Best advice for those wanting iPad
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 20 Apr 2010 20:25 On 4/20/10 6:33 PM, in article 17b590d5-501b-4648-95e6-50d2de18b1f0(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com, "sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 21 apr, 01:26, "Peter" <peter...(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d5194c4a-9bfe-45ac-8c01-e39622febbab(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 20 apr, 23:22, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-04-20 10:29:18 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >> >>>>> Laws of physics are a mere figment of our lively imagination. Reality >>>>> is under no obligation to live up to our expectations, however >>>>> entrenched. >> >>>> Your lack of credibility has been fully confirmed. >> >>>> This is a first for this NG, a failed product of the Dutch special >>>> education system, with a graphic sense of entitlement, and an >>>> overestimate of his abilities. >> >>>> You have certainly dismissed reality from your World. >> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >> >>>> Savageduck >> >>> You probably have never watched a philosophy of science course, or >>> you'd >>> realize that science can only provide a provisional conceptual >>> framework >>> to interpret and explain observations. >> >>> http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100 >> >> Absolutely wrong. Theoretical scientists quite often develop concepts that >> are only later confirmed by observations. One recent example is Einstein's >> theory of relativity. >> >> Just one example:http://www.jstor.org/pss/83305 >> >> -- >> Peter > > You're the one who has it absolutely wrong. Scientific theories can > never be proven, they can only be falsified by discovering an > observation that contradicts the theory. > Just because you're able to confirm observations that were predicted > by the theory, that doesn't prove the theory, it just increases our > confidence in it as a suitable provisional conceptual framework, but > it doesn't rule out the possibility that the theory is incomplete or > plain wrong. In your ADD-riddled world, sure! What a maroon...
From: sobriquet on 20 Apr 2010 20:31 On 21 apr, 02:24, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >[..bla bla..] Legalize freedom! http://picasaweb.google.com/dohduhdah/Photoshop#5367032131664937090
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Apr 2010 23:15 Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:d5194c4a-9bfe-45ac-8c01-e39622febbab(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On 20 apr, 23:22, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-04-20 10:29:18 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>> > Laws of physics are a mere figment of our lively imagination. Reality >>> > is under no obligation to live up to our expectations, however >>> > entrenched. >>> >>> Your lack of credibility has been fully confirmed. >>> >>> This is a first for this NG, a failed product of the Dutch special >>> education system, with a graphic sense of entitlement, and an >>> overestimate of his abilities. >>> >>> You have certainly dismissed reality from your World. >> >> You probably have never watched a philosophy of science course, or >> you'd >> realize that science can only provide a provisional conceptual >> framework >> to interpret and explain observations. >> >> http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100 > >Absolutely wrong. Theoretical scientists quite often develop concepts that >are only later confirmed by observations. One recent example is Einstein's >theory of relativity. And another is Newton's theories on gravitation. This is getting very philosophical, but there is indeed a vast difference between "laws of physics" and reality. Our laws attempt to describe reality and they often do so quite well, but they are not reality and the universe has no obligation to obey. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Peter on 22 Apr 2010 09:21 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bcfd425$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>news:4bce6dbe$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>news:d5194c4a-9bfe-45ac-8c01-e39622febbab(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On 20 apr, 23:22, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2010-04-20 10:29:18 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>> >>>>>> > Laws of physics are a mere figment of our lively imagination. >>>>>> > Reality >>>>>> > is under no obligation to live up to our expectations, however >>>>>> > entrenched. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your lack of credibility has been fully confirmed. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a first for this NG, a failed product of the Dutch special >>>>>> education system, with a graphic sense of entitlement, and an >>>>>> overestimate of his abilities. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have certainly dismissed reality from your World. >>>>> >>>>> You probably have never watched a philosophy of science course, or >>>>> you'd >>>>> realize that science can only provide a provisional conceptual >>>>> framework >>>>> to interpret and explain observations. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100 >>>> >>>>Absolutely wrong. Theoretical scientists quite often develop concepts >>>>that >>>>are only later confirmed by observations. One recent example is >>>>Einstein's >>>>theory of relativity. >>> >>> And another is Newton's theories on gravitation. >> >>Newton's motion theory of gravitation has been controvertated. > > Not for several hundred years. Why do you think that Einstein is > finally correct? Please look up the meaning of the word: "controverted." Does the peer reviewed article really say Einstein was correct? And what does the period of time have to do with my point. > >> According to >>Einstein what we call gravity is caused by a curvature in space. In turn, >>Einstein's theory may very well be disproved by the theory of Quantum >>Gravity. > > So laws of physics are really just human creations. They are not > reality. Huh! I realize this is to complicated for you. Sorry. -- Peter
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Apr 2010 12:42
Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>>"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> On 20 apr, 23:22, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2010-04-20 10:29:18 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>>> >>>>>>> > Laws of physics are a mere figment of our lively imagination. >>>>>>> > Reality >>>>>>> > is under no obligation to live up to our expectations, however >>>>>>> > entrenched. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your lack of credibility has been fully confirmed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a first for this NG, a failed product of the Dutch special >>>>>>> education system, with a graphic sense of entitlement, and an >>>>>>> overestimate of his abilities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have certainly dismissed reality from your World. >>>>>> >>>>>> You probably have never watched a philosophy of science course, or >>>>>> you'd >>>>>> realize that science can only provide a provisional conceptual >>>>>> framework >>>>>> to interpret and explain observations. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100 >>>>> >>>>>Absolutely wrong. Theoretical scientists quite often develop concepts >>>>>that >>>>>are only later confirmed by observations. One recent example is >>>>>Einstein's >>>>>theory of relativity. >>>> >>>> And another is Newton's theories on gravitation. >>> >>>Newton's motion theory of gravitation has been controvertated. >> >> Not for several hundred years. Why do you think that Einstein is >> finally correct? > >Please look up the meaning of the word: "controverted." You didn't answer the question. >Does the peer reviewed article really say Einstein was correct? Non sequitur. >And what does the period of time have to do with my point. You're not too quick, are you? >>> According to >>>Einstein what we call gravity is caused by a curvature in space. In turn, >>>Einstein's theory may very well be disproved by the theory of Quantum >>>Gravity. >> >> So laws of physics are really just human creations. They are not >> reality. > >Huh! Gesundheit. >I realize this is to complicated for you. Sorry. I can spot bullshitting like yours from a long way off. You don't actually say anything at all because you really don't have any response. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |