Musings on Nasa and the Concept of Truth.

Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jonathan wrote:

I agree completely. But much of the world fervently believes in
a personal god. This discovery would show that we are but
a drop in an ocean of life. It would be a direct challenge to
fundamentalists and creationists all over the world.

Really? want to give a cite for the "much of the world fervently
believes in a personal god"? Because unless you do some very radical
restrictiuons of what the world is, it does not appear to be anywhere
near truth.

[snip]


The daily paper constantly drips with the blood of such religious
extremism, we fear sparking more of it with good reason.

Maybe you should move town?


Scientific truth is *not* subject to majority vote. On some matters,
interpretations abound, but whatever the final facts are, they are
independent of wether 51% believe in them, or not.


I completely disagree.


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.

The charge quantities of elementary particles.
The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.
E = W + h.
Quantity is bounded by itself.

(He /really/ hates that last one.)


The only 'truth' of the universe is that there is ...no...truth.
There is only what we believe to be true, and we arrive at those
'truths' by consensus.

Bull****.

Yes, he did misspell "consensus," dintee.


Jonathan

s

Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Heh. Suffer that myself.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote in message
...
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jonathan wrote:

I agree completely. But much of the world fervently believes in
a personal god. This discovery would show that we are but
a drop in an ocean of life. It would be a direct challenge to
fundamentalists and creationists all over the world.

Really? want to give a cite for the "much of the world fervently
believes in a personal god"? Because unless you do some very radical
restrictiuons of what the world is, it does not appear to be anywhere
near truth.

[snip]


The daily paper constantly drips with the blood of such religious
extremism, we fear sparking more of it with good reason.

Maybe you should move town?


Scientific truth is *not* subject to majority vote. On some matters,
interpretations abound, but whatever the final facts are, they are
independent of wether 51% believe in them, or not.


I completely disagree.


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.

The charge quantities of elementary particles.
The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.
E = W + h.
Quantity is bounded by itself.



Neither of you have heard of the uncertainty principle
or even gravity...have you?

None of the above constitute an object, but a few
properties. None of those properties exist in isolation and
every particle in the universe is in motion.






(He /really/ hates that last one.)


The only 'truth' of the universe is that there is ...no...truth.
There is only what we believe to be true, and we arrive at those
'truths' by consensus.

Bull****.

Yes, he did misspell "consensus," dintee.


Jonathan

s

Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Heh. Suffer that myself.

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

Jonathan wrote:

"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote in message
...
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jonathan wrote:

I agree completely. But much of the world fervently believes in
a personal god. This discovery would show that we are but
a drop in an ocean of life. It would be a direct challenge to
fundamentalists and creationists all over the world.

Really? want to give a cite for the "much of the world fervently
believes in a personal god"? Because unless you do some very radical
restrictiuons of what the world is, it does not appear to be anywhere
near truth.

[snip]


The daily paper constantly drips with the blood of such religious
extremism, we fear sparking more of it with good reason.

Maybe you should move town?


Scientific truth is *not* subject to majority vote. On some matters,
interpretations abound, but whatever the final facts are, they are
independent of wether 51% believe in them, or not.


I completely disagree.


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.

The charge quantities of elementary particles.
The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.
E = W + h.
Quantity is bounded by itself.

Neither of you have heard of the uncertainty principle
or even gravity...have you?

e = h/2pi may be the single most causal statement of the 20th Cy.
But do you know how it limits the speed of light?

None of the above constitute an object, but a few
properties. None of those properties exist in isolation and
every particle in the universe is in motion.

The last is an axiom, the next an equation founded on it, the rest
above are objects. That they are percept objects or "objects of
perception" is no objection unless you care to object to your own
existence simultaneously.
That they are standardisable by external reference and protocol is
what science is all about.
I know, I know.
You're not perceiving some of your perceptions, therefore God.
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:16:48 GMT, "Dennis M. Hammes"
wrote:





The charge quantities of elementary particles.
The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.
E = W + h.
Quantity is bounded by itself.

Neither of you have heard of the uncertainty principle
or even gravity...have you?

e = h/2pi may be the single most causal statement of the 20th Cy.
But do you know how it limits the speed of light?

Let me guess, because God told you it was. And therefore you _have
faith_ it is.

That they are standardisable by external reference and protocol is
what science is all about.
I know, I know.
You're not perceiving some of your perceptions, therefore God.
Huh?

