Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #654608 > unrolled thread

The purpose of science

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-03 08:31 +0200
    Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-03 15:00 +0000
      Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-03 17:14 +0200
        Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-03 17:21 +0000
          Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-03 19:48 +0200
            Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-03 18:20 +0000
              Re: The purpose of science Bernabe Baráth Lim <rber@nbenze.hu> - 2024-07-03 18:45 +0000
              Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-03 22:08 +0200
                Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-03 23:12 +0000
                  Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-04 05:28 +0200
                    Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-04 16:25 +0000
          Re: The purpose of science Viahaul Turkov Yuan <iatruo@arvru.ru> - 2024-07-03 22:42 +0000
      Re: The purpose of science Oliber Kefalas Pian <aak@saeofok.gr> - 2024-07-03 23:03 +0000
        Re: The purpose of science bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-04 02:02 +0000
    Re: The purpose of science bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-04 02:11 +0000
    Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-05 16:14 -0700
      Re: The purpose of science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-06 06:56 +0200
        Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-06 07:11 +0200
          Re: The purpose of science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-06 07:57 +0200
            Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-06 08:53 +0200
              Re: The purpose of science Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-07-07 10:15 +0200
                Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-07 10:46 +0200
                  Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-07 10:28 -0700
                    Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-07 20:51 +0200
                      Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-07 12:30 -0700
                        Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-07 12:46 -0700
                          Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-07 17:23 -0700
                        Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-07 22:10 +0200
                          Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-07 21:27 +0000
                            Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 06:16 +0200
                              Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-08 13:22 -0700
                              Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 16:33 +0200
                                Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-08 16:47 +0000
                                  Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 19:08 +0200
                                Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-08 14:49 +0000
                                  Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 17:09 +0200
                              Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-08 16:27 +0200
                              Re: The purpose of science hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-08 14:03 +0000
                          Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-07 14:51 -0700
      Re: The purpose of science Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-06 07:10 +0200
        Re: The purpose of science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-06 23:18 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#654693

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks it 
>>>>> has
>>>>> a purpose?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
>>>>
>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
>>>
>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
>>> subjects.
>>>
>> No, not quite.
> 
> Quite.
>>
>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
> 
> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
> think, making measurements can't substitute
> that. Surprise?

well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring 
device'.

TH
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654695

W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> 
>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks 
>>>>>> it has
>>>>>> a purpose?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
>>>>
>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
>>>> subjects.
>>>>
>>> No, not quite.
>>
>> Quite.
>>>
>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
>>
>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
>> think, making measurements can't substitute
>> that. Surprise?
> 
> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring 
> device'.


Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
because it is not.

And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
devices can't know it is stupid, because their
measuring devices can't measure stupidity.

Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
physics and exact sciences in general. They're
too  primitive for that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654700

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >
> >>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
> >>>>>> it has
> >>>>>> a purpose?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
> >>>> subjects.
> >>>>
> >>> No, not quite.
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >>>
> >>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
> >>
> >> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
> >> think, making measurements can't substitute
> >> that. Surprise?
> >
> > well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
> > device'.
> 
> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
> because it is not.
> 
> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
> 
> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
> too  primitive for that.

The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.

any closer it would burn up
any farther it would freeze.

Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????


In fact, there seems to be a lot of 'measuring'
 going on..with a 'measuring device'.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654704

W dniu 07.07.2024 o 19:28, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>
>>>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
>>>>>>>> it has
>>>>>>>> a purpose?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
>>>>>> subjects.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, not quite.
>>>>
>>>> Quite.
>>>>>
>>>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
>>>> think, making measurements can't substitute
>>>> that. Surprise?
>>>
>>> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
>>> device'.
>>
>> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
>> because it is not.
>>
>> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
>> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
>> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
>> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
>>
>> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
>> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
>> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
>> too  primitive for that.
> 
> The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.
> 
> any closer it would burn up
> any farther it would freeze.
> 
> Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????


