Jump to content
Pioneer1

Actually Troy.....

Recommended Posts

Actually YOUR stance on "race" is illogical.

Knowing that race is a CATEGORY, logically speaking there MUST be more than one option.

So for you to take the position that there is only ONE race....the human race.

Is like saying that there is only ONE flavor of soda pop....the "soda pop" flavor.

See my point?

To say there is only ONE race....the human race....would be like claiming the words "race" and "human" are almost synonymous.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you have it human and race are synonymous.

 

What you describe as race are various forms of skin color, ethnicities nationalities, that are applied differently at different times across different cultures. It is a human construct with no basis in our genetics.

 

We can communicate much more clearly and perhaps have a better understanding of each other if we got rid of the concept of racial differences in Homo sapiens sapiens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White People ,Some Of Them Among The Human Race Are,Planning  A Race .War,Holy  War. They Have Their ,Racist,Lunatic Leader In The Whitehouse. .White Christian,Support Trump,Denying Being   Called Racist. ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

 

What you describe as race are various forms of skin color, ethnicities nationalities, that are applied differently at different times across different cultures. It is a human construct with no basis in our genetics.


Just because it's a human construct, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The Empire State building is a human construct also, but try ignoring it...lol.

Now come on man, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.....lol.

You said that what I'm talking about is in part based on various skin colors, but THEN turn around and say there is no genetic basis for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't skin color based on GENES?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 what I wrote would appear to be a contradiction to your because you reject the scientific meaning of race.  Yes, skin color is based upon one's genetics--but not race, because there is only one race. 

 

To Harry's point (and perhaps yours).  I'm not naive to the fact that a white racist does not consider science.  They see my Black face and they feel hatred.  They could give too shits if we have a common enemy in the plutocracy.  For the racist, perhaps most white folks, race trumps class.  Race trump gender.  Race even trumps nationality.

 

Some Black people like to exclaim,  "Black people are not a monolith." Of course this is true, but when the klansman is putting the noose around your neck, or the racist cop is gunning you down, he does not care about that; all he sees is a less-than-human Black person. This racist attitude is completely understanding, given the fact the racism is built into the American culture.

 

This website exists in direct reaction to white racism.

 

The fact that there is only one race will not end racism.  Too many people reject science and are unwilling to shed old ways of thinking.  I guess this is natural too; we are human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Troy said:

 

 

To Harry's point (and perhaps yours).  I'm not naive to the fact that a white racist does not consider science. 

Troy if you don't believe in race. Why say a white racist? . I assume you are talking about the white race. If there is only one race you can't be a racist. You aren't being consistent in your use of race. in the implied sense "white" or the explicit sense "racist ".

Too means also you should 

2 hours ago, Troy said:

@Pioneer1 what I wrote would appear to be a contradiction to your because you reject the scientific meaning of race.  Yes, skin color is based upon one's genetics--but not race, because there is only one race. 

 

To Harry's point (and perhaps yours).  I'm not naive to the fact that a white racist does not consider science.  They see my Black face and they feel hatred.  They could give too shits if we have a common enemy in the plutocracy.  For the racist, perhaps most   I guess this is natural too; we are human.

Too or two. I could complain about your gramar and lack of logic. 

hee hee hee

But I won't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the first question is easy I recognize that what I believe is not the same as what everyone else believes.  I also knw operating in the world in which there are white racists (and Black ones too), I have to behave accordingly like setting up websites which I hope will tell both Black and white people we are not inferior.

 

I'm glad you are not becoming a grammarnazi or using typos as part of your argument. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 

what I wrote would appear to be a contradiction to your because you reject the scientific meaning of race.


THE scientific meaning?

I didn't know there was an actual "scientific" definition.

I'm familiar with the MERRIAM-WEBSTERS definitions:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race

1 : any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits.



But if there is a "scientific" meaning for race, I'd like to see it.

Can you please provide it here, complete with links to the official publications/sources?

 

 

 

Yes, skin color is based upon one's genetics--but not race, because there is only one race.
 

Yes, you have it human and race are synonymous.
 

Well if both human and race are synonymous.....then how can there be only ONE race when there are BILLIONS of humans?

