Truth ???????????????

To You All My theme was to show our science (theories) are not the whole
"truth" The better the theory the closer to the truth. Did not say
Einstien's theories of relativity proved Newton wrong. Fact is Newton's
laws of motion work very nicely when velocities are small as compared to
that of light. SR works better at "c' Newton's law of gravitation
works very well when gravitational forces are not to intense.
GR works with very strong gravity. Better approximation is the
difference. GR cannot be used when one has to consider distances less
than about 10-^33 centimeters,or a times less than 10-^43 Best to keep
in mind that at such times and distances quantum actions become
important(quantum fluctuations). Well I'll keep defending my post of
"truth" as long as you remember I'm using "truth" in the sense of
obtaining and "exact" understanding of what is happening in nature.
The defence does not rest,and will be back. Bert

You could have fooled me, BEERT!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:41:40 -0500, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

To You All My theme was to show our science (theories) are not the whole
"truth" The better the theory the closer to the truth. Did not say
Einstien's theories of relativity proved Newton wrong. Fact is Newton's
laws of motion work very nicely when velocities are small as compared to
that of light. SR works better at "c' Newton's law of gravitation
works very well when gravitational forces are not to intense.
GR works with very strong gravity. Better approximation is the
difference. GR cannot be used when one has to consider distances less
than about 10-^33 centimeters,or a times less than 10-^43 Best to keep
in mind that at such times and distances quantum actions become
important(quantum fluctuations). Well I'll keep defending my post of
"truth" as long as you remember I'm using "truth" in the sense of
obtaining and "exact" understanding of what is happening in nature.
The defence does not rest,and will be back. Bert

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:41:40 -0500, G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

To You All My theme was to show our science (theories) are not the whole
"truth" The better the theory the closer to the truth. Did not say
Einstien's theories of relativity proved Newton wrong.

They were only a minor correction to it when near light speeds were
involved, saucerhead.

--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
Bartlo's hate lits #1:
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.

The Way of the Kook:
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm

in ups.com
Raving Loonie shows his homoerotical masturbatory fantasms:
"Wank on, twit."

in
Alexa "Crackpot" Cameron explains electromagnetism, and how
the sun has an 'iron core':
"The sun and the earth are 'magnets', each with an iron
based core, and both have an electrical force between them."

in Message-ID:
Mark "Woody" Ferguson shows his mastery of the English language:
"With patients and practice you could be nominated next time around..."

in Message-MID:
Mark "The illiterate" Ferguson astonishes everybody saying:
"Oh, for ****s sake, Gary no matter how angery he thinks he makes there
are lines I will not cross unless I believe what I say is the true, I
know more then you."

in Message-ID:
Alexa "Tequila Titsz" Cameron explains world religions:
"The jews roots are islamic."

in Message-ID:
Alexa "dumbass" Cameron shows her knowledge of history:
"WRONGO. There was NO Bible before King James had it written."

in Message-ID:
Alexa "Word Salad" Cameron shows her knowledge of science:
"Einstein never found the double superimposed doubl 'equilateral' triangle."

in Message-ID:
Alexa "Kook of the year 2004" Cameron uses words she doesn't understand again:
"Why is the Pentagon killing American citizens with non-lethal technology?"

in Message-ID:
Alexa "Imnotalexadammit" Cameron has problems with that extra finger
on her hand:
"Why do the Jews use the Star of David as symbolic of the Pentagon, or
Pentagram?"

reminder: Message-ID: in
The quote naziwhore Don Ocean stole.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

To You All My theme was to show our science (theories) are not the whole
"truth" The better the theory the closer to the truth. Did not say
Einstien's theories of relativity proved Newton wrong. Fact is Newton's
laws of motion work very nicely when velocities are small as compared to
that of light. SR works better at "c' Newton's law of gravitation
works very well when gravitational forces are not to intense.
GR works with very strong gravity. Better approximation is the
difference. GR cannot be used when one has to consider distances less
than about 10-^33 centimeters,or a times less than 10-^43 Best to keep
in mind that at such times and distances quantum actions become
important(quantum fluctuations). Well I'll keep defending my post of
"truth" as long as you remember I'm using "truth" in the sense of
obtaining and "exact" understanding of what is happening in nature.
The defence does not rest,and will be back. Bert

It's good that you defined it, Bert, because what you are
obtaining are "facts", not "truth". The problem may be that
what many people relate "truth" to is philosophy, whereas
"facts" are related to science. Some would argue that this
is merely a semantics argument, but it's truly and factually
much more...

