Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.

In <slrnda1k6e.5h.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>In <slrnd9teot.5h.dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Bilge wrote:
>>>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>>>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>>>> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>>>>
>>>> The very purpose of science, and the research
>>>> associated with science, is to make our reality
>>>> understandable.
>>
>>Bilge wrote:
>>> Therein lies your first misconception. The
>>>purpose of doing science is to try and understand
>>>nature. If nature is hard to understand, you'll
>>>just have to get over it, since nature isn't going
>>>to change for your sake. Studying science is
>>>about making what scienists discover about nature
>>>understandable.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Thank you, Bilge, for saying what I said.

Bilge wrote:
> I didn't say what you said. I deliberately
>eliminated the strawman you set up.

O'Barr comments:
I am glad that you can see that there are things I
can do. Too bad it has nothing to do with this
situation. You are like a little kid. You refuse to
talk about the important points. You just run away
and hide in all these unimportant comments about the
purposes of science, rather than talk about the
problems that exist in SR. You are not worth talking
to. You are a shame to every person on this net.
Might I suggest that you re-read the original post
and talk about the science, not how you can play word
games.


O'Barr wrote:
>>It is always nice to be in support of each other.
>>Your statement: 'The purpose of doing science is to
>>try and understand nature' is perfect.
>>And your statement: 'Studying science is about
>>making what scientists discover about nature
>>understandable' is perfect! All of these are
>>important points! Thanks, thanks, thanks! ...

Bilge wrote:
> If you think those are important points, why do
>you refuse to study science?

O'Barr comments:
And like the kid you are, you are again running
away from the problem. You try to make it my problem
(with absolutely no proof), even here where we agree
with each other. Well go ahead, Bilge, and run away
just as fast as your two little legs can take you.
Don't you dare address the actual points being made!
SR cannot and has not been able to explain why c is
always a measured constant, even when logic demands
that the actual velocity is different! Therefore, SR
is a weak theory, and can no longer be the accepted
theory for us today. LET has no problems with such a
simple request! Only SR fails, and it fails totally!
It is a mess!

[...]
>>Bilge wrote:
>>>Therein lies your second misconception. Scientists
>>>don't decide for nature what makes sense. Nature
>>>tells scientists what makes sense. Progress is all
>>>about being able to overcome preconceptions and
>>>accept what nature did rather than insist that
>>>nature cave in to your misconceptions.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> It has been my experience, that in all fields of
>>science, we have always found that nature is as
>>logical as it can be, once we come to fully
>>understand her.

Bilge wrote:
> Unfortunatel, because you failed to follow through
>on the point above and decided to not study science,
>you are never going to see just how much sense
>nature makes.

O'Barr comments:
I evidently make too much sense for you to be able
or willing to address it, Bilge! You have a theory,
SR, that has no common sense. It has no physical
explanations. It only tells us what is measured, it
cannot and has never been able to tell anyone why
things are measured the way they are measured. It
cannot tell us why c is a constant, no matter how
fast we move this way or that way. It cannot tell us
anything as to what actually happens. It can only
tell us what will be measured to have happened.
For all these things, SR is a weak theory. It is
especially weak when compared to LET, which does
provide us with explanations. And you will not
address these questions. No, all you want to do is
talk about what you think are my personal weaknesses,
and this keeps you from having to address the science
that is at hand! You are a shame to everyone!

[...]
>Bilge wrote:
>>>Therein lies your third misconception. If you find
>>>that facts don't make sense, the answer is not to
>>>try and change the facts to fit your idea of what
>>>makes sense, but to change your idea of what makes
>>>sense to fit the facts.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> Only a man who is defeated would say such a
>>silly thing.

Bilge wrote:
> Seriously? Which facts do you think you can
>change? Does nature consult you regularly to see if
>you'd like something about the universe changed?

O'Barr comments:
You try to infer that I am trying to change the
facts of nature, while all I have said was that we
need to change or increase our knowledge of nature so
that the facts of nature become logical and
understandable. But whether you misunderstood any of
this or not, you have no right to ignore the science
being presented. You are only running away from
this, and you make yourself to be a sick individual
for making so much out of nothing, just so you can
ignore the subject.

O'Barr wrote:
>>Why should we give up understanding nature,

Bilge wrote>
> ``We'' haven't. You have.


O'Barr comments:
It is obvious that you do not understand as simple
of a thing that SR cannot provide to us an
understanding of why c is a constant. And this is
not anything bad in itself. But what is bad is that
you are not willing to accept the fact that LET can
do this, while SR cannot. Shame, shame, shame!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clarification
    ... things depends on their nature, ... The dichotomy between mind and matter on which Western science is based ... Yes the same facts can be interpreted and organised in several different ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: OBarr: The purpose of science.
    ... Bilge wrote: ... >>O'Barr: The purpose of science. ... >of doing science is to try and understand nature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The purpose of science.
    ... >Bilge wrote: ... >>> The very purpose of science, ... >>> associated with science, ... >>of doing science is to try and understand nature. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What the Solar System is Really Like
    ... of nature, and of man, ... They know very little science ... but without the facts to back their claims ... They blare forth dire predictions ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: OBarr: The purpose of science.
    ... >>O'Barr: The purpose of science. ... > science is to try and understand nature. ... >>facts, but just because they are known facts do not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)