If    race = human   then there are as many races as there are human beings according to your logic.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer, I've previously shared tons of information about the fact that there is only one race. If I repost the information it will have not have a different effect on you--you've made up your mind.

 

The problem with "race" is the colloquial use of the term here in the United States muddles its technical meaning.  I'm not going to debate the use of the term with you.  I've previously related that the term has no basis in our genetics, but you've rejected the known science. So the conversation is really over.

 

Now I feel we should as a society should stop using racial terms like Black and white and I completely understand why someone would would disagree this because it is just my opinion.

 

But once people start disagreeing with science.  I have to learn to stop debating folk.  Again this is like debating with someone about evolution versus creation... there are simply better things to do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not any more, because you can easily look it up yourself. 

 

Now I know you won't look it up, because you know what they say about where to put something if you don't want knee-grows to discover it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

No, not any more, because you can easily look it up yourself.

Now I know you won't look it up, because you know -it probably DOESN'T EXIST.

And you know that too, which is why you aren't providing the definition...lol.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the following search, diseases by race . Pioneer is making a more convincing argument , it is debate worthy. 

On 11/27/2017 at 3:05 AM, Troy said:

Yes, you have it human and race are synonymous.

 

What you describe as race are various forms of skin color, ethnicities nationalities, that are applied differently at different times across different cultures. It is a human construct with no basis in our genetics.

 

We can communicate much more clearly and perhaps have a better understanding of each other if we got rid of the concept of racial differences in Homo sapiens sapiens.

The last sentence is the crux of the  argument .  You  seem to confuse clarity with agreement . 

On 11/27/2017 at 10:10 AM, Pioneer1 said:


Troy

 

What you describe as race are various forms of skin color, ethnicities nationalities, that are applied differently at different times across different cultures. It is a human construct with no basis in our genetics.


Just because it's a human construct, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The Empire State building is a human construct also, but try ignoring it...lol.

Now come on man, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.....lol.

You said that what I'm talking about is in part based on various skin colors, but THEN turn around and say there is no genetic basis for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't skin color based on GENES?

Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like " white" and "black" being used as biological variables. 

 

Pioneer has a valid  point .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 2:14 PM, Troy said:

Pioneer, I've previously shared tons of information about the fact that there is only one race. If I repost the information it will have not have a different effect on you--you've made up your mind.

 

The problem with "race" is the colloquial use of the term here in the United States muddles its technical meaning.  I'm not going to debate the use of the term with you.  I've previously related that the term has no basis in our genetics, but you've rejected the known science. So the conversation is really over.

 

Now I feel we should as a society should stop using racial terms like Black and white and I completely understand why someone would would disagree this because it is just my opinion.

 

But once people start disagreeing with science.  I have to learn to stop debating folk.  Again this is like debating with someone about evolution versus creation... there are simply better things to do.

 

 

It is a bit niggardly to not provide evidence of your argument. Definition of terms is importance or being clear about which meaning you are utilizing.

 

So you feel that way Pioneer and everyone else is free to feel another way. Then you say you understand why people would disagree.

 

Scientist can take a position on the existence of God that doesn't make them correct. Also being a scientist doesn't make one correct in things that are outside of the scientist's speciality. So Neil Tyson DeGrasse arguing with the CEO using unscientific arguments also doesn't make him an expert. Nor does parroting figures that you don't understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the consequences of selling books is that you learn a few things...things that you are anxious to share, which is what makes it worthwhile.


@Del, this is a tired debate with @Pioneer1, over the years I've presented him with a great deal of information to show that there is on one race.  Indeed, this website covers the subject quite well. I'm afraid you don't know what I know what I've shared with Pioneer in the past, so you really should stay quiet on this point.  Just because Pioneer says I've never shared evidence with him does not make it so.  Again, a cursory search on this forum shows that not to be true.

 

Look, I was poorly educated in science like you too obviously were; and was taught there were multiple races, which it was known to be factually inaccurate.  But I grew up and read more widely and learned what science has known for a long time. 

 

This is old news guys, I'm sorry you reject the information, but your inability to accept known science, because you refuse to change your minds, is just dumb.