No. All a  measuring device can do is
to display a number.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654706

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 19:28, The Starmaker pisze:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
> >>>>>>>> it has
> >>>>>>>> a purpose?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
> >>>>>> subjects.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No, not quite.
> >>>>
> >>>> Quite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
> >>>> think, making measurements can't substitute
> >>>> that. Surprise?
> >>>
> >>> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
> >>> device'.
> >>
> >> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
> >> because it is not.
> >>
> >> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
> >> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
> >> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
> >> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
> >>
> >> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
> >> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
> >> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
> >> too  primitive for that.
> >
> > The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.
> >
> > any closer it would burn up
> > any farther it would freeze.
> >
> > Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????
> 
> No. All a  measuring device can do is
> to display a number.


If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.


God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns the
knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.

It doesn't display a number. 








-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654707

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > W dniu 07.07.2024 o 19:28, The Starmaker pisze:
> > > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >>
> > >> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > >>> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
> > >>>>>>>> it has
> > >>>>>>>> a purpose?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
> > >>>>>> subjects.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> No, not quite.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Quite.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
> > >>>> think, making measurements can't substitute
> > >>>> that. Surprise?
> > >>>
> > >>> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
> > >>> device'.
> > >>
> > >> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
> > >> because it is not.
> > >>
> > >> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
> > >> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
> > >> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
> > >> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
> > >> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
> > >> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
> > >> too  primitive for that.
> > >
> > > The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.
> > >
> > > any closer it would burn up
> > > any farther it would freeze.
> > >
> > > Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????
> >
> > No. All a  measuring device can do is
> > to display a number.
> 
> If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
> but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.
> 
> God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns the
> knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.
> 
> It doesn't display a number.


Let me give you another example closer to home...

A Sundial's surface has 'markings'. As our Sun moves across the sky, a
shadow is cast on these markings. The Sun does not display...numbers.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654733

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu 07.07.2024 o 19:28, The Starmaker pisze:
> > > > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
> > > >>> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
> > > >>>>>>>> it has
> > > >>>>>>>> a purpose?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
> > > >>>>>> subjects.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> No, not quite.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Quite.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
> > > >>>> think, making measurements can't substitute
> > > >>>> that. Surprise?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
> > > >>> device'.
> > > >>
> > > >> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
> > > >> because it is not.
> > > >>
> > > >> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
> > > >> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
> > > >> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
> > > >> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
> > > >> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
> > > >> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
> > > >> too  primitive for that.
> > > >
> > > > The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.
> > > >
> > > > any closer it would burn up
> > > > any farther it would freeze.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????
> > >
> > > No. All a  measuring device can do is
> > > to display a number.
> >
> > If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
> > but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.
> >
> > God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns the
> > knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.
> >
> > It doesn't display a number.
> 
> Let me give you another example closer to home...
> 
> A Sundial's surface has 'markings'. As our Sun moves across the sky, a
> shadow is cast on these markings. The Sun does not display...numbers.


When our Sun casts a shadow and uses our earth's surface as a 'measuring
device'...

the earth doesn't display...numbers.


If it is 12 o'clock high, where is the clock?







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654709

W dniu 07.07.2024 o 21:30, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 19:28, The Starmaker pisze:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
>>>>> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
>>>>>>>>>> it has
>>>>>>>>>> a purpose?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
>>>>>>>> subjects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, not quite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
>>>>>> think, making measurements can't substitute
>>>>>> that. Surprise?
>>>>>
>>>>> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
>>>>> device'.
>>>>
>>>> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
>>>> because it is not.
>>>>
>>>> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
>>>> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
>>>> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
>>>> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
>>>> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
>>>> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
>>>> too  primitive for that.
>>>
>>> The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.
>>>
>>> any closer it would burn up
>>> any farther it would freeze.
>>>
>>> Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????
>>
>> No. All a  measuring device can do is
>> to display a number.
> 
> 
> If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
> but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.
> 
> 
> God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns the
> knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.
> 
> It doesn't display a number.

So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
is generating a number.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654713

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:10:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 21:30, The Starmaker pisze:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > No. All a  measuring device can do is
> > > to display a number.

Incorrect.

> > If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
> > but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.
> >
> > God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns
> the
> > knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.
> >
> > It doesn't display a number.
>
> So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
> is generating a number.

