Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:51:16 PM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:50:22 PM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:56:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:59:50 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:37:51 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and reason.
Denying climate science and environmentalism is entirly political as there are
only political and profit motives and no scientific basis for it..

You really need to slow down on the caffeine, dude.

You really need to slow down on your fossil fuel use too... your words say one thing, your actions say something entirely different.

"Elliptic Curve" cryptography.

The concept is that a randomly selected 3D surface is defined by a random elliptic curve equation and the public and private key pair are selected from random points on the random surface created using the random equation, kinda sorta.

Once the keys are generated, the exact equation used to generate them is tossed and impossible to repeat.

The time taken to crack a public-private key pair of a length equivalent to
the lengths of more "traditional" methods of generating public/private key
pairs is said to be measured in "Geological time" with the only longer measure
of time being solar fuel cycles.

Did you have something relevant to the discussion to say?

Oil companies are getting hammered by investors for being oil companies..

The price of a barrel of crude is down 60 percent in the last two years.. The New York Stock Exchange index for oil and gas stocks has fallen about 25 percent over the same period. Exxon Mobil has been downgraded by Standard and Poor's for the first time since the 1930s. Royal Dutch Shell reported Wednesday its earnings fell 58 percent in the first three months of 2016 from the same period a year earlier. The Paris climate treaty aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by cutting fossil fuel emissions. Even Saudi Arabia is trying to get out of the oil business.

How can oil companies react to that sort of decline? They could quit spending billions of dollars to find oil that may eventually be worth nothing, according to Carbon Tracker, an environmental think tank.

Telling an oil company to stop looking for oil is a bit like wanting a car to become a bicycle. Searching for oil in remote, harsh locations is what oil companies have built themselves to do. But Carbon Tracker says in a report released Wednesday that companies may indeed give up ambitious, expensive exploration because, in part, such a move could be profitable.

The world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies could boost the market value of their assets by a combined $100 billion if they built their businesses around the assumption that the world's economy will become low-carbon, according to Carbon Tracker's financial analysis. That would mean they would have to stop spending billions of dollars trying to find new, expensive sources of oil and instead rely on deposits that are easier to reach.

It may seem counterintuitive to think that oil companies would be worth more if they cut back on their perpetual search for places to drill new wells. But it makes sense in a world that responds to emissions restrictions by reducing the need for oil.

Carbon Tracker estimates $2 trillion worth of energy assets could be rendered essentially worthless if climate change is addressed. That means petroleum deposits claimed by oil companies would be stranded assets -- something that has become obsolete and must be recorded as a financial loss.

Some big oil companies are beginning to acknowledge that climate change poses a risk to their usual way of doing business. But the industry is still a long way from making the huge shift that Carbon Tracker argues would be truly beneficial to shareholders.



Devastating wildfires tore through the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada, on Tuesday, razing entire neighborhoods and displacing nearly 80,000 people. Unusually hot, dry weather contributed to the blaze, which experts say may be linked to temperature increases associated with climate change..

"The conditions that made these wildfires possible -- namely, the unusually warm and dry winter the region has experienced -- almost certainly had a climate change component," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

The past few months have been some of the hottest in history. Temperatures in Alberta reached records heights in May, topping 90 degrees on Tuesday -- 40 degrees above average for early spring. While unusual, those sorts of record temperatures are consistent with the steady warming of Canada's western provinces.

"Historical data show that this region has warmed appreciably over the past half century," Mann said. "Alberta lies right within the bullseye of this pattern of anomalous warmth."

Hotter-than-usual temperatures, combined with with high winds and low snow melt, have significantly increased wildfire risk in the region. "The forest area burned in Alberta has more than doubled" over the last 50 years, Mann said.

Over 300 wildfires have rocked Alberta since March, a full month before fire season usually begins, according to the province's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Over 7,000 wildfires burned through 4 million hectares of land across the country last year, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre.

The conditions are also due in part to El Nino, which typically causes dry weather in Canada, experts say. But rising global temperatures have made an already dry winter even drier, according to Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"Things dry out a bit quicker, the vegetation gets tinder dry, setting the stage for wildfires," Trenberth told HuffPost. "In general in the west of North America the fire season has become many weeks longer that it was prior to the 1970s as a result."

In addition to getting longer, fire season is also becoming more intense.

