Re: Space and spacetime

Le 18/06/2024 à 15:09, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 18.06.2024 o 14:46, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 18.06.2024 o 11:01, Richard Hachel pisze:

>
Le 18/06/2024 à 06:07, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

>
Neither is this an argument, counter or otherwise.  Science is NOT
based on what is said or written.  It is based on whether the
analysis agrees with what occurs, i.e., the outcomes of

experiments.

This is science as you imagine it.

This is not always true. We must not neglect the human aspect.

>
Do you mean [gasp!] that scientists would LIE about their experiments?

 Of course they do. Your moronic religion
is persuading you that they are superhuman
demigods free of the weaknesses of ordinary
mortal worms - but only such an idiot as
you are can believe that.
 

What about Dr. Hachel who never does any experiments, but lies about
them anyway?
>

Especially when it comes to theoretical science or medical science

where you can either hide because it's embarrassing, or lie to make money.

>
I don't know any rich theoretical physicists, nor any that hide. Proposing
new ideas based upon extending present understanding is a good thing,
IMHO,
but proposing opinions based on fluff is not.
>
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust,
sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
-- Douglas Adams
>

What is said or written is not only
the basement, but also the only content
of science.

>
Nope.  The foundation is what has been written about

 Harrie, poor idiot, whatever is written must be written
about something. Even such an idiot should understand
that.
 a phenomenon AND

what
has been verified by repeated experiments.  Theoretical physics is not
in
the same category - until it has been verified - by observation and/ or
by
experiment.

 

>
There are phenomena that are not exactly repeatable, subject to unknown
factors (human or otherwise), that are another category.
>

Science is an advanced informational system.

>
That's too narrow a definition.

 That's not a definition, that's a [true] claim.
 

And Harrie-like idiots are trying to include
some Heavenly Force into it, because
1)they have no slighest clue how the system is
developed and maintained
2)it would make them Heavenly Chosen Ones.

>
That sounds like Wozzie is describing himself :-)

 I'm not the one hearing what the Nature is
speaking and announcing that to the mortal
worms in Her name, Harrie. It's you and
your idiot gurus trying to blame her for
your moronic mumble.

Come on Wozniak! Physics can be taught to people
not involved in the field quite successfully. It
is not about being superior to "ordinary moral
worms" it is about not being DEMENTED as you are.
Which is the case for 99.99% of Humanity.
There is nothing "superior" about spending his or
her own time time in studying and practicing a specific field.
Given the amount of utterly stupid garbage you've posted here,
including in your alleged field of "information theory",
where you also are a joke, I guess that you've spend
most of your time rubbing your own ass.
You can check my production online, including code, courses,
articles. I would love to check yours :-)