What really matters is what rings in people's ears!

Otherwise, what you SAY (or WRITE) and what they
HEAR (or READ) can easily be two different things.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Be very wary...
For Life will zooomm past ya,
Pay heed when you hear
Tempus fugit ad astra!

http://www.nelson-atkins.org/tempusfugit/

Dates in calendar are closer than they appear!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Hi Painius Right you are. The new hate mongers that are trying to push
us old timers out do it by complete disagreement. Hard to discuss
thoughts on science when they are just showing their Muslin religion and
all the bigotry that it stands for. Well getting back to physics and
its use of approximation here is a good example. Those that work at the
Cern accelerator can only give the best approximation as to the out come
of the experiments. Bert

From Painius:

It's good that you defined it, Bert,
because what you are obtaining are
"facts", not "truth".

"Consensus reality" is what defines whatever 'truth' or 'facts' are
currently in vogue. Ptolemaic geocentrism was absolute 'fact' to the
smartest people of their day. Today the reigning intelligencia's
absolute 'truth' is that space is functionally a void.
Indeed there is nothing new under the sun. oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Painius:

It's good that you defined it, Bert,
because what you are obtaining are
"facts", not "truth".

"Consensus reality" is what defines whatever 'truth' or 'facts' are
currently in vogue. Ptolemaic geocentrism was absolute 'fact' to the
smartest people of their day. Today the reigning intelligencia's
absolute 'truth' is that space is functionally a void.
Indeed there is nothing new under the sun. oc

The saucerhead always goes back to the aether trough to munch.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy

"The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with
both male and female genitalia."

"Human beings CAN NOT live in a solar system without a sun
with a ferrite core and a planet without a solid iron core."

-- Alexa Cameron, Kook of the Year 2004

"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka ...

Hi Painius I used the word "truth" for this post for this reason.
Science is a search for the truth. Bert

Hi oc Quantum space,and the proof there are waves in space is in this
spacetime is changing our view of space. The word "fabric" will take the
place of Vacuum Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

Hi Painius I used the word "truth" for this post for this reason.
Science is a search for the truth. Bert

Yes, and science is also so much, much more, Bert.

So to continue, science must search for FACTS with
which to support an hypothesized "truth".

Take Gamow for instance... He searched for an origin for
our Universe. And he came up with what was later to be
unfortunately named "The Big Bang". Ever since, science
has been hard at work searching for FACTS which would
support Gamow's hypothesis. And so far, enough FACTS
have been found to transform Gamow's hypothesis into a
scientific theory--a very strong scientific theory.

However, science has learned to be very careful in its search
for "truth". Probably the most often cited reason for this is
Piltdown Man. Remember Piltdown Man?...

http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html

Briefly, the "truth" science was looking for was that man's
big brain came before everything else... walking upright,
eating meat, and especially tool making. And in 1913 they
found exactly the FACT that supported this "truth". They
found Piltdown Man, a skull with a human cranium and an
attached apelike jaw.

This "truth", that man's brain had become a modern size
BEFORE the other manlike traits came to be, had been so
deeply embedded in the minds of anthropologists that it
wasn't until forty years later(!) in 1953 that Piltdown Man
was exposed as a hoax. That's more than HALF an average
lifetime!

And since then a whole lot of evidence has been uncovered
which are FACTS in support of the "truth" that the big brain
of mankind came long *after* bipedalism, carnivorous eating
habits and the making of crude tools and, yes, weapons.

So yes, science often begins with a philosophical search for
"truth", and yet it must always and inevitably reach a point
where this search extends to the finding of evidentiary
FACTS to be used *in support* of that which is believed
to be a searched for and discovered "truth".

If being understood is important to you, Bert, then you must
always remember...

"Truth" is the very general, philosophical idea of reality, and

FACTS are the actual pieces of scientific evidence found
which can be used either to support or to refute the "truth".

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Twinkle twinkle little star,
I don't wonder what you are,
What i *really* want to see...
Is there someone there like me?

http://www.seti.org/

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net/