"[Wildfires] have certainly come more ferociously in the years gone by," Darby Allen, a fire chief in Alberta, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. "We've had four significant fires in the last five days or so, and that is pretty intense."

Wildfires burned over 10 million acres in the U.S. last year, setting a national record. This year's fire season may be even longer and hotter in some parts of the country than it has been in the past, experts say.

DENIER FUNDING
"Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives."
They've convinced an easily fooled group to follow their script.

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 12:18:05 AM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:51:16 PM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 10:50:22 PM UTC-5, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:56:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 12:59:50 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:57:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:37:51 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

Accepting established science is not political. It's just data and reason.
Denying climate science and environmentalism is entirly political as there are
only political and profit motives and no scientific basis for it.

You really need to slow down on the caffeine, dude.

You really need to slow down on your fossil fuel use too... your words say one thing, your actions say something entirely different.

"Elliptic Curve" cryptography.

The concept is that a randomly selected 3D surface is defined by a random elliptic curve equation and the public and private key pair are selected from random points on the random surface created using the random equation, kinda sorta.

Once the keys are generated, the exact equation used to generate them is tossed and impossible to repeat.

The time taken to crack a public-private key pair of a length equivalent to
the lengths of more "traditional" methods of generating public/private key
pairs is said to be measured in "Geological time" with the only longer measure
of time being solar fuel cycles.

Did you have something relevant to the discussion to say?

Oil companies are getting hammered by investors for being oil companies.

The price of a barrel of crude is down 60 percent in the last two years. The New York Stock Exchange index for oil and gas stocks has fallen about 25 percent over the same period. Exxon Mobil has been downgraded by Standard and Poor's for the first time since the 1930s. Royal Dutch Shell reported Wednesday its earnings fell 58 percent in the first three months of 2016 from the same period a year earlier. The Paris climate treaty aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by cutting fossil fuel emissions. Even Saudi Arabia is trying to get out of the oil business.

How can oil companies react to that sort of decline? They could quit spending billions of dollars to find oil that may eventually be worth nothing, according to Carbon Tracker, an environmental think tank.

Telling an oil company to stop looking for oil is a bit like wanting a car to become a bicycle. Searching for oil in remote, harsh locations is what oil companies have built themselves to do. But Carbon Tracker says in a report released Wednesday that companies may indeed give up ambitious, expensive exploration because, in part, such a move could be profitable.

The world's seven largest publicly traded oil companies could boost the market value of their assets by a combined $100 billion if they built their businesses around the assumption that the world's economy will become low-carbon, according to Carbon Tracker's financial analysis. That would mean they would have to stop spending billions of dollars trying to find new, expensive sources of oil and instead rely on deposits that are easier to reach.

It may seem counterintuitive to think that oil companies would be worth more if they cut back on their perpetual search for places to drill new wells. But it makes sense in a world that responds to emissions restrictions by reducing the need for oil.

Carbon Tracker estimates $2 trillion worth of energy assets could be rendered essentially worthless if climate change is addressed. That means petroleum deposits claimed by oil companies would be stranded assets -- something that has become obsolete and must be recorded as a financial loss.

Some big oil companies are beginning to acknowledge that climate change poses a risk to their usual way of doing business. But the industry is still a long way from making the huge shift that Carbon Tracker argues would be truly beneficial to shareholders.



Devastating wildfires tore through the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta, Canada, on Tuesday, razing entire neighborhoods and displacing nearly 80,000 people. Unusually hot, dry weather contributed to the blaze, which experts say may be linked to temperature increases associated with climate change.

"The conditions that made these wildfires possible -- namely, the unusually warm and dry winter the region has experienced -- almost certainly had a climate change component," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

The past few months have been some of the hottest in history. Temperatures in Alberta reached records heights in May, topping 90 degrees on Tuesday -- 40 degrees above average for early spring. While unusual, those sorts of record temperatures are consistent with the steady warming of Canada's western provinces.

"Historical data show that this region has warmed appreciably over the past half century," Mann said. "Alberta lies right within the bullseye of this pattern of anomalous warmth."

Hotter-than-usual temperatures, combined with with high winds and low snow melt, have significantly increased wildfire risk in the region. "The forest area burned in Alberta has more than doubled" over the last 50 years, Mann said.