This is Wozzie being autistic again.  Measurement is a comparison to a
standard:  a standard length, a standard mass, a standard frequency.
Numbers are convenience, not necessity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654721

W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:27, gharnagel pisze:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:10:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 21:30, The Starmaker pisze:
>> >
>> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No. All a  measuring device can do is
>> > > to display a number.
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
>> > If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
>> > but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.
>> >
>> > God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns
>> the
>> > knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.
>> >
>> > It doesn't display a number.
>>
>> So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
>> is generating a number.
> 
> This is Wozzie being autistic again.  Measurement is a comparison to a
> standard:  a standard length, a standard mass, a standard frequency.

It is, and a number is the result.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654730

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:09:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:49, gharnagel pisze:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:33:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > How it happens then that your so called "scientific
> >> > > method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
> >> > > of the result?
> >> >
> >> > Because it's CONVENIENT, DUH!
> >>
> >> Exactly, Harrie. It is convenient thatthe result
> >> of a measurment is a number...
> >
> > Most excellent!  Wozzie agrees that numbers are convenient,
> > but not necessary.
> 
> Nope. As usual - a baseless lie. I agree they
> are convenient.

i don't know what planet you live on...

most people, the majority of the people of the world consider "numbers" to be...inconvient.

Even Albert Einstein considers "numbers" to be an 'inconvenience'.

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." -- Albert Einstein 




I don't know any girls on earth that considers "numbers" to be...convenient.


Most business owners don't know the numbers.


If your girlfriend or wife ask you how much money do you have now...you might find "numbers" to be ...inconvenient.



in·con·ven·ience
/?ink?n'veny?ns/
noun
trouble or difficulty caused to one's personal requirements or comfort.
"the inconvenience of having to change trains"
synonyms: trouble, bother, problems, disruption, nuisance value, disadvantage, difficulty, embarrassment, disturbance, vexation, harassment,
 worry, anxiety, distress, concern, disquiet, unease, irritation, annoyance, stress, agitation, unpleasantness, aggravation, hassle

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+inconvenience


Numbers convenient????


Baloney.

Rubbish!

Hogwash!

Mendacity



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654732

W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:27, Maciej Wozniak pisze:
> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:03, gharnagel pisze:
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 4:16:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>
>>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:27, gharnagel pisze:
>>>
>>> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:10:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
>>> > > is generating a number.
>>> >
>>> > This is Wozzie being autistic again.  Measurement is a comparison to a
>>> > standard:  a standard length, a standard mass, a standard frequency.
>>>
>>> It is, and a number is the result.
>>
>> Wozzie's autism is speaking again.  The measurement could be labeled
>> A, B, C, D or Low, Medium, High or just about anything.
> 
> How it happens then that your so called "scientific
> method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
> of the result?

And - how do you get A, or B, or C, or D from
"comparison to a standard"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654743

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:09:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:49, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:33:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > How it happens then that your so called "scientific
> > > method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
> > > of the result?
> >
> > Because it's CONVENIENT, DUH!
>
> Exactly, Harrie. It is convenient thatthe result
> of a measurment is a number...

Most excellent!  Wozzie agrees that numbers are convenient,
but not necessary.  I'm glad we've come to a meeting of the
minds Huzzah!! :-))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654751

W dniu 08.07.2024 o 18:47, gharnagel pisze:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:09:56 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:49, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:33:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > How it happens then that your so called "scientific
>> > > method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
>> > > of the result?
>> >
>> > Because it's CONVENIENT, DUH!
>>
>> Exactly, Harrie. It is convenient thatthe result
>> of a measurment is a number...
> 
> Most excellent!  Wozzie agrees that numbers are convenient,
> but not necessary.

Nope. As usual - a baseless lie. I agree they
are convenient.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654750

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:33:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:27, Maciej Wozniak pisze:
> >
> > W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:03, gharnagel pisze:
> > >
> > > Wozzie's autism is speaking again.  The measurement could be labeled
> > > A, B, C, D or Low, Medium, High or just about anything.
> >
> > How it happens then that your so called "scientific
> > method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
> > of the result?

Because it's CONVENIENT, DUH!

> And - how do you get A, or B, or C, or D from
> "comparison to a standard"?

Standard A, Standard B, Standard C and Standard D.  DUH!