 

Pioneer when you cite sources that misuse the word, that is not proof.  We all know humans are described as if there are different races, but that is sloppy and scientifically inaccurate:

 

“Race is an invented political system, not a natural biological division. The Human Genome Project has confirmed that the human species cannot be divided into genetically distinguishable races. Race is a political grouping created to support slavery and colonialism, and its boundary lines have shifted over time and across nations to suit political ends…” —Dorothy Roberts, author of Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, And Big Business Re-Create Race In The Twenty-First Century

 

Again, as @Cynique, pointed out it is a semantic issue; and one that I argue is confusing people, leading them to believe there are multiple human races.  We need another term.  I don't think "breed" is the right word. We need another way to talk about people that eliminate "race." Ethnicity, phenotypical characteristics, nationality, culture are all fine.

 

 

From almost 15 years ago: PBS Program- Race: the Power of an Illusion

 

 

I've also shared volumes of information about the subject on the website with Books we've reviewed:

 

Of course there is much more, but again if one rejects science, and would rather hold onto their stone age ways of thinking, there is nothing I can do about it.  Once one is presented with the truth they can no longer claim ignorance, then only thing left is stubborn stupidity.  I willing to work with ignorance, stupidity requires a professional.

 

So while I've reshared information here, moving forward I will not continually share and reshare information with someone, on a subject, once they have made it clear they will not change their mind.  Pioneer's view on the subject of race is one such situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy this is a discussion. So unless you want to censor me or delete my post.  I will point out why and where you are mistaken. You ability to think critically or to even withstand criticism is appaling . If you want to be seen and respected as an expert. Your delivery and content of your arguments need to be sharper. or maybe just learn yo argue using rhetoric. 

 

Or I can just stop posting.  or engaging with you.

 

I'll close my mouth when you start opening your mind.

 

Having knowledge in engineering doesn't make youan expert in any other field. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol......is that Del coming to my rescue?????

This reminds me of that episode of Good Times when JJ and Thelma stopped fighting eachother to  challenge James......lol.

 

 

 

Del

It is a bit niggardly to not provide evidence of your argument. Definition of terms is importance or being clear about which meaning you are utilizing.


I would say so........

Without FACTS to support our conclusions, it's basically an emotional argument.

Which is why it's so important that Troy provide us with a CLEAR definition of the "scientific meaning" of race so that we can atleast have some sort of reference point to work from.


 


Troy


@Del, this is a tired debate with @Pioneer1, over the years I've presented him with a great deal of information to show that there is on one race. Indeed, this website covers the subject quite well. I'm afraid you don't know what I know what I've shared with Pioneer in the past, so you really should stay quiet on this point. Just because Pioneer says I've never shared evidence with him does not make it so. Again, a cursory search on this forum shows that not to be true.


I'm not tired, I'm waiting.
Waiting on the facts (if they exist) to prove my position on race to be erroneous (if it is).

You may be right that Del doesn't know what you've shared with me to prove that there is only one race.

But guess what.....NEITHER DO I...lol.


 


 

 

"Race is an invented political system, not a natural biological division. The Human Genome Project has confirmed that the human species cannot be divided into genetically distinguishable races. Race is a political grouping created to support slavery and colonialism, and its boundary lines have shifted over time and across nations to suit political ends…" Dorothy Roberts, author of Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, And Big Business Re-Create Race In The Twenty-First Century


OK, now we got something to work with.......
Let's look at what Dorothy Roberts said....and DIDN'T say.

Dorothy Roberts DOES NOT say that race doesn't exist.
Dorothy Roberts DOES NOT say there is only one race.

She DOES say that it is an INVENTED political system.
She DOES say that it is a political GROUPING.

This is important because both of these statements actually support MY position, being:

1. If race was INVENTED, that means it EXISTS.
Which means it is real, whether you agree with it or not.

2. Because she calls race a GROUPING.
This automatically means there are MULTIPLE RACES because there are muliple groups in a GROUPING.


