Who is your favorite Physicist?

Yes !!! The geocentric model was'truth' or even the 'Truth' in Galileo's time on the basis of the consensus criterion...and we still cash in on its utility today when we talk about 'where the sun is in the sky'. Only those concerned with astronomy actually need the heliocentric model on a regular basis, and its 'truth' lies in the fact that most of us concur with that model as 'the bigger picture'.
The main problems for 'realists' concern scales too large or too small for us to 'concur with a picture'. (Here Rorty's comments about our over reliance on 'vision' are a useful discussion point*). At the micro level for example, what is the realist to make of 'wave-particle duality' ...or of 'non-locality'...or of 'positrons are electrons travelling backwards in time'...etc ? Here consenus is negotiated indirectly by observing the macropredictions of the mathematics, provided of course that the observers actions are taken into account. And at the cosmological level, it is nowvestimated that much of the universe consists of 'dark matter' which we may never be able to penetrate on the basis of current paradigms.
It seems to me that today's 'scientific reality' could be tomorrow's 'quaint curiosity'. We need only to consider 'the humours of the body' or 'the aether' to appreciate the transient nature of 'facts' over the ridiculously brief period of human history of what we call 'science'.

*Rorty: "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature"

So, dear readers here, the discourse has now shifted to an exchange between two name droppers, plus also their penchant for technical terms dropping, on what is truth.

I will also bring in fact, and let us talk about the distinction between truth and fact, for they are very much connected; still careful thinkers and writers do observe the distinction between truth and fact.

As usual with the two posters now engaged in talking about truth, I don’t see any kind of thinking from their own brain, at all; it is all as per their routine way of writing, namely, they are into name dropping and technical terms dropping, and feeling Oh so smart and so smug.

But I tell you it is all a gambit to not do any personal thinking from their own experiences in life.

Perhaps they don’t have experiences at all by which they come to do thinking on them as to, say, notice that there is in human speech, the distinction between truth and fact.

From my part, I will tell you, dear readers here: DO your own thinking on what is truth as different from fact, by thinking on your experiences which will enable you to know the distinction between truth and fact - and also fiction and also falsehood and also lie as defined among traditional ethics writers, to be any speech against one’s own mind (think about that!), etc.

Now, dear readers here, by this time you must already have read many times my statement as follows:

"I always think with grounding myself on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence."

Do you notice that I factor in my thinking firstly: truths and facts?

Now, I invite you readers to react to my thinking on the difference between truth and fact, from my experiences in reading writings where the writers use the word truth and the word fact, and I notice that they though unwittingly make a distinction between truth and fact.

See next post from me.

Okay, here we go, I will tell you what is from my experiences in reading careful writers, the distinction between truth and fact.

I will start with making statements which I submit are examples of truths:

[Not in any order of importance]
1. Man is aggressive, woman is subversive, in re sexual lust - that is from my own observation.
2. 1 + 1 = 2.
3. No part is greater than the whole.
4. God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, here are four examples from me of what are facts:
1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
2. This is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.
3. The suspect in front of onlookers shot the victim in the head, killing the victim instantly.
4. Trump does not deny saying he grabs women by their genitals.*

There, dear readers here, I know what is the distinction between truth and fact, from the examples I can and have presented for your consideration.

What do you say about my distinction between truth and fact?

Tell you what, you also present from your experiences with reading careful readers, four examples each of truth, and four of fact, okay?

No need to go to dictionaries, please!

Do your very own personal thinking, grounding yourselves on your experiences with reading careful writers.


*In debate, Anderson Cooper confronts Trump over 2005 comments ...
www.businessinsider.com/trump-clinton-debate-anderson-cooper-2005-comments-wo...
Oct 9, 2016 - Cooper didn't mince words while characterizing the recording. "You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals," Cooper said. ... He concluded: "I will take care of ISIS and we should get onto much more ... are you saying that what you said on that bus 11 years ago, that you did not ...

Then what's you beef with Layboy?

