Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 6:35:31 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

There was no law of gravitation, there is only the 'scientific method' and the tragedy that hit human interest in astronomy when experimental theorists introduced their own conclusions on existing astronomical methods and insights.

You live under the illusion that experimental sciences scale up to planetary motions as this is the central theme of Newton's agenda but first he had to reduce astronomy into experimental sciences . Rouse Ball showed integrity as did a few of his contemporaries in announcing they had no clue as to how he went about this process but I most certainly do and it is appalling.

Whether it is a privilege or not to witness the scheme outlined as I have done depends on whether people of intelligence and integrity are around who can make sense of it but it is a project of hope for those living today.

You are better suited to the cat fight with the anonymous guy if you really believe there was a theory of gravity contained in Newton's agenda,great of you can get away with it for a few centuries but then someone shows up who can put it is context and the tragedy that it is.

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 11:35:31 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

Well of course it doesn't deviate from observation within "specific" limits
when you are free to specify what those limits are. Your assertion here is
denial that NG is a perfect theory. If you can't understand that, then you
are ... well, I already said what you are. But I'm glad to see that you
are backtracking from that ridiculous claim. There is hope for you yet.

On Sat, 7 May 2016 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 11:35:31 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

Well of course it doesn't deviate from observation within "specific" limits
when you are free to specify what those limits are. Your assertion here is
denial that NG is a perfect theory. If you can't understand that, then you
are ... well, I already said what you are. But I'm glad to see that you
are backtracking from that ridiculous claim. There is hope for you yet.

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.
So I do suggest that it represents reality, and is very unlikely to be
replaced. The limits are not arbitrary, but have physical basis. The
same is likely to apply to GR- it perfectly describes reality within
some set of boundary conditions, and may ultimately be extended into
other conditions by additional theory.

I watched a movie last night which addressed the disaster that visited many working people ,some who fancied themselves as shrewd investors and built up a portfolio in real estate only to see the mirage evaporate and taking with it a lot of pensions. I remember reading at the time about the mathematical modelling which created the distortion where anyone could be a financial wiz but this was largely absent from the movie apart from showing that a few people could see the disaster looming ,more like looking at the symptoms for a collapse rather than the actual cause -

http://www.wired.com/2009/02/wp-quant/

The author of that article can't help but be impressed by the mathematical modelling which was translated into greed in minds of bankers but even though it created untold misery for so many ordinary people, these people got off scot-free and so continues the greed.

The financial modelling disaster of the last decade is nothing compared to what happened to astronomy in an attempt to reduce astronomy to experimental sciences where anyone could model their own version of the Universe by whatever means necessary to arrive at a conclusion. I looked at how it was originally done by Newton and there is this sinking feeling that even though the structure is relatively simple and easy to plot in a paint-by-numbers sort of way, there may be nobody with any interest in what was done and for what purpose.

The cost for humanity is terrible as they are locked in an internal dialogue of theorists that is neither fraud nor fable but a mixture of both. The centers of the mind which handle long term observations are suffocated and that is dangerous as Western society needs people with heart and intelligence to balance short term advantage over long term policy instead of driving for short term gains.

The empirical version of the rating agencies who helped create the financial mess is the peer review system of academics which is a vehicle used to maintain the fiction of the laws of gravity,motion,physics , nature and so on. It is what keeps people here acting as cheerleaders for Newton, Einstein even though none of them understand what Newton actually did to get his agenda to fly even if I do.

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 6:50:42 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 11:35:31 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

Well of course it doesn't deviate from observation within "specific" limits
when you are free to specify what those limits are. Your assertion here is
denial that NG is a perfect theory. If you can't understand that, then you
are ... well, I already said what you are. But I'm glad to see that you
are backtracking from that ridiculous claim. There is hope for you yet.

It's very amusing to watch peterson present his tautologies and to walk his original arguments around to say the opposite of what he initially claimed.
In politics that's called "spin."

H
e also likes to redefine words on the fly or use obscure, inappropriate definitions.

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

On Sat, 7 May 2016 15:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 11:35:31 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

Well of course it doesn't deviate from observation within "specific" limits
when you are free to specify what those limits are. Your assertion here is
denial that NG is a perfect theory. If you can't understand that, then you
are ... well, I already said what you are. But I'm glad to see that you
are backtracking from that ridiculous claim. There is hope for you yet.

What claim?

THAT one:

NG appears to be a perfect theory.

You ask questions you already know the answer to.

It can be derived from GR as the limiting case for a non-accelerated
frame and zero velocity.

And assuming the speed of light is infinite and time is absolute. And,
of course, no planet has zero velocity wrt a laboratory on earth.

So I do suggest that it represents reality,

Sure, sure, and the nice men in white will be here soon, so don't worry.

and is very unlikely to be replaced.

Why would anyone use GR if NG gave a sufficiently close prediction? That
doesn't work for Mercury's orbit though, nor does it work for light bending
around the sun nor for Shapiro delay. For those phenomena NG has already
been replaced.

The limits are not arbitrary, but have physical basis.

Of course they have a "physical" basis, but they are still arbitrary: the
limits are determined by how accurate a prediction you require and how
precise your equipment is.

The same is likely to apply to GR- it perfectly describes reality within
some set of boundary conditions, and may ultimately be extended into
other conditions by additional theory.

You have a really, really strange definition of "perfectly" :-))

And "boundary conditions" have nothing to do with it. There is no way
to "extend" a theory that requires FTL interaction at a distance and
absolute time.

On Sun, 8 May 2016 04:39:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Well of course it doesn't deviate from observation within "specific" limits
when you are free to specify what those limits are. Your assertion here is
denial that NG is a perfect theory. If you can't understand that, then you
are ... well, I already said what you are. But I'm glad to see that you
are backtracking from that ridiculous claim. There is hope for you yet.

What claim?

THAT one:

NG appears to be a perfect theory.

You ask questions you already know the answer to.

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

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 8:58:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 04:39:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Well of course it doesn't deviate from observation within "specific"
limits when you are free to specify what those limits are. Your
assertion here is denial that NG is a perfect theory. If you can't
understand that, then you are ... well, I already said what you are.
But I'm glad to see that you are backtracking from that ridiculous
claim. There is hope for you yet.

What claim?

THAT one:

NG appears to be a perfect theory.

You ask questions you already know the answer to.

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.

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein

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. (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.)

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.

John Savard