"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote in message
...
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jonathan wrote:

I agree completely. But much of the world fervently believes in
a personal god. This discovery would show that we are but
a drop in an ocean of life. It would be a direct challenge to
fundamentalists and creationists all over the world.

Really? want to give a cite for the "much of the world fervently
believes in a personal god"? Because unless you do some very radical
restrictiuons of what the world is, it does not appear to be anywhere
near truth.

[snip]


The daily paper constantly drips with the blood of such religious
extremism, we fear sparking more of it with good reason.

Maybe you should move town?


Scientific truth is *not* subject to majority vote. On some matters,
interpretations abound, but whatever the final facts are, they are
independent of wether 51% believe in them, or not.


I completely disagree.


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.



The charge quantities of elementary particles.


Oh pahlease! Electrons decay into a holon and a spinon.
when they're confined to one dimension ..ie when static.
In a stable state they are ....moving.
Protons and neutrons have a charge of +/-. Besides your
retreat into fundamental particles is flawed, such particles
have...by definition...no substructure. So they are not
a 'thing' or object. They are what things are made ...of.



The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.


V stands for frequency, is a wave static?
And frequency is dependent on time, yet
another non-static variable. Nice try, but
no cigar. Just because they call these
equations 'constants' does /not/ mean
they describe the unchanging.

Besides, energy is defined so that the total
energy in a closed system is constant. Conservation
laws are inherently averaged and idealized in the
sense of assuming a totally closed system that
only exists on the blackboard. It never
happens in NATURE....ie the real world.

You've failed to show even one example where
the methods of science, establishing unchanging
facts, correlates to any aspect of the universe.

NOTHING in the universe can be defined exactly.
So all truth is relative and hence...subjective.

Face it, the new subjective sciences are a far
better model of reality. You like to start from the
bottom and move up to understand. That
is the old way, modern science starts now
from the top and works down. Our disagreements
and the horrors of humanity derive from a simple
frame of reference problem. Using a microscope
when a telescope is called for.


Jonathan


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are
not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality. "

Albert Einstein



s












E = W + h.



Quantity is bounded by itself.

Neither of you have heard of the uncertainty principle
or even gravity...have you?

e = h/2pi may be the single most causal statement of the 20th Cy.
But do you know how it limits the speed of light?

None of the above constitute an object, but a few
properties. None of those properties exist in isolation and
every particle in the universe is in motion.

The last is an axiom, the next an equation founded on it, the rest
above are objects. That they are percept objects or "objects of
perception" is no objection unless you care to object to your own
existence simultaneously.
That they are standardisable by external reference and protocol is
what science is all about.
I know, I know.
You're not perceiving some of your perceptions, therefore God.
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.



The charge quantities of elementary particles.


Oh pahlease! Electrons decay into a holon and a spinon.
when they're confined to one dimension ..ie when static.
In a stable state they are ....moving.
Protons and neutrons have a charge of +/-.


This should read ... Protons and neutrons are made of
quarks which have a charge of +/-.



Besides your
retreat into fundamental particles is flawed, such particles
have...by definition...no substructure. So they are not
a 'thing' or object. They are what things are made ...of.



The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.


V stands for frequency, is a wave static?
And frequency is dependent on time, yet
another non-static variable. Nice try, but
no cigar. Just because they call these
equations 'constants' does /not/ mean
they describe the unchanging.

Besides, energy is defined so that the total
energy in a closed system is constant. Conservation
laws are inherently averaged and idealized in the
sense of assuming a totally closed system that
only exists on the blackboard. It never
happens in NATURE....ie the real world.

You've failed to show even one example where
the methods of science, establishing unchanging
facts, correlates to any aspect of the universe.

NOTHING in the universe can be defined exactly.
So all truth is relative and hence...subjective.

Face it, the new subjective sciences are a far
better model of reality. You like to start from the
bottom and move up to understand. That
is the old way, modern science starts now
from the top and works down. Our disagreements
and the horrors of humanity derive from a simple
frame of reference problem. Using a microscope
when a telescope is called for.


Jonathan


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are
not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not
refer to reality. "

Albert Einstein



s












E = W + h.



Quantity is bounded by itself.

Neither of you have heard of the uncertainty principle
or even gravity...have you?

e = h/2pi may be the single most causal statement of the 20th Cy.
But do you know how it limits the speed of light?

