L
Lloyd Parker
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
>> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> >>>than other basic forces.
>>
>> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>> >
>> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>> >much more.
>> >
>> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>> >>>behaviors.
>>
>> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>> >
>> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
>at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
>making at this time.
But we have factual evidence -- time going slower in a gravity well or at high
speeds, for example. Those are the predictions of relativity. A theory is an
explanation of something. Time being relative to an observer IS relativity,
pretty much by definition, and that's fact.
> By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
>the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
>Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
>concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
No, the geocentric model was FAITH, demanded by the church.
>
><snip>
>
>> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>>
>
>So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
>gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
>some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
>haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
>*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
>do so.
>
><snip moronic abuse>
>
>>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
>course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
>assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
>engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
>practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
>you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
>encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
>
>nate
>
>ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
>creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
>the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
>
>ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
>true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
>the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
[email protected] (Nate Nagel) wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <wngmb.20534$HS4.71116@attbi_s01>,
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
>> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>> >>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gravity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>Only that it exists. There are alot of questions about gravity that
>> >>>remain unanswered. The fundamental one is why is it so much weaker
>> >>>than other basic forces.
>>
>> >> The explanation may be unsettled; the fact that gravity is, is not.
>> >
>> >Hence the first sentance I wrote above. But your statement above means
>> >much more.
>> >
>> >>>> Relativity is an established fact.
>>
>> >>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>> >>>behaviors.
>>
>> >> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>> >
>> >That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.
>>
>> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative.
If
>> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's
relativity.
>
>True. However, relativity is simply a theory - the best one we have
>at the moment - to describe the observations that we are capable of
>making at this time.
But we have factual evidence -- time going slower in a gravity well or at high
speeds, for example. Those are the predictions of relativity. A theory is an
explanation of something. Time being relative to an observer IS relativity,
pretty much by definition, and that's fact.
> By your Llogic, way back thousands of years ago,
>the geocentric model of the universe was a "fact" and then later
>Newtonian mechanics was a collection of "facts." We now know those
>concepts to be false and approximations respectively.
No, the geocentric model was FAITH, demanded by the church.
>
><snip>
>
>> >No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>> >explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.
>>
>> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact,
and
>> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the
fact,
>> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.
>>
>
>So what is gravity, the fact? Can you state authoritatively that
>gravity ALWAYS follows the inverse square rule or is there perhaps
>some fine tuning to be done regarding interactions under conditions we
>haven't thought of yet? For crying out loud, we still don't know
>*why* objects with mass attract each other, simply that they appear to
>do so.
>
><snip moronic abuse>
>
>>
>> Try learning some science.
>
>Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
>process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
>the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
>can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
>light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
>almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries. Of
>course, you appear to be no stranger to arrogance, beginning with your
>assertion that you are actually a scientist. At best you are an
>engineer, one who makes use of the discoveries of scientists for
>practical applications, however as an engineer I'd be ashamed to claim
>you in that rank even. Quite simply, at best you are a walking
>encyclopedia - and a rather annoying one, at that.
>
>nate
>
>ObWeirdness - I appear to be watching a scientist arguing with a
>creationist, and the creationist appears to be the more reasonable of
>the two. When was the last time you saw that happen?
>
>ObYesIKnow - this is the last you'll hear from me on this topic; it is
>true what they say about arguing with an idiot. I'm bowing out now in
>the interest of preserving what IQ points I have left.
mhnb.42839$Fm2.17324@attbi_s04...
