Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 3:00:36 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 6:11:57 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

What claim? NG appears to be a perfect theory. It can be derived from
GR as the limiting case for a non-accelerated frame and zero velocity.

But actual moving bodies do not have zero velocity, and acceleration is a real
phenomenon - and Newtonian mechanics purports to describe the behavior of
accelerated bodies.

A theory which produces results that cease to be correct after ten or twenty
decimal places is not *perfect*, however good and useful and practical it might
be. The binomial theorem is perfect in the ordinary sense of the word "perfect"
- utterly and absolutely free of every flaw and imperfection, however tiny.

....on the other hand, if someone tried to come to me and tell me that Newtonian
mechanics was somehow "wrong" I would dismiss him out of hand.

It may have limitations, but relativity is generally viewed with good reason as
supplementing it, not overthrowing it.

So it is indeed solid and well-founded, in no danger of being overthrown in its
domain of applicability. I just wouldn't use the word "perfect" for that, as
that is not the word for what you mean - what "perfect" actually does mean will
lead to you being misunderstood.

John Savard

On Sun, 8 May 2016 14:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 6:11:57 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

What claim? NG appears to be a perfect theory. It can be derived from
GR as the limiting case for a non-accelerated frame and zero velocity.

But actual moving bodies do not have zero velocity, and acceleration is a real
phenomenon - and Newtonian mechanics purports to describe the behavior of
accelerated bodies.

No, but a limiting case can still be a perfect representation of
reality.

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 11:28:24 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2016 14:00:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 6:11:57 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

What claim? NG appears to be a perfect theory. It can be derived from
GR as the limiting case for a non-accelerated frame and zero velocity.

But actual moving bodies do not have zero velocity, and acceleration is a real
phenomenon - and Newtonian mechanics purports to describe the behavior of
accelerated bodies.

No, but a limiting case can still be a perfect representation of
reality.

The whole empirical scheme is brought front and center today as the rare event of a planetary transit also represents a planet at the center of its retrograde motion.

It doesn't really matter if there is nobody around to comprehend what Newton did or tried to do, only that this was how he engineered, if in the worst possible sense, the attempt to reduce astronomy to modeling at a human scale.

The retrogrades of an outer planet generated a loop to the eyes of the original geocentric astronomers -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

The original heliocentric astronomers rightly accounted for the periodic spirals as a consequence of a moving Earth and by extension the Sun at the center of the solar system. Kepler rendered the Earth's faster orbital circuit with the slower Mars -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils,
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...retrograde.jpg

The justification for the scientific method in attempting to reduce planetary dynamics to experimental sciences was the need to reduce astronomical insights and methods to an experimental footing and it was done with the double modeling of retrogrades. Newton's belief is that retrogrades are geocentric and by placing the Sun at the center of the diagram that retrogrades disappear -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton


There was no theory of gravity ,at least in any meaningful way, there was however a terrible injustice visited on humanity and particularly its relationship to astronomy when experimental theorists building on Newton created a junkyard out of the celestial arena and it still continues unabated to this day.

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 10:22:37 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 08:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

No, I didn't know, because you referenced a claim I'd "backtracked"
on, and there wasn't one.

Of COURSE there was. You backtracked on your claim that NG is a perfect
theory by claiming it had limitations. You seem to change definitions
every time you blather.

Careful there, you're starting to sound as foolish as Snell.

I'm not the one using the word "perfect" imperfectly :-)

A clarification is not backtracking. You did not understand the basis of
my claim, so I explained in more detail. If you choose to treat that
as a change of position, you're as useless as Snell in any reasonable
discussion. (If I didn't know that you live down the mountain from me,
while Snell lives in Snellville, I'd think you were his sock puppet.)

Careful there, yourself. You are trying to justify use of "perfect" wrongly.
Listen to Savard. He has it almost right.

What he has wrong is that GR is an extension of NG. GR is a completely
different way of looking at gravity (one which I believe will turn out to
be "wrong" because the concept of "bending" spacetime, although useful,
does not describe a fundamental feature of gravity). The concept of the
graviton at first appears to be closer to NG, but it's not really.

Gary

On Mon, 9 May 2016 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

What he has wrong is that GR is an extension of NG.

Semantics. We could say that GR extended NG. We could say that NG is a
subset of GR. There are lots of ways of connecting the two.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 7:21:13 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

What he has wrong is that GR is an extension of NG.

Semantics. We could say that GR extended NG. We could say that NG is a
subset of GR. There are lots of ways of connecting the two.

Only in a chronological sense.

On Mon, 9 May 2016 06:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 7:21:13 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

What he has wrong is that GR is an extension of NG.

Semantics. We could say that GR extended NG. We could say that NG is a
subset of GR. There are lots of ways of connecting the two.

Only in a chronological sense.

I disagree.

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:38:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 06:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 7:21:13 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

What he has wrong is that GR is an extension of NG.

Semantics. We could say that GR extended NG. We could say that NG is a
subset of GR. There are lots of ways of connecting the two.

Only in a chronological sense.

I disagree.

Nobody cares what you do with your brain.

On Mon, 9 May 2016 16:51:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:38:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 06:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 7:21:13 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

What he has wrong is that GR is an extension of NG.

Semantics. We could say that GR extended NG. We could say that NG is a
subset of GR. There are lots of ways of connecting the two.

Only in a chronological sense.

I disagree.

Nobody cares what you do with your brain.

That sounds like Snell again, more interested in empty insults than
engaged discussion.

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 12:22:37 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2016 08:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

No, I didn't know, because you referenced a claim I'd "backtracked"
on, and there wasn't one.

Of COURSE there was. You backtracked on your claim that NG is a perfect
theory by claiming it had limitations. You seem to change definitions
every time you blather.

Careful there, you're starting to sound as foolish as Snell. A
clarification is not backtracking. You did not understand the basis of
my claim, so I explained in more detail. If you choose to treat that
as a change of position, you're as useless as Snell in any reasonable
discussion.

peterson, I agree that you "backtracked" on your claim. You do it all of the time, whether you realize it or not.