Science's measuring capabilities reveal its not very far
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: About centre of mass inertial reference frames
Next: According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
From: PD on 21 May 2010 13:03 On May 20, 3:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 20, 1:29 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 6:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Modern science's measurements are just at a beginning. Our > > > measurement of subatomic particles is not possible to any degree of > > > accuracy because of it. Science's measuring is really only a few > > > decades old. > > > > Anyone who thinks that science knows a lot has chosen to delude > > > themselves. So how many of you out there are doing just that? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Science has just barely scratched the surface. But your idiotic rants > > haven't exactly helped whatever cause you have been trying to > > advance. What is it, anyway? Self-serving education-fearing > > ignorance? > > Such an attitude that science knows a lot is unfounded and is in fact > stupid because it isn't objective. I don't know what you think "objective" means, Mitch. Science does know a lot. There's a lot it doesn't know. This should not invalidate that which is done.
From: purple on 21 May 2010 13:38 On 5/21/2010 12:03 PM, PD wrote: > On May 20, 3:56 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On May 20, 1:29 pm, Igor<thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 19, 6:09 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> Modern science's measurements are just at a beginning. Our >>>> measurement of subatomic particles is not possible to any degree of >>>> accuracy because of it. Science's measuring is really only a few >>>> decades old. >> >>>> Anyone who thinks that science knows a lot has chosen to delude >>>> themselves. So how many of you out there are doing just that? >> >>>> Mitch Raemsch >> >>> Science has just barely scratched the surface. But your idiotic rants >>> haven't exactly helped whatever cause you have been trying to >>> advance. What is it, anyway? Self-serving education-fearing >>> ignorance? >> >> Such an attitude that science knows a lot is unfounded and is in fact >> stupid because it isn't objective. > > I don't know what you think "objective" means, Mitch. > Science does know a lot. There's a lot it doesn't know. This should > not invalidate that which is done. Partial solutions are valid and important.
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 13:56 On May 21, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 20, 3:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 1:29 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On May 19, 6:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Modern science's measurements are just at a beginning. Our > > > > measurement of subatomic particles is not possible to any degree of > > > > accuracy because of it. Science's measuring is really only a few > > > > decades old. > > > > > Anyone who thinks that science knows a lot has chosen to delude > > > > themselves. So how many of you out there are doing just that? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Science has just barely scratched the surface. But your idiotic rants > > > haven't exactly helped whatever cause you have been trying to > > > advance. What is it, anyway? Self-serving education-fearing > > > ignorance? > > > Such an attitude that science knows a lot is unfounded and is in fact > > stupid because it isn't objective. > > I don't know what you think "objective" means, Mitch. > Science does know a lot. There's a lot it doesn't know. This should > not invalidate that which is done.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Its not objective to think science is advanced at this point when it is not. Give it time. Such things as complete theories are for the very distant future. Mitch Raemsch Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 13:57 On May 21, 10:38 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > On 5/21/2010 12:03 PM, PD wrote: > > > > > > > On May 20, 3:56 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 20, 1:29 pm, Igor<thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > >>> On May 19, 6:09 pm, BURT<macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> Modern science's measurements are just at a beginning. Our > >>>> measurement of subatomic particles is not possible to any degree of > >>>> accuracy because of it. Science's measuring is really only a few > >>>> decades old. > > >>>> Anyone who thinks that science knows a lot has chosen to delude > >>>> themselves. So how many of you out there are doing just that? > > >>>> Mitch Raemsch > > >>> Science has just barely scratched the surface. But your idiotic rants > >>> haven't exactly helped whatever cause you have been trying to > >>> advance. What is it, anyway? Self-serving education-fearing > >>> ignorance? > > >> Such an attitude that science knows a lot is unfounded and is in fact > >> stupid because it isn't objective. > > > I don't know what you think "objective" means, Mitch. > > Science does know a lot. There's a lot it doesn't know. This should > > not invalidate that which is done. > > Partial solutions are valid and important.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But you shouldn't have the wrong attitude about them. Science is young and not very accomplished as such. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 21 May 2010 14:07
On May 21, 12:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 3:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 1:29 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 19, 6:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Modern science's measurements are just at a beginning. Our > > > > > measurement of subatomic particles is not possible to any degree of > > > > > accuracy because of it. Science's measuring is really only a few > > > > > decades old. > > > > > > Anyone who thinks that science knows a lot has chosen to delude > > > > > themselves. So how many of you out there are doing just that? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Science has just barely scratched the surface. But your idiotic rants > > > > haven't exactly helped whatever cause you have been trying to > > > > advance. What is it, anyway? Self-serving education-fearing > > > > ignorance? > > > > Such an attitude that science knows a lot is unfounded and is in fact > > > stupid because it isn't objective. > > > I don't know what you think "objective" means, Mitch. > > Science does know a lot. There's a lot it doesn't know. This should > > not invalidate that which is done.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Its not objective to think science is advanced Who said science is advanced? I didn't. Please don't lie and say I did. > at this point when it > is not. Give it time. Such things as complete theories are for the > very distant future. > > Mitch Raemsch > > Mitch Raemsch |