its own article? Thanks! --M a s 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus.

Update at 13 November: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The proper definition of physics, and the place of physics among the sciences, may well be of interest to editors who contribute here. – Noetica 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Multi-Dimensional Scalable Worlds

http://www.fitinizini.com/theories_01.html

By Dr. Fortunato Da COSTA in Theory of Multi-Dimensional Scalable Worlds *

"When will Man be ready to accept that our Time is not the Time of the Universe?"

Principle I – Empiric – Entity and World Scale relationship: In the Universe each Entity (constellation, star, planet, animal, vegetable, micro organism, molecule, …) belongs to its own WORLD SCALE defined by two major dimensions the LIFE SCALE (Average Life Time Scale) and the SPACE SCALE (Average Size Scale) of the Entity.

Principle II – Empiric – The fulfillment principle: Each particular Entity, in its Space Scale, has everything needed to complete its life cycle and in its respective Life Scale there is enough time to, also, complete its life cycle with success.

Principle III – Empiric – World Scales existence: According to our human kind World Scale there is an undetermined number of Smaller World Scales below us – microorganisms, molecules, atoms, … – and another undetermined number of Larger World Scales above us – planets, stars, constellations, ....

Principle IV – Empiric – Time and Space Relationship: The Life Scale is directly proportional to the Space Scale. As smaller the Space Scale of an Entity as small it is the respective Life Scale of that Entity. Nature clearly shows that there is a relationship between Life Scales and Space Scales – the empiric observation demonstrates that the absolute life time of a planet is much longer than of a human. And the absolute life time of a human is much longer than of a butterfly – so, there is an evident empiric relationship between Time and Space that we humans never saw and took into scientific consideration. Example of an empiric formula that can be applied:

Life_Scale = K x Space_Scale ( K ~ 30 years/meters for mammals )

Principle V – Empiric – Imaginary Multidimensional Worlds existence: In Euclid’s geometry, if we consider ourselves a point in a plan, we only can observe just a line: this means that if we are a point in a two dimensions world, we only can percept one dimension. The same rule can be extrapolated to understand that if we are an Entity in a four dimensions World Scale (X, Y, Z, and Time) there is, at least, another extra dimension that we cannot see or understand its existence because it is not possible to percept it from the World Scale where we are in. Only using the imaginary complex number i=(-1) ½ it is possible to mathematically define that imaginary dimension from the World Scale where we do belong. This takes us to the conclusion that multidimensional Worlds DO exist and we are part of Multidimensional Worlds with, at least, an extra dimension that we cannot observe or understand, because they are imaginary to us: i=(-1) ½.

Principle VI – Empiric – Relative Intelligence and Relative Perspective: Can we ask to a blind born human the reason why the sea is blue? If the Entity does not percept the atmosphere color dimension, because it was never a Real Dimension in its World Scale, it is not possible for him to justify that phenomenon. The Entity only can make that justification if he is capable of creating a mathematical model where the sky color dimension is introduced as an imaginary dimension i=(-1) ½. So, we have to introduce two new concepts: the Relative Perspective and the Relative Intelligence. RELATIVE PERSPECTIVE is the set of Real Dimensions that the Entity cans percept from its World Scale. RELATIVE INTELLIGENCE is the capability of the Entity to understand, to predict and to make use of phenomena happening inside its World Scale’s Relative Perspective. By this principle all entities are rational and intelligent in their respective Relative Perspective Referentials. So, the Human Kind or any other Entity, only can justify the scientific phenomena that are totally functions of Dimensions that are Real (and not Imaginary) in the World Scale of that Entity. Unless the Entity is intelligent enough to extrapolate its relative perspective using imaginary dimensions, i=(-1) ½, in their mathematical models.