Over 300 wildfires have rocked Alberta since March, a full month before fire season usually begins, according to the province's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Over 7,000 wildfires burned through 4 million hectares of land across the country last year, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre.

The conditions are also due in part to El Nino, which typically causes dry weather in Canada, experts say. But rising global temperatures have made an already dry winter even drier, according to Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"Things dry out a bit quicker, the vegetation gets tinder dry, setting the stage for wildfires," Trenberth told HuffPost. "In general in the west of North America the fire season has become many weeks longer that it was prior to the 1970s as a result."

In addition to getting longer, fire season is also becoming more intense.

"[Wildfires] have certainly come more ferociously in the years gone by," Darby Allen, a fire chief in Alberta, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. "We've had four significant fires in the last five days or so, and that is pretty intense."

Wildfires burned over 10 million acres in the U.S. last year, setting a national record. This year's fire season may be even longer and hotter in some parts of the country than it has been in the past, experts say.

DENIER FUNDING
"Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives."
They've convinced an easily fooled group to follow their script.

Ten different temperature records that all tell the same story--continued global warming. These include the primary surface temperature thermometer records (NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT); satellite measurements of the lower troposphere temperature processed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH); and 5 major reanalysis datasets which incorporate station data, aircraft data, satellite data, radiosonde data, buoy and ship measurements, and meteorological weather modeling. Also see the "Temperature Composite" graphic, which shows just the surface temperature and satellite series.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=14

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 1:19:24 AM UTC-4, slurpiemcdouble'bot wrote:

Ten different temperature records that all tell the same story--continued global warming.

How far back do those "records" go, 'bot?

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:17:44 AM UTC-4, slurpiemcdouble'bot wrote:
Scorching temperatures brought on by climate change could leave large swaths of the Middle East

Middle East -- Fossil Fuel -- CO2 -- AGW?? -- Middle East too hot?? -- Less Fossil Fuel from Middle East -- Less CO2 -- Less AGW?? -- Middle East less hot??

Hmmm.... Seems we might have a negative feedback loop here.

(If you want to say that there's a problem, then ACT as if there IS a problem, hypocrite.)

On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Well, I disagree that a theory can't be a perfect representation of
reality.

Wow! Really? Then you are fatally out of step with scientific thought.
This represents a characteristic example of that:

http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0244

That is not scientific thought, that is philosophical thought. It is
central to the philosophical area of ontology, which I consider little
more than mental masturbation- a nearly useless discipline.

I think most of our modern theory will be extended, not supplanted by
new theory.

So you don't believe GR supplanted Newtonian gravity?

No.

I disagree. If a theory produces results that match reality, it
perfectly explains reality.

Wow! Agin you fail to understand physics. There is no such thing as
"perfectly explains": close but no cigar.

I think I understand physics just fine. Again, you are conflating
physics and philosophy.

Would you prefer "yes, beyond reasonably doubt"? MOND is, of course,
almost entirely rejected on the basis of observations.

Not so fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_McGaugh

"his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way[15] and the
velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda
spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."

It looks to me that support for any given theory is a matter of the gut
at this point in time.

Uh, no. MOND is dead. It is explicitly disproven on too many other
fronts. And it is not an alternative to dark matter, in any case.

GR is robustly supported by all experimental evidence from scales of
nanometers to the size of the Universe.

GR is pretty much a nonentity at "nanometer" scales since e/m effects
totally dominate and gravitation is insignificant.

Nanometer scales are the smallest where gravitational effects can
still be measured against the "noise" of EM and QM effects.

The fact that GR's equations can be derived from quantum thinking, but not
the reverse, says that GR ain't the cat's meow:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501135

Again, all I think a developed QM explanation of gravity will do is
extend GR, not replace it. GR will remain valid.

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 8:27:25 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 19:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Well, I disagree that a theory can't be a perfect representation of
reality.

Wow! Really? Then you are fatally out of step with scientific thought.
This represents a characteristic example of that:

http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0244

That is not scientific thought, that is philosophical thought.

Of course, but your idea is also "philosophical thought," which is contrary
to the concept of experimental science.

It is central to the philosophical area of ontology, which I consider little
more than mental masturbation- a nearly useless discipline.

But you're doing it too :-)

I think most of our modern theory will be extended, not supplanted by
new theory.

So you don't believe GR supplanted Newtonian gravity?

