Congratulations taras22. Your post exemplified the kind of cluelessness about the nature of science that can lead one to pseudo-scientific beliefs.
You’ve completely misunderstood the lessons of science in general, Newton in particular.
Apparently you wish to use Newton’s incorrect calculation about the age of the earth to draw the lesson "See? Even great scientists can be wrong...so we can’t just go trusting science!"
But anyone who knows a thing about the scientific method already knows you don’t use "Faith In Something Some Genius Revealed To Us." The whole point of science derives from the very fallibility of ANYONE. It’s the Method, not The Man. Just because a man was wrong...as every person who ever lived has been wrong about one thing or another....doesn’t give warrant for undermining the scientific method.
Newton is actually the perfect example. Many acknowledge him as perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived. And the lesson of Newton is this: When he applied his great intellect to phenomena that could be seen and tested by all, and created testable theories which could be reliably replicated by anyone, despite their religion or lack of religion, he revolutionized useful knowledge for humankind with his theories of gravity (and others).
His theories were, and continue to be, used to successfully predict endless phenomena which work under those theories.
Kepler’s laws were useful within their domain of accuracy as well.
But what happened when each of those men turned their formidable intellects to the untestable realms of "Faith" "revelation" "religious belief?"
Both men were fervent Christians who took ancient scripture as utterly authoritative.
You got Newton working for 30 years on a religious treatise that languishes in obscurity and has helped no one, and produced no reliable knowledge. And in combination with ignorance of modern dating methods that they didn’t have back then, with taking the scriptures as historically accurate....you get total miscalculations of the type you reference, from both men.
This shows how much it is The Method that is more important than The Man, and when you appeal to "people...magic or otherwise" for your authority you will fall in to all sorts of pot holes. Recognizing the fallibility of human beings within your method, writing skepticism and doubt in to the method, acknowledging that anything you think you’ve demonstrated could be in error and that others should seek to replicate or show where you are wrong, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "fundamentalim" and "dogmatism."
Understanding that human’s are error prone and taking that seriously in your method - e.g. controlling for sighted bias - is the EXACT OPPOSITE of faith or fundamentalism.
That you mix these up is why you believe some of the things you apparently believe.
And you also imply an incorrect lesson about Newtonian theories of gravity and Eisenstein. Newtonian theory was not removed by developments from Einstein and others...it was *improved upon.* It was accurate within it’s domain for the most part, but was incomplete as a description and a new theory was required to explain things Newtonian physics could not. It’s still a usefully accurate account at a certain scale which is why it’s still used for that scale. If Newton’s theory were simply ’wrong’ you wouldn’t be able to explain why it works so reliably as it does . In many if not most day to day level applications, employing the more elaborate general relativity theory won’t yield you usefully more accurate results, so Newtonian physics is a perfectly useful model for most day to day calculations.
Whenever anyone appeals to science, you like to bring up bogus examples and ideas to sow a sort of mistrust in the appeal to science. It just shows a dedication to psuedo-science. And it’s particularly ironic because you are left to answer this question: In every case were ’the science’ has been shown to be ’wrong,’ incomplete or inaccurate....what method was it that uncovered those problems?
You guessed it: science. It’s got a self-correcting mechanism built in that tends to weed out error over time.
No one should get to have his own pet theory made safe - one that is not vetted scientifically - by trying the old "but they called Galileo Crazy" or"But Science Has Been Wrong Before!" trope, as if errors in previous science make unvetted pseudo-scientific claims less dubious
Claims about cables, especially extraordinary claims, ought to be able to pass the same vetting method as any other science.
That’s not a fact favorable to purveyors of expensive high end cables based on dubious theories, or to those who believe their subjective impressions can not be in error, which is no doubt why it receives some pushback
