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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 17:00, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

It is - right - determining the truth.

yes.

Just not in the way you think.

And maybe not the way YOU think, either :-)

Science is setting it, not discovering it.

I disagree, Woz.  Scientists have been dragged
kicking and screaming into relativity.  Einstein

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field, you're just an arrogant DK idiot,
having no clue but always eager to
insult and slander. Your opinion doesn't
matter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

It is - right - determining the truth.

yes.

Just not in the way you think.

And maybe not the way YOU think, either :-)

Science is setting it, not discovering it.

I disagree, Woz. Scientists have been dragged
kicking and screaming into relativity. Einstein
was dragged k&s into QM, etc.

“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

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.

Axioms come after the discovery. The postulates
of SR came from observation of reality, then
equations were derived, then confirmation by
further observation (results of experiments).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 19:21, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 17:00, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

It is - right - determining the truth.

yes.

Just not in the way you think.

And maybe not the way YOU think, either :-)

Science is setting it, not discovering it.

I disagree, Woz.  Scientists have been dragged
kicking and screaming into relativity.  Einstein

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"?  Information?  No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

I'm not trying to define either science,
or any field. Your delusions that I do are
just a part of your abyssymal ignorance.

If anyone serious appear in this thread, I can
will support my point. Won't waste my time for
you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 17:00, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

It is - right - determining the truth.

yes.

Just not in the way you think.

And maybe not the way YOU think, either :-)

Science is setting it, not discovering it.

I disagree, Woz.  Scientists have been dragged
kicking and screaming into relativity.  Einstein

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"? Information? No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

“Information is not knowledge.” -- Albert Einstein

you're just an arrogant DK idiot,

No need to blast off with the arrogance, name-calling
and disrespect, Woz. You just proved once again who
the one is that does those things, and then you
project them on everyone else.

having no clue but always eager to insult and slander.

See? There you go projecting your own behavior on me.
I neither insulted you nor slandered you, but you did.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Just whose opinion were you expecting to get? The only
posts that "respect" your opinion are written by the
name-shifting trolls.

All I did was respectfully disagree with you, but you
can't stand that.

“All you have to do is say something intelligent, make an insightful observation or show any spark at all. That’s all it takes to make a
fearful person hate your guts.” – Liz Ryan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 19:21, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"?  Information?  No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

I'm not trying to define either science,
or any field.

Not so, Woz. You wrote "Science is setting [truth],
"not discovering it"

That IS a definition by definition: Science = setting
truth. And it's wrong.

Your delusions that I do are just a part of your
abyssymal ignorance.

See, Woz? There you go insulting and slandering again
while I have been respectful.

If anyone serious appear in this thread, I can
will support my point. Won't waste my time for
you.

That's disingenuous, Woz. I presented information that
validly contradicts your thesis but you ignored it and
went for slander and insult right off. Face it, Woz,
slander and insult is what YOU do. A basic law of life
is, What goes around comes around. It's karma. If you
dislike what you get, then stop doing it to others. If
you keep doing, you must LIKE it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

gharnagel wrote:

If anyone serious appear in this thread, I can will support my point.
Won't waste my time for you.

That's disingenuous, Woz. I presented information that validly
contradicts your thesis but you ignored it and went for slander and
insult right off. Face it, Woz,

woz is a cowboy. When the arrive to fucking america they change their name
and become cowboys automatically. It's written in their DNA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 20:20, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 19:21, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"?  Information?  No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

I'm not trying to define either science,
or any field.

Not so, Woz.

Yes so, Har.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 20:20, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 19:21, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"?  Information?  No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

I'm not trying to define either science,
or any field.

Not so, Woz.

Yes so, Har.

You're not being honest, Woz. Just "'cause I said so" is not
a valid answer. I gave you a valid answer why you were indeed
trying to define science and you left it out of your non-reply,
so here it is again:

"You wrote "Science is setting [truth], "not discovering it"

I wrote that your claim is equivalent to "Science = setting
truth." When I say A = B, I'm defining A to be the same as B.
You can twist and turn all you want, but

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition
Definition: "the act of defining, or of making something definite,
distinct, or clear"

Which is EXACTLY what you were doing.

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is.” -- Winston Churchill

So please stop the childish nonsense and act like a responsible
adult.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics, sci.math

Only scientist now is Arindam.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Science Speaks" was a textbook to understand what science us all about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 04.07.2024 o 01:12, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 20:20, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 19:21, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"?  Information?  No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

I'm not trying to define either science,
or any field.

Not so, Woz.

Yes so, Har.

You're not being honest, Woz.

Your opinion doesn't matter. Really.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 04.07.2024 o 01:12, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 20:20, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 03.07.2024 o 19:21, gharnagel pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

See, Harrie - I'm a professional in the
field,

The "field"?  Information?  No, Woz, the field you're
trying to define is science, not information.

I'm not trying to define either science,
or any field.

Not so, Woz.

Yes so, Har.

You're not being honest, Woz.

Your opinion doesn't matter. Really.

Au contraire, Le Woz. My opinion carries significant weight.
Much more than yours. Ask anyone who's not the name-shifting
troll.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 01:14 schrieb The Starmaker:

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, maybe there is a purpose maybe not.

This is a difficult question, but not really for physics.

I would say, that 'purpose' would fall into the realm of philosophy.

TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 06.07.2024 o 06:56, Thomas Heger pisze:

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 01:14 schrieb The Starmaker:

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, 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 07:11 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

W dniu 06.07.2024 o 06:56, Thomas Heger pisze:

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 01:14 schrieb The Starmaker:

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, 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.

But how would you, for instance, measure 'purpose'?


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 06.07.2024 o 07:57, Thomas Heger pisze:

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 07:11 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:

W dniu 06.07.2024 o 06:56, Thomas Heger pisze:

Am Samstag000006, 06.07.2024 um 01:14 schrieb The Starmaker:

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, 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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

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.

There is no difference between "science" and "universe".


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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"?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!! :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)