No.

So sure you are.

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- Charles Darwin

I disagree. If a theory produces results that match reality, it
perfectly explains reality.

Wow! Agin you fail to understand physics. There is no such thing as
"perfectly explains": close but no cigar.

I think I understand physics just fine. Again, you are conflating
physics and philosophy.

Nope, I'm echoing the fact that experimental error ALWAYS exists, so we can
never be absolutely sure that our theories match the way the universe
actually works, and our experience to date justifies that. You seem to be
in Max Tegmark's camp, which I consider just a bit delusional.

Would you prefer "yes, beyond reasonably doubt"? MOND is, of course,
almost entirely rejected on the basis of observations.

Not so fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_McGaugh

"his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way[15] and the
velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda
spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."

It looks to me that support for any given theory is a matter of the gut
at this point in time.

Uh, no. MOND is dead. It is explicitly disproven on too many other
fronts. And it is not an alternative to dark matter, in any case.

It was an alternative, one I didn't like because it plays fast and loose
with energy conservation. But yes, observations like the Bullet Cluster
and low surface brightness dwarf galaxies put it in grave doubt.

You seem to be of the opinion that either there is only one cause for
velocity-dispersion phenomena a la Occam's razor, but the universe is
greater than Sir William and dark matter may have more than one cause.

GR is robustly supported by all experimental evidence from scales of
nanometers to the size of the Universe.

GR is pretty much a nonentity at "nanometer" scales since e/m effects
totally dominate and gravitation is insignificant.

Nanometer scales are the smallest where gravitational effects can
still be measured against the "noise" of EM and QM effects.

Assertion without evidence. The effect of one electron difference in charge
between two dense masses is 10^28 times greater than the gravitational
effect of the masses. Seems that we have a case of extraordinary claims :-|

The fact that GR's equations can be derived from quantum thinking, but not
the reverse, says that GR ain't the cat's meow:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501135

Again, all I think a developed QM explanation of gravity will do is
extend GR, not replace it. GR will remain valid.

Of course if what you mean by "valid" is "useful" in a practical sense.
Newton's law of gravitation is in the same category, but neither fit your
criterion of being "a perfect representation of reality." And when a
quantum theory of gravity is developed, it won't be either. All theories
will always be "rules of thumb." It's just that some will be better rules
than others.

On Sat, 7 May 2016 05:06:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Wow! Really? Then you are fatally out of step with scientific thought.
This represents a characteristic example of that:

http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0244

That is not scientific thought, that is philosophical thought.

Of course, but your idea is also "philosophical thought," which is contrary
to the concept of experimental science.

Which idea?

It is central to the philosophical area of ontology, which I consider little
more than mental masturbation- a nearly useless discipline.

But you're doing it too :-)

Doing what?

I think most of our modern theory will be extended, not supplanted by
new theory.

So you don't believe GR supplanted Newtonian gravity?

No.

So sure you are.

If GR supplanted Newtonian gravity, why to we still use Newtonian
theory for so much (including our space missions and planetary orbital
calculations)? It's because Newtonian gravity is identical to GR in
the limit of inertial frames. GR extends Newton, it doesn't replace
it. So of course I'm "sure". This is an example of a fact, not an
opinion. Facts are true or false.

I think I understand physics just fine. Again, you are conflating
physics and philosophy.

Nope, I'm echoing the fact that experimental error ALWAYS exists, so we can
never be absolutely sure that our theories match the way the universe
actually works, and our experience to date justifies that.

What does experiment have to do with it. Perhaps you mean
"observational error"? But so what? Not being "absolutely sure"
doesn't mean that theory can't perfectly represent reality.

Again, all I think a developed QM explanation of gravity will do is
extend GR, not replace it. GR will remain valid.

Of course if what you mean by "valid" is "useful" in a practical sense.
Newton's law of gravitation is in the same category, but neither fit your
criterion of being "a perfect representation of reality." And when a
quantum theory of gravity is developed, it won't be either. All theories
will always be "rules of thumb." It's just that some will be better rules
than others.

But I do consider Newton's law of gravitation to be a perfect
representation of reality.

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 3:34:50 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:


But I do consider Newton's law of gravitation to be a perfect
representation of reality.

