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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476515

Re: Relative motion again

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:39:15 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/6/18 2:32 PM, Ntowicz Usarczyk wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 08:41:58 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> At present in physics we have two rather complex models which together
>>> apply to just about all interesting physical situations: the standard
>>> model and General Relativity [#]. There are rather strong indications
>>> that neither one of them is a "final theory", but to date all efforts
>>> to improve and/or combine them have failed.
>> 
>> First you have to agree with yourself, and everybody else, are those
>> models or theories. If for nothing, to avoid confusion.
> 
> In physics today, "model" and "theory" are synonyms, with the former
> term preferred. That is, we now recognize that what were called
> "theories" in the past were really models of how nature behaved. The key
> concept is that models necessarily have a domain of applicability --
> theories do, too, but it is not so ingrained in the word.

Totally nonsense, and you are refusing to learn. Distinct terminologies 
applies to distinct things. You are actually give a reason for why those 
are distinct.

>> You build models based on theories, not the other way around. In
>> physics.

> Nope. See above. The meanings of these words have MORPHED.

You are actually said the same in other words. Can't you see it, give me a 
break.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Relative motion again xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 10:49 -0800
  Re:Relative motion again Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 20:16 +0100
    Re:Relative motion again Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 21:07 +0000
      Re:Relative motion again Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 22:55 +0100
        Re:Relative motion again Buck Dehner <uktea@yswdoiz.cp> - 2018-11-05 22:46 +0000
          Re:Relative motion again Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 01:22 +0100
            Re:Relative motion again Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:27 +0000
  Re: Relative motion again Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-06 13:16 +1100
    Re: Relative motion again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 21:45 -0500
      Re: Relative motion again Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-06 14:57 +1100
    Re: Relative motion again xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 19:58 -0800
      Re: Relative motion again xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 21:24 -0800
      Re: Relative motion again Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-11-06 18:10 +1100
      Re: Relative motion again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 09:21 +0100
        Re: Relative motion again xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-11-06 06:03 -0800
          Re: Relative motion again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-06 08:41 -0600
            Re: Relative motion again Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-06 20:32 +0000
              Re: Relative motion again Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-06 20:39 -0600
                Re: Relative motion again Ntowicz Usarczyk <iswso@wioioksi.io> - 2018-11-07 19:44 +0000
          Re: Relative motion again Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-06 22:32 +0100

csiph-web