Best advice for those wanting iPad
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 22 Apr 2010 12:48 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bd07c5a$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > 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. > I refuse to get into a pissing contest. You obviously have not supported your argument. Bye -- Peter
From: Robert Spanjaard on 22 Apr 2010 15:25 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:35:03 -0500, George Kerby wrote: > You have my permission Well, at least I got a good laugh out of that one. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Ray Fischer on 21 Apr 2010 01:56 John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: > rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>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. > > | > >Ceci n'est pas une pipe. In others words, yes. And yes, I am familar with the reference. For those who are not it is the caption of a well-known painting by Rene Magritte. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: whisky-dave on 23 Apr 2010 08:36 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bce6dbe$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > > 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. The universe is reality, how we see it depends on our instruments and ability to understand them and describe it.
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Apr 2010 00:44
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? > 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. Which takes us right back to the original claim. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |