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 16:01 On May 21, 2:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 12:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 2:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 1:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 21, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Then what stage are we at? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Stage 6. Which is a whole lot better than Stage 3.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Which stage are you on? > > > Stage 6. I thought I just said that. > > > > Science and its measurments are all young even as our civilzation is. > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Science is young. There is no foundation in the belief that it knows a > lot. That is for the very distant future. Stage 6 is a lot more than Stage 3. Be thankful for what you've got, rather than thinking it's all worthless.
From: BURT on 21 May 2010 16:17
On May 21, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 2:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 21, 12:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 2:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 21, 1:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Then what stage are we at? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Stage 6. Which is a whole lot better than Stage 3.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Which stage are you on? > > > > Stage 6. I thought I just said that. > > > > > Science and its measurments are all young even as our civilzation is. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Science is young. There is no foundation in the belief that it knows a > > lot. That is for the very distant future. > > Stage 6 is a lot more than Stage 3. Be thankful for what you've got, > rather than thinking it's all worthless.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Science is too young to make any claims. Mitch Raemsch |