(I didn't say it was convenient :-))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654753

W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:49, gharnagel pisze:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:33:20 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:27, Maciej Wozniak pisze:
>> >
>> > W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:03, gharnagel pisze:
>> > >
>> > > Wozzie's autism is speaking again.  The measurement could be labeled
>> > > A, B, C, D or Low, Medium, High or just about anything.
>> >
>> > How it happens then that your so called "scientific
>> > method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
>> > of the result?
> 
> Because it's CONVENIENT, DUH!

Exactly, Harrie. It is convenient thatthe result
of a measurment is a number...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654757

W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:03, gharnagel pisze:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 4:16:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:27, gharnagel pisze:
>>
>> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:10:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
>> > > is generating a number.
>> >
>> > This is Wozzie being autistic again.  Measurement is a comparison to a
>> > standard:  a standard length, a standard mass, a standard frequency.
>>
>> It is, and a number is the result.
> 
> Wozzie's autism is speaking again.  The measurement could be labeled
> A, B, C, D or Low, Medium, High or just about anything.

How it happens then that your so called "scientific
method" idiocy is always pointing a number as a prediction
of the result?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654758

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 4:16:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:27, gharnagel pisze:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:10:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
> > > is generating a number.
> >
> > This is Wozzie being autistic again.  Measurement is a comparison to a
> > standard:  a standard length, a standard mass, a standard frequency.
>
> It is, and a number is the result.

Wozzie's autism is speaking again.  The measurement could be labeled
A, B, C, D or Low, Medium, High or just about anything.  Wozzie-liar
deleted the fact that numbers are convenience, not necessity.  He
doesn't
like truth, so he is a congenital liar.

This proves that this "information engineer" doesn't think rationally.

“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers….  Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to
the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

Perhaps Wozzie-dunce is laid up with a broken leg.

Wozzie fool is obviously arguing for the sake of argument.  He has
no friends to love him so he attracts attention by posing insane
notions so he can feel important when someone takes the bait.  It
gives him a thrill when he can score a put-down because it makes
him feel smart, in his own demented opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654714

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 21:30, The Starmaker pisze:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 19:28, The Starmaker pisze:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> W dniu 07.07.2024 o 10:15, Thomas Heger pisze:
> >>>>> Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 08:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks
> >>>>>>>>>> it has
> >>>>>>>>>> a purpose?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For sure, physics is too primitive for serious
> >>>>>>>> subjects.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, not quite.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Quite.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sometimes it's necessary to use brain and
> >>>>>> think, making measurements can't substitute
> >>>>>> that. Surprise?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> well, yes, but your brain is not exactly what I would call 'measuring
> >>>>> device'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good. You shouldn't call it "measuring device",
> >>>> because it is not.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, well, worshipping measuring devices is
> >>>> stupid. Of course, people worshipping measuring
> >>>> devices can't know it is stupid, because their
> >>>> measuring devices can't measure stupidity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, dealing with any serious, advanced
> >>>> terms is  out of the range of measuring devices,
> >>>> physics and exact sciences in general. They're
> >>>> too  primitive for that.
> >>>
> >>> The earth is at an exact distance from our sun.
> >>>
> >>> any closer it would burn up
> >>> any farther it would freeze.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't that take some 'measuring device' to keep it just right????
> >>
> >> No. All a  measuring device can do is
> >> to display a number.
> >
> >
> > If you happen to have a ruler, you will notice besides human numbers,
> > but 'increments'...a mark, different degrees.
> >
> >
> > God doesn't use numbers. God uses a knob with marks on it, he turns the
> > knob to a certain degee until it reaches the mark.
> >
> > It doesn't display a number.
> 
> So it is not a measuring device. Measurement
> is generating a number.


You wrote: "measuring", not Measurement...measuring is a unit, or a
'system' of measuring.  habla espanol?

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#654669

W dniu 06.07.2024 o 01:14, The Starmaker pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> It is - right - determining the truth.
>> Just not in the way you think. Science
>> is setting it, not discovering it.
>>
>> We need a good description of the reality.
>> Good - means: optimized. Science is solving
>> the puzzle of optimized set of axioms and
>> definitions. Or rather - axioms including
>> its special form - definitions.
> 
> 
> if the universe does not have a purpose, why does science thinks it has
> a purpose?


Well, that's because there are many differences
between science and the universe, and one of
them is that science  has some purpose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web