A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism Disproof



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #661  
Old September 23rd 09, 10:29 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 23, 3:48*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Robert Higgins wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:23 pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:05 pm, Robert Higgins
wrote:


What do you think this means? To me, it means that inductive reasoning
is not a "scientific method", because induction BEGINS with the
axioms, whereas science DISCOVERS the axioms.
No, sir, you have it EXACTLY backwards. Please try reading for
comprehension.


My bad - mistyping. I meant to say that "deductive" reasoning *where I
wrote "inductive".


It means induction is easier than deduction.


Ah, again we're back to not being able to read for comprehension.
  #662  
Old September 23rd 09, 10:30 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 23, 3:54*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* If by chance you are referring to Hawking, Hawking WAS wrong at
* the time he said information was irreversibly lost in a black hole.


Indeed:http://www.space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html


Yes, and this tells you what, exactly?
  #663  
Old September 23rd 09, 10:33 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

PD wrote:

Ah, again we're back to not being able to read for comprehension.


This is interpretation Mr. PD.
  #664  
Old September 23rd 09, 10:35 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

PD wrote:

Usenet is the most general and it is the ultimate test? By your
decree?

Really?

Phil, whatever you're taking daily, please double it, because it's not
a sufficient dose.


You guys have fun with wormholes!
  #665  
Old September 23rd 09, 10:39 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 23, 4:33*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Ah, again we're back to not being able to read for comprehension.


This is interpretation Mr. PD.


Uh-huh. So must be confusing inductive and deductive.
  #666  
Old September 23rd 09, 10:40 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 23, 4:35*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Usenet is the most general and it is the ultimate test? By your
decree?


Really?


Phil, whatever you're taking daily, please double it, because it's not
a sufficient dose.


You guys have fun with wormholes!


Somebody sure is. Might be worthwhile to pursue.
  #667  
Old September 23rd 09, 11:01 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Robert Higgins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 23, 5:28*pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:37*pm, Robert Higgins
wrote:



On Sep 23, 4:23*pm, PD wrote:


On Sep 23, 3:05*pm, Robert Higgins
wrote:


On Sep 23, 12:40*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:


Robert Higgins wrote:


"The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in
mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of
nature."


"In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms -
simple true statements about the way the world works. "


"In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not
the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements
about the way the world works' " (i.e., axioms) * *"really are!"


Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor.....


Nonetheless deduction remains a valid scientific method.


Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor. PD. noted the phrase:
"... did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature". Even
worse for you is the last sentence I quoted:
*"In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not
*the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements
about the way the world works' really are!"


What do you think this means? To me, it means that inductive reasoning
is not a "scientific method", because induction BEGINS with the
axioms, whereas science DISCOVERS the axioms.


No, sir, you have it EXACTLY backwards. Please try reading for
comprehension.


My bad - mistyping. I meant to say that "deductive" reasoning *where I
wrote "inductive".


How do you mistype a "d" to be an "i" and an "e" to be a "n" in that
order?


Apparently, rather easily:-) In my mind, I associated "inductive" (as
in use of "mathematical induction") with deductive (as used in P.B/'s
posts, for example). Why did I make this horrible mistake? Probably
because I am doing several things at the same time. I am sorry for not
supplying my full attention and effort to a post on which you have
graced us with your wisdom. I apologize for lying when I said I
mistyped. If I had been completely honest (and how I dare NOT be
completely honest when PD is involved), I would have written that I
was thinking of mathematical induction.

But I did write "My bad." Why should I have to apologize to you
anyway? After I did, you just gave me more ****.


So let's see. Now you are saying that deductive reasoning is NOT a
scientific method, where before you were claiming that it IS a
scientific method.


No, I never DID claim that deductive reasoning was a scientific
method. If YOU could read for comprehension (which includes context),
you would have realized I has inserted "inductive" where I had meant
"deductive", thinking of "mathematical induction".


First you can't read,


Yes, I can. I apologize if it isn't up to your standards, and if I did
not expend the effort to treat your words as the Holy Write they are.

then you can't type,


I apologize; it's true - I don't type well. I don't put as much effort
into proof reading posts on Usenet as I should, or apparently, you do.
Unlike you, I don't make hundreds of posts a week, having more things
of more consequence to do. I don't need to mock non-scientists for my
amusement to make myself feel better. What is your problem today? BTW,
with all the posting you do, how do you ever have time to actually
accomplish something in physics? Almost half the posts on this thread
(706 posts so far) are yours - arguing with someone who is wrong, and
does not care that he is wrong.

then you can't remember
what you said yourself just a few hours ago.