The beef is that the consensus is with SR and layman is too pig headed to understand why, hence for example his implication 'the light axiom' is 'arbitrary'. He simply won't see that Einstein adopted it in line with the more fundamental one about the universality of the laws of physics, nor does he appreciate its role in establishing the new elegant paradigm of 'spacetime' which superceded and delimited Newtonian physics.

But he's part of a wide brotherhood of dunces who discuss how Einstein was wrong on endless threads out there. Like the 9/11 deniers, the SR deniers and the GW deniers are a crowd. Their consensus should be as good as anybody else, in your system.

Hahahaha. How's that, Ollie?

Are you that desperate to appear right, Ollie?

Now, on top of your general buffoonery, you're a ******* LIAR, too, eh?

Figures.

If you invent fake quotes, that would make YOU the liar....

Show me a "fake" quote I "invented," ******* LIAR.

NYC has its own quaint forms of parochialism, but they're ok. In fact the city holds together dozens of sub-cultures, many located in specific neighbourhoods. This cultural "zoning" is constantly if slowly changing of course. The city evolves and grows relatively rapidely to a European eye, and still embodies somewhat credibly the same old friendly giant super-culture, this dream of the ultimate modern metropolis. Brilliant, rich, modern, global, diverse, brutally rational yet caring in its own ways. There is something utopian or even socialist about New York.

This would be a fake quote:

I am astounded by the number of supposedly educated people here who cannot conceive of 'absolute stationary' even for the purposes of hypothesis or mental experiment. Just F'n mind blowing.

What would 'absolute stationary' mean exactly?

Depends on your frame of reference.

You would have to step out of the one you are stuck in.

Yes to that. I lived there when I was eight for a year, 1950, in the Bronx. Glad I saw it then, even with child eyes, and I still remember quite a bit of that. Back in '69 for only a day, that was hard, leaving that fast. Back again in 2003 for most of a week. In between those slim visits, I learned to read the New Yorker at age ten and then forevermore., no matter where I lived. I agree with your descriptions: I love the place.

I'll let you guys get back to physics, et al.

This would be a fake quote:


That's not a "quote," but that's exactly what he said. Have you even looked at the literal quote, and the linked source, which I've pointed you to 3 times?

No, you haven't, ******* LIAR.

Ollie, all you do, time after time, is prove that you don't know jack-**** about how SR works. Not even the most elementary, fundamental things. Yet you think you're an expert. Fool.

Let's say you're the travelling twin in the twin paradox, and are receding from the earth, and toward planet X, at .5s (from the earth perspective). You want to calculate how earth's clock compares with yours.

To do that, you need to assign a speed to yourself. What would it be? 100 mph? 1000 mph? .5c? What?

NOTE: Unable to delete prior post--this one corrects a typo in it

Ollie, all you do, time after time, is prove that you don't know jack-**** about how SR works. Not even the most elementary, fundamental things. Yet you think you're an expert. Fool.

Let's say you're the travelling twin in the twin paradox, and are receding from the earth, and toward planet X, at .5c (from the earth perspective). You want to calculate how earth's clock compares with yours.

To do that, you need to assign a speed to yourself. What would it be? 100 mph? 1000 mph? .5c? What?

I guess there's no reason to wait for a sensible answer from you, Ollie, so I'll tell you, instead of asking. You would assign yourself a speed of exactly zero--if you're relying on SR to make your calculations, anyway (not in other theories of relative motion).

A quote from just one of hundreds of university websites (as well as others) that would tell anybody who cared to look the same thing:



http://www.dartmouth.edu/~kevinhainline/relativity.html

Another totally invented fake quote, right, Ollie?

Once again: "IMPORTANT POINT - you are always stationary in your own frame of reference."

Get it, Ollie?

Of course he means "inertial frame." If you're accelerating, then YOU are the one moving, and you see your own clock as running slower, just like the objects observing you do. SR must be abandoned, and the equivalent of a Lorentizian theory of motion must step in and take over at that point.