Principle VII – Empiric – The Extra Imaginary Dimension existence principle: Why our Planet Earth has to change its rotation routines? Why there are Gravitational Forces that should approach the macrocosms but, instead, the cosmos is splitting itself? How can we justify scientific phenomena that we cannot understand? Obviously there is, at least, an extra imaginary dimension that we cannot percept or understand from our World Scale (X, Y, Z, and Time) that relates the different MULTI-DIMENSIONAL WORLD SCALES above and below our Human Kind World Scale. And It is not the now called Black Matter, or the Black Energy, or the “Black Magic” that justify what we cannot see or understand. We MUST accept the Extra Dimension Principle and introduce the imaginary dimensions i=(-1) ½ into the mathematical models to justify then the existence of Imaginary Matter (iM) and Imaginary Energy (iE) to better understand the cosmic models of the Universe.

Principle VIII – Empiric – The gravitational feeding principle: Gravitational forces do affect the Matter because it is necessary a force that drives the Matter from the larger World Scales into the smaller World Scales. For example, the interior of our Planet Earth – that we MUST consider a living Entity belonging to a much Larger World Scale than of the human kind – feeds itself from the matter that it is transported by the gravitational force from the surface directly into the interior of the Planet. At the surface of the Planet there is an extraordinary activity supported by a star – the Sun in our Solar System – that provides the outside energy to catalyze the basic chemical reactions that sustain and chains, in a continuous form, the biological activity at the surface of the Planet to accumulate and to transform the matter that will feed the interior of the Planet. In fact, the fundamental Cosmic Life Cycle Objective of a living Entity, like us human kind, basically, it is to sustain that Matter transportation from larger world scales into smaller world scales and, consequently, to feed the interior of the Living Planet Earth. A clear evidence of this principle is that the Planet Earth does not seem to have changed drastically its diameter over the time, but we all know that our past and history is deeply under the surface, of our Planet. So, if we really want to go back and understand our past, deeper we have to dig in the matter sedimented in layers below our feet.

Principle IX – Empiric – The Flat Poles principle: Besides the fact that the centrifuge forces are stronger at the equator than at the poles, the previous principle also justifies the reason why the diameter of the Planet Earth from pole to pole is smaller than of the diameter at the equator level. The fact is that the Solar energy is much weaker in the North and South poles when compared with the intensity of the Sun at equator level, as a consequence, at the poles, the vegetation and biological activity is less intense than at the equator. So, the accumulation of sedimentation is also lesser than at the equator level. This is the major reason why the Planet Earth, time to time, is obliged to changed its rotation, precisely to compensate the “boldness” created at the poles and just to keep the Planet as spherical as possible.

Principle X – Time Acceleration existence: TIME ACCELERATION is not 0, Time Acceleration Exists! TIME differs from World Scale to World Scale: Time runs faster in smaller World Scales and slower in larger World Scales:

• TIME ACCELERATION > 0 when moving into small World Scales; • TIME ACCELERATION < 0 when moving into large World Scales; • TIME ACCELERATION = 0, only when we’re stabilized in one World Scale.

Example: A human eye cannot observe in detail the dancing movements of a small paradise bird, but the female partner of the bird… can! This means that the animals belonging to a smaller World Scale are adapted by nature to their respective specific referentials - where time runs faster and spaces are smaller – with smaller Life Scales and Space Scales.

Principle XI – Empiric – we are part of much Larger and Slower World Scales: Our human kind World Scale is simply a part of other Entities Life Cycles belonging to much larger World Scales – the Planet Earth, the Solar System, … – where time runs much, much slower, letting us confused about the real purpose of their life cycles. But, their life cycle objectives are no different from ours, they must transport the energy and matter received from larger World Scales into their, within, smaller World Scales, so they also born, multiply and die.

