Delano

@Troy more explaining isn't necessary.

@Cynique if two people are supplied with new facts and information. If one person can make inferences. They understand the subject. The other person just knows or has knowledge of facts. @Mel Hopkins not withstanding your ability. Not everyone can analyze a failure and know what went wrong. When the space shuttle crashed. NASA consulted with Richard Feynman because they couldn't figure out why it crashed. So while NASA is very knowledgeable. Feynman is a brilliant thinker. So I say your hierachy has gained stature in my eyes. Also you're a psychic witch/wizard. So you cant be the barometer.

There were a few women that weren't adverse to trading sex for a promotion.

Where did i say that?

Information is how to get to a destination. You can buy cake ingredients in a store. Facts are like data . knowing the ingredients of a cake. But not the ratios. Understanding involves rationalisation. Knowing not only how to make a cake but how to make a new cake. Pioneer for me understanding is closely related to comprehension. Cynique I can't follow some of your logic. Mel i like the Triangle though I think you can analyse the results of decision without understanding how it was derived

Yes to me that capability is understanding.

Sure but would you say everyone ita intelligent. Everyone can think but is everyone a thinker.

I am not suggesting that i am saying the opposite. Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i dont know understand its causation. . Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i don't understand its causation.

If you take your car to an auto mechanic he can tell you what's wrong. That's a fact. However knowing that fact wont help you to fix the problem. People can spit outca lot of numbers without understanding the implication of those numbers. A Macdonald hamburger is 100% meat. That's a fact. However that isnt totally true. It isn't all 100% beef. Some percentage of it is beef. And that percentage is 100% the rest would beef spices herbs and filler. There's a pecking

I would disagree. Comprehension is linked to understanding. Understanding and knowledge are not the same. You can know facts. Knowing how to apply them is related to understanding those facts.

It will all make sense at a later date.

How is that relevant to Pioneer's statement. Since not everyone is intelligent?

Posting footnotes isn't a guarantee either.

It could be both.

Try searching the net. That's what informed the answer. Why take my word whem you can look it up.

You seem to not understand what i have written. When i explained the footnote. Maybe search the internet to see how they calculated the 97%. Or not.

Yes but this is a discussion group. And you are using a less stringent standard, concerning thinking and writing critically .

He did a lot of good. He has been proven right. Has anyone signed him?

@Pioneer1 I don't have to agree with your position to see its validity. There are two things for me. I know it is important to acknowledge people. And I like a good idea. At my sons birthday i asked the kids to choose three super powers. His friend said a pen that could create anything. I was so excited by the answer that a dad at the other end of the table asked what he said. So i asked him to repeat it. The other Dad was yeah that's pretty cool. I also admire your optimism and that you want to make the world better. I will make it a point ro balance criticisms and compliments Pioneer i had to think about your statement. I would rephrase. You could have a story that is at its core false. Make up supporting numbers that go to the sixth decimal place. That would be 1 out of a million. So it would be a very precise measurement that is not representative of reality. People are easily swayed by what they can't comprehend. At that point ask a question that bridges the gap between what you know and what you don't. You may not master it but you'll know more about it.

What you are now doing is playing words games. My sentence speaks for itself and is correct as stands. Einstein's calculation are correct and Newtons are wrong. Sure Newton is close (43 arc-seconds, based upon the information you found), for Mercury's orbit, but it Keep up the good work @Troy. I am done with this discussion. You can make whatever claims you like about this argument.

Troy as an educator and leader. You owe it too your charges, to impart accurate information. If you don't know tell them go find out.

Here's the definition. @Troy. Can you see the difference as to why Newtonian physics is less precise not least accurate. So your statement is inaccurate in other words it is wrong.a Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. For example, if in lab you obtain a weight measurement of 3.2 kg for a given substance, but the actual or known weight is 10 kg, then your measurement is not accurate. In this case, your measurement is not close to the known value. Precision refers to the closeness of two or more measurements to each other. Using the example above, if you weigh a given substance five times, and get 3.2 kg each time, then your measurement is very precise. Precision is independent of accuracy. You can be very precise but inaccurate, as described above. You can also be accurate but imprecise. For example, if on average, your measurements for a given substance are close to the known value, but the measurements are far from each other, then you have accuracy without precision

No Troy once again you are using scientific terms incorrectly. Newton wasn't wrong. But don't believe me, search is Newtonian physics wrong. It is notvas precise in fields that are near light speed or high gravitational fields. You can choose GPS positioning on your phone when you want more precision.

There is no sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. What relativity did is expand the range of physical conditions over which the theory applied. Special relativity extended the range to include high speeds, and general relativity extended it again to include high gravitational fields. Even GR is not applicable everywhere because it fails at singularities like the centre of black holes. We expect that some future theory (string theory?) will extend GR to describe places that are singular in GR.Anyhow, rant over, and on to your real question. The classic difference is the precession of Mercury. This is probably the biggest effect and it's certainly the most easily observed. Because the orbit of Mercury is an ellipse it has a long axis that points in a particular direction. In Newtonian gravity the direction of this axis doesn't change, but GR predicts it changes by 43 arc-seconds per century. This is a tiny tiny amount. The angular resolution of the unaided human eye is about 1 arc-minute, so you would have to watch Mercury for 140 years before the change in the axis would be perceptible. @Troy why are you disagreeing with physicists and NASA. I quoted the experts. Try searching is Newtonian Physics wrong. Troy you said this and it is wrong. Did you know the problem with Newton's calculations were discovered to be wrong because they failed to properly calculate the path of the planet Mercury?

This article is part of the NASA Knows! (Grades 5-8) series. The climate of a region or city is its typical or average weather. For example, the climate of Hawaii is sunny and warm. But the climate of Antarctica is freezing cold. Earth's climate is the average of all the world's regional climates. Climate change, therefore, is a change in the typical or average weather of a region or city. This could be a change in a region's average annual rainfall, for example. Or it could be a change in a city's average temperature for a given month or season. Climate change is also a change in Earth's overall climate. This could be a change in Earth's average temperature, for example. Or it could be a change in Earth's typical precipitation patterns.