I remember what I said. Does it make you feel better to attack someone
who AGREED with you? WIfe dump you? Girlfriend tell you she's leaving
you for Ken Seto?

Are you sure you want to
be tackling physics?


I don't know if I am up to the intellectual heights reached by you,
misbegotten chemistry professor that I am. Could you give me a
citation to something you've written, other than a Usenet post, that
will confirm your great achievements in science?
  #668  
Old September 23rd 09, 11:16 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

PD wrote:

Somebody sure is. Might be worthwhile to pursue.


Make sure you hand Michio Kaku movies once in a while (breathing holes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BE1KRj5iiM
  #669  
Old September 23rd 09, 11:24 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 23, 5:01*pm, Robert Higgins
wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:28*pm, PD wrote:



On Sep 23, 3:37*pm, Robert Higgins
wrote:


On Sep 23, 4:23*pm, PD wrote:


On Sep 23, 3:05*pm, Robert Higgins
wrote:


On Sep 23, 12:40*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:


Robert Higgins wrote:


"The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in
mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of
nature."


"In order to use the deductive method, you need to start with axioms -
simple true statements about the way the world works. "


"In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not
the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements
about the way the world works' " (i.e., axioms) * *"really are!"


Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor.....


Nonetheless deduction remains a valid scientific method.


Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor. PD. noted the phrase:
"... did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature". Even
worse for you is the last sentence I quoted:
*"In fact, they realized that it should be the goal of science - not
*the starting place - to determine what the 'simple true statements
about the way the world works' really are!"


What do you think this means? To me, it means that inductive reasoning
is not a "scientific method", because induction BEGINS with the
axioms, whereas science DISCOVERS the axioms.


No, sir, you have it EXACTLY backwards. Please try reading for
comprehension.


My bad - mistyping. I meant to say that "deductive" reasoning *where I
wrote "inductive".


How do you mistype a "d" to be an "i" and an "e" to be a "n" in that
order?


Apparently, rather easily:-) In my mind, I associated "inductive" (as
in use of "mathematical induction") with deductive (as used in P.B/'s
posts, for example). Why did I make this horrible mistake? Probably
because I am doing several things at the same time. I am sorry for not
supplying my full attention and effort to a post on which you have
graced us with your wisdom. I apologize for lying when I said I
mistyped. If I had been completely honest (and how I dare NOT be
completely honest when PD is involved), I would have written that I
was thinking of mathematical induction.

But I did write "My bad." Why should I have to apologize to you
anyway? After I did, you just gave me more ****.



So let's see. Now you are saying that deductive reasoning is NOT a
scientific method, where before you were claiming that it IS a
scientific method.


No, I never DID claim that deductive reasoning was a scientific
method. If YOU could read for comprehension (which includes context),
you would have realized I has inserted "inductive" where I had meant
"deductive", thinking of "mathematical induction".



First you can't read,


Yes, I can. I apologize if it isn't up to your standards, and if I did
not expend the effort to treat your words as the Holy Write they are.

then you can't type,


I apologize; it's true - I don't type well. I don't put as much effort
into proof reading posts on Usenet as I should, or apparently, you do.
Unlike you, I don't make hundreds of posts a week, having more things
of more consequence to do. I don't need to mock non-scientists for my
amusement to make myself feel better. What is your problem today? BTW,
with all the posting you do, how do you ever have time to actually
accomplish something in physics? Almost half the posts on this thread
(706 posts so far) are yours - arguing with someone who is wrong, and
does not care that he is wrong.

then you can't remember
what you said yourself just a few hours ago.


I remember what I said. Does it make you feel better to attack someone
who AGREED with you? WIfe dump you? Girlfriend tell you she's leaving
you for Ken Seto?

Are you sure you want to
be tackling physics?


I don't know if I am up to the intellectual heights reached by you,
misbegotten chemistry professor that I am. Could you give me a
citation to something you've written, other than a Usenet post, that
will confirm your great achievements in science?


My apologies, Robert. I lost track of the attribution of the post and
thought I was addressing Phil.
I do regret both the error and the attitude. I'll watch more carefully
on both counts.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Finite Relativism Undisproven Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 2 August 26th 09 03:02 PM
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 1366 May 2nd 09 12:04 AM
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof Eric Gisse Astronomy Misc 0 April 3rd 09 06:14 AM
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 0 January 28th 09 10:54 AM
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 4 January 26th 09 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.