Principle XII – Dimensional Transposition: Einstein related the Time of a Relative Referential (t’) with the Time of an Absolute Referential (t), through the velocity (V) of the relative referential regarding the absolute referential:

t’ = t . ( 1 – V2/C2 ) ½

c – Velocity of light and V could never be equal or larger than C, because t’=0 or t’<0

In fact, the velocity of a Relative Referential (V) can be much times superior to the velocity of light (C). What simply happens is that we just face a square root of a negative number in the formula, the complex imaginary i=(-1) ½ For example, if:

v=2.C => t’ = t . ( – 3 ) ½ <=> t’ = t . (–1 ) ½ . ( 3 ) ½ <=> t’ = t . i . ( 3 ) ½

This, logically, takes us to the conclusion that if V > C then we just transposed ourselves to a superior larger dimension WORLD SCALE that includes the previous one. In fact, we just, simply, added another imaginary (i) dimension to our previous relative referential. And that dimension it is only imaginary (i) from the perspective of our relative referential, because from the larger superior multidimensional WORLD SCALE… that dimension is, mathematically and physically, a real dimension.

Principle XIII – the velocity of light (C) is not a constant: The velocity of light (C) is not a constant; it is different from WORLD SCALE to WORLD SCALE. In our human kind WORLD SCALE we consider that the light created in our human kind WORLD SCALE is constant and it travels at 300 000 Km/s. But, why 300 000 Km/s and not 301 000 Km/s? It looks like a number to much exact to be considered physically trustable. By applying the theory the TIME ACCELERATION > 0 when moving into smaller WORLD SCALES the velocity of the light created in a larger WORLD SCALE is much different from the original 300 000 Km/s in the smaller WORLD SCALE. This take us to a curious conclusion: our calculations of the cosmic distances may not be correct, just because we are considering that the speed of light created by a source in a much larger WORLD SCALE is also 300 000 Km/s, exactly the same velocity determined by us in our very small human kind WORLD SCALE. Cosmic distances are much different from what we have been calculating and the concept that the universe is finite only exists in our human dimension WORLD SCALE, if we transpose to multi-dimensional Worlds, the Multi-dimensional Universe is infinite at our WORLD SCALE perception.

Principle XIV – the scientific Congruence principle: All Physical Science theories – Einstein Relativity Theory, Cosmic Physics, Classical Newton Physics, Particles Physics, Quantum Physics, … – face incongruence when trying to explain WORLD SCALES different than the one where they were originally created just because, basically, they all consider that the Absolute Time of the Universe is the TIME of the Relative Referential WORLD SCALE (TIME SCALE and SPACE SCALE) of the human kind on Earth. In fact, the rational liaison between all the known Physical Science Theories is precisely to consider that TIME ACCELERATION is not 0, this means that TIME runs faster in small WORLD SCALES and slower in large WORLD SCALES, just because there is a clear relation between the Time Scale and the Space Scale that nature show us as clear evidence and that we never saw and took, in consideration. So, all present Physical Science Theories could be applied in the different SPACE SCALES if adjusted with the fact that TIME ACCELERATION > 0 when moving into smaller WORLD SCALES and TIME ACCELERATION < 0 when moving out to larger WORLD SCALES.

Lisboa, 10/March/2006

All Intellectual Property Rights are property of:

Dr. Fortunato José Moreira Da COSTA Portuguese I.D. Card nº.: 5164223, issued in Lisbon in 23/10/2003 Tel.: +(351) 966 377 939 EMail: fitini@fitini.net Postal address: Av. 25 Abril, 22, 2-D; 2795-196 Linda-a-Velha; PORTUGAL

Dr. Fortunato Da COSTA, Post-graduated in European Studies by the European Studies Institute, Master in Public and Business Administration and Bachelor in Engineering, he is an International Expert Consultant in Business Architecture and information Systems, Business Manager, Teacher, Trainer, Conference Speaker, Writer, Director of the Fitini.NET ConsultinG, he can be contacted by e-mail: fitini@fitini.net, or by telephone: +(351)966377939, or by the address: Av. 25 Abril, 22, 2-D, 2795-196 Linda-a-Velha, Portugal, Visit: Fitini.NET ConsultinG

(*) Fully prohibited the use of any copies, or of any parts, of this documents without written permission Copyrights fully protected Worldwide by The Law, Since 2006