You look amazingly lonely these days and with good reason and even if I largely indifferent , it must seem somewhat exciting for others to realize there was no theory of gravity, not even a law of gravity, there was just an attempt to fit astronomy in experimental sciences known as the 'scientific method' -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

There is a paint-by-numbers explanation which they couldn't figure out in the early part of the last century nor the centuries all the way back to Newton as mathematicians eagerly accepted the method itself but hadn't a clue how to equate experimental sciences with astronomy (Universal qualities) -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." Rouse Ball 1908

There is not the slightest sign that the followers of Newton himself appreciate even the founding rule of empiricism nor, judging from the internal dialogue which now has run its course, why it is a huge waste of time notwithstanding the vandalism wrought on astronomy to get the agenda up and running.

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 8:34:50 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 7 May 2016 05:06:44 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Wow! Really? Then you are fatally out of step with scientific thought.
This represents a characteristic example of that:

http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0244

That is not scientific thought, that is philosophical thought.

Of course, but your idea is also "philosophical thought," which is contrary
to the concept of experimental science.

Which idea?

Belief in a perfect theory out there somewhe

"Well, I disagree that a theory can't be a perfect representation of
reality."

It is central to the philosophical area of ontology, which I consider
little more than mental masturbation- a nearly useless discipline.

But you're doing it too :-)

Doing what?

The concept of a "perfect theory" is philosophy, not science.

I think most of our modern theory will be extended, not supplanted by
new theory.

So you don't believe GR supplanted Newtonian gravity?

No.

So sure you are.

If GR supplanted Newtonian gravity, why to we still use Newtonian
theory for so much (including our space missions and planetary orbital
calculations)? It's because Newtonian gravity is identical to GR in
the limit of inertial frames. GR extends Newton, it doesn't replace
it. So of course I'm "sure". This is an example of a fact, not an
opinion.

Newtonian gravity is based on gravitational force, GR is based on the
bending of spacetime, i.e., gravity is not a force. The theories are quite
different although their predictions agree within experimental error in
many cases, including getting spacecraft around the solar system. But
NG cannot explain the Shapiro effect, Gravity Probe B and Mercury's precise
perihelion advance. GR is VERY different from NG. Ironically, a quantum
theory of gravity will most likely return to a force particle, the graviton.

Facts are true or false.

"Facts" are measurements. You do this and you measure that. Theories are
NOT facts. Theories are generalizations of measurements, but future
measurements may refute any given theory, as NG was refuted by the amount
of bending of starlight around the sun, gravitational time dilation, etc.

I think I understand physics just fine. Again, you are conflating
physics and philosophy.

Nope, I'm echoing the fact that experimental error ALWAYS exists, so we can
never be absolutely sure that our theories match the way the universe
actually works, and our experience to date justifies that.

What does experiment have to do with it.

Everything.

Perhaps you mean "observational error"?

So you don't believe observation is performed in an experiment?

But so what? Not being "absolutely sure" doesn't mean that theory can't
perfectly represent reality.

I think it does. The results of an experiment have error bars, so you can
never be sure your theory "perfectly represents reality." How could you
possibly know that a theory does so? You can't. You can only assert that
it does without a shred of evidence. Your argument would be based on
philosophy, not science.

Again, all I think a developed QM explanation of gravity will do is
extend GR, not replace it. GR will remain valid.

Of course if what you mean by "valid" is "useful" in a practical sense.
Newton's law of gravitation is in the same category, but neither fit your
criterion of being "a perfect representation of reality." And when a
quantum theory of gravity is developed, it won't be either. All theories
will always be "rules of thumb." It's just that some will be better rules
than others.

But I do consider Newton's law of gravitation to be a perfect
representation of reality.

Then you are a fool. It doesn't predict many things in our solar system
that have been experimentally confirmed. Sorry, but that's the only way
to describe someone who makes such an outrageous assertion.

On Sat, 7 May 2016 10:06:49 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 3:34:50 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:


But I do consider Newton's law of gravitation to be a perfect
representation of reality.

You look amazingly lonely these days and with good reason and even if I largely indifferent , it must seem somewhat exciting for others to realize there was no theory of gravity, not even a law of gravity, there was just an attempt to fit astronomy in experimental sciences known as the 'scientific method' -

As long as we apply Newton's law of gravitation within its specific
limits, where has it ever been found to deviate, in the slightest,
from observation? That is my definition of representing reality.