Re: Is General Relativity a useful TOOL or aesthetic ART?

On Feb 20, 11:30 am, mahipal7...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tom Potter wrote:
Although I was disappointed to see that "Uncle Al"
is so prejudiced toward folks who score low on I.Q. tests,
that he tried to associate them with me,

he did point out that my wording was not bullet proof.

Not to worry, Language is not constrained by Dimensional Analysis Math
(DAM). Any mature Reader is obligated, for the most part, to
comprehend past the unavoidable linguistic usage errors. Even on BBC
yesterday, some Facebook article, the Journalist had misused the word
principal for principle. I tried to forgive. I did!

BBC has fixed its spelling error! Without acknowledging the fix.
Same link I had posted a couple days back:

Revisionism sucks. Now it states:
"Mark Zuckerberg said users should be able to own and control their
information. If everyone starts with that principle we can end up in a
very good place. On a lot of these issues where there is confusion on
that point, I see a lot of debate."

while originally, when I read it, it was:
"Mark Zuckerberg said users should be able to own and control their
information. If everyone starts with that principal we can end up in a
very good place. On a lot of these issues where there is confusion on
that point, I see a lot of debate."

The page doesn't show any addendum. Still claims to have been written
at Page last updated at 23:52 GMT, Wednesday, 18 February 2009. The
typo was forgivable, but this is entirely wrong on far more deeper

What's the human speed of technology on the road of honesty again?

I should have used the word "Human"
rather than "creature",

but I wanted to include all Intelligent creatures
who had the need to mold their world,
and the capacity to do so.

I dare say that I didn't confuse any "Intelligent creatures"
who can read and comprehend English
with my wording.

   Hey Potter -- Why did your account get banned for violating the
   Google Groups Terms Of Use?

It's doubtful even Google programmers know why their SW works as it
does. The idea of bashing any set of peoples leading to being banned
is certainly likely wrong. I recently had an encounter on Usenet with
a person claiming to be rigorously Jewish yet was also google-banned.
Didn't/Doesn't alter the fact that I read posts of google-banned
individuals via Google Groups everyday. How many Sannys have SW
corporations hired to decision making ranks? Actually, I'd rather
leave it to my imagination to know that count.

One thing is annoying/bothering/disturbing as observations go. Why do
a handful of Posters persist to trash the posts of authors like Tom?
Are you saving your Sheeps' Minds from rotting or encountering
thoughts that every one of their brain will drain?! Nobody owns
Usenet. It's a public forum and it has it's risks and rewards. Kill
files functionality was invented to minimize the so called vigilante
stalkers who falsely come to think they're "saving the children." When
one stalks, one does more damage to one's self, even if one is doing
so anonymously.

"It's a public forum and it has its risks and rewards." I meant.

Conceptual Sorbet... to return to group appropriate subject line

Why try to belittle Art over Tools herenow? Art is greater than Tools.
OK, Modern Art is 99% trash. Commercial Art is written for the
maintaining of a attention deficit mind span. Must maintain Stupidity!
If They walk away from the TV and CPU we won't know what they will do
with their hands/fingers?! <Insert Finger Graphic jpg with finger of
your choice here>. Tools are temporal. Tools come and go. A hammer and
a lever are timeless tools. Math is a tool. Technologies are a tool.
Art, real true art, as decided by individual minds, is priceless and
timeless. Take great poetry, for example. Granted bad poetry is more
abundant than the number of molecules in a litre of air. Claiming to
be Art, and being Art -- there will always be a difference.

Science as an Art or is it a Tool? Scientists surely would love to be
recognized as Artists. However, that's really not the overwhelming
perception -- self portrayed or as externally imposed. Artists are a
tolerant bunch to ideas of any merit. Scientists tend to be narrow
minded unless they're writing about themselves or are being
interviewed for TV or News.

Individual Scientists or Engineers or Physicists or Mathematicians may
aspire to be, and even become, Artists.  On the whole, they are more
often Tools of Science, Engineering, Physics, Math. The physical
constraints of Nature forbid the limitless creativity that only
Artists -- True, not otherwise -- know, feel, and embrace.

We human creatures have this great mental feat of believing we
ourselves, especially at the individual level, are greater than our
neighbo(u)rs of any colo(u)rs.

If Science only makes models of physical phenomena, then there should
be as infinitely many mathematical models that converge to the same
observation as there are Modelers. Yet, Science is not observably so

Mahipal “me always changes” (A Poetic Force of Nature)
All this means is that no one reads here at all... hmm I can say