None of the above constitute an object, but a few
properties. None of those properties exist in isolation and
every particle in the universe is in motion.

The last is an axiom, the next an equation founded on it, the rest
above are objects. That they are percept objects or "objects of
perception" is no objection unless you care to object to your own
existence simultaneously.
That they are standardisable by external reference and protocol is
what science is all about.
I know, I know.
You're not perceiving some of your perceptions, therefore God.
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

Jonathan wrote:

"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

"Dennis M. Hammes" wrote in message
...
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Jonathan wrote:

I agree completely. But much of the world fervently believes in
a personal god. This discovery would show that we are but
a drop in an ocean of life. It would be a direct challenge to
fundamentalists and creationists all over the world.

Really? want to give a cite for the "much of the world fervently
believes in a personal god"? Because unless you do some very radical
restrictiuons of what the world is, it does not appear to be anywhere
near truth.

[snip]


The daily paper constantly drips with the blood of such religious
extremism, we fear sparking more of it with good reason.

Maybe you should move town?


Scientific truth is *not* subject to majority vote. On some matters,
interpretations abound, but whatever the final facts are, they are
independent of wether 51% believe in them, or not.


I completely disagree.


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.


The charge quantities of elementary particles.

Oh pahlease! Electrons decay into a holon and a spinon.

Oh, pahlease! The decay encountered in your holon depends entirely
on the spinon the entry probe.

when they're confined to one dimension ..ie when static.
In a stable state they are ....moving.
Protons and neutrons have a charge of +/-. Besides your
retreat into fundamental particles is flawed, such particles
have...by definition...no substructure. So they are not
a 'thing' or object. They are what things are made ...of.

Holon, there, Jack. If they have no substructure, where do you get
holons and spinons?
Same place my brother got dawdits?
Strange you can't tell up from down, but we'll get to the bottom
anyway.

The spin of elementary particles.
The valence thresholds of elements.
The Fraunhofer lines at various e = hv.

V stands for frequency, is a wave static?
And frequency is dependent on time, yet
another non-static variable. Nice try, but
no cigar. Just because they call these
equations 'constants' does /not/ mean
they describe the unchanging.

"Gobby, gobby, gook, gook."

Besides, energy is defined so that the total
energy in a closed system is constant. Conservation
laws are inherently averaged and idealized in the
sense of assuming a totally closed system that
only exists on the blackboard. It never
happens in NATURE....ie the real world.

Thank you, God, for that most Englightening fling from the
highchair.

You've failed to show even one example where
the methods of science, establishing unchanging
facts, correlates to any aspect of the universe.

NOTHING in the universe can be defined exactly.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0.
If a quantity is not 1, it is 0.
...such that, if an element is in [x], its successor is in [x]
(pointing out that most infinite sets in the universe have only two
elements, or why it's so remarkable you can't figure out sets that
have only two elements).

So all truth is relative and hence...subjective.

Ah. An /autistic/ psychopath. That explains much about you, but
little about the universe (other than the one under your Mommy's
kitchen table).

Face it, the new subjective sciences are a far
better model of reality. You like to start from the
bottom and move up to understand. That
is the old way, modern science starts now
from the top and works down. Our disagreements
and the horrors of humanity derive from a simple
frame of reference problem. Using a microscope
when a telescope is called for.

"Turn her over."

Jonathan

--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org

Jonathan wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...


Truth is that which is unchanging, fixed or predictable. Such as
the great 'laws' and 'facts' of science.

Please point to me one thing in the universe that is unchanging, fixed
or predictable. JUST ONE THING!

The rest masses of elemntary particles.



The charge quantities of elementary particles.


Oh pahlease! Electrons decay into a holon and a spinon.
when they're confined to one dimension ..ie when static.
In a stable state they are ....moving.
Protons and neutrons have a charge of +/-.

This should read ... Protons and neutrons are made of
quarks which have a charge of +/-.

Gee, now you hafta prove you can't even get your modern gobbledygook
right.
Quarks have charges of +2/3 and -1/3 (and the converse).
This was "necessary" if particles were to consist in three quarks.
--
-------(m+
~/)_|
The most essential gift for a good writer is
a built-in, shock-proof, **** detector. -- Hemingway
http://scrawlmark.org