Thank you Troy for providing MORE EVIDENCE to support my conclusion that there ARE mulitple races.....lol.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Troy said:

I don't think "breed" is the right word. We need another way to talk about people that eliminate "race." Ethnicity, phenotypical characteristics, nationality, culture are all fine.

@TroyThe superficial physicality of the term "breed" serves as a convenience when it comes to distinguishing one person from another. Its parallel in the canine species would be exemplified when it came to identifying a pit bull as the dog who bit you as opposed to a beagle.  

 

i don't think there is really a need to come up with a single word that encapsulates all that you imagine.  Like-minded humans naturally gravitate toward each other in the course of interacting, and their common mentality draws them into groups which various adjectives can be used to describe. "Cosmopolitan" is one adjective that comes to mind when describing humans of a certain ilk.  The ultimate ideal goal should, after all,  be for individuals to transcend the physical and relate to those with whom they are intellectually and emotionally in sync with; a meeting of the minds. For instance, i am more at home with "white"  individuals who share my meta-physical and philosophical interests than i am with  blindly religious  or Afro-centric "black" people yearning to elevate their self esteem.   

 

And believing that there are different races is not an example of being "poorly educated".  But is a case of science correcting itself when  different facts were considered.  The idea that  there were 3 racial stocks, Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, each of which was divided into sub-divisions was all that was taught until fairly recently, and this theory was accepted because it made sense.That's why it is so hard to refute. And at this point, contending that there is only one race is an exercise in futility, because the claim does not hold up in practice.  In the real world, there is no color blindness when it comes to human perception and that's the bottom line.  Our eyes, defy science.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer I just want to acknowledge that your style and methodology follow a logic that is internally consistent. I appreciate a well presented and thought out argument. That is neither argumentative nor emotional. I am also striving to present arguments that have less typos and are easier to understand. 

 

I  was wondering if you have consciously changed your style?

 

 

I am less inclined to blindly follow experts. Since even amongst experts you have dissenting opinions. The discussion pf those differences rationally is what propels discourse both personal and scientific. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del
 

I was wondering if you have consciously changed your style?


I've always been direct and linear.
But because I'm an idealist, most of what I post about are the problems I've observed in society and what my ideal solutions are, so you probably don't see my linear or analytical side much.

Also, because I'm not too smart or too educated (academically) I've learned the best thing for ME to do is not to get too fancy but to stay focused and on the point.

If I tried to argue the way you, Troy, or other highly educated people argued....I'd get lost....lol.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 when I was 16 a made a comment about people in the south being slow because they talked slow. My friend's father said don't judge someone's intelligence by how slowly they speak. So now I listen to the thoughts and the logic behind the words. I have had academics try to baffle me with jargon. And I have spoken to cats that were more street, that were philosophical and could reason from their position to seeing the validity of the opposite position. Yeah I have been schooled and I think abstractly I think that comes across when I am having a conversation. However I like to be open or at least I think I am open to viewpoint from the entire spectrum. So I won't discount a cat that hasn't been able to afford time in the academy. I also don't put a premium on kittens who have lots of letters behind their names. What I do value is people who can express themselves and are open or can at least tolerate a difference of opinoin

 

I am not swayed by credentials or degrees. I listen to the argument. Even though you see yourself as more linear. You arguments with abstract concepts is more appealing to my line of thought. However that doesn't mean that the points of difference are wrong. What is fascinating is that your discussion of race seems less personal although it appears to be of great interest and importance to you. That is talent, sir. To discuss subjects that you are passionate about with clarity and reason. I am thoroughly impressed when Anyone can manage that feat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DelYour transparency is showing, babe. i find you much too emotionally involved in all of this.  I've often wondered why you, a black man,  took up residence in faraway Australia. Curious as to whether it was because  you wanted to get away from it all, -  that you were disillusioned with what you were dealing with in America, and you needed a change of scenery.   i get the impression that you are hyper sensitive and  take things very personally when it comes to having your postulations devalued, and you have difficulty in handling what you perceive as not being given your due.  It's like Troy's arbitrariness has bruised your ego.  So now you turn to Pioneer, who you previously dismissed because he didn't take your predictions and astrological claims seriously,  and you do an about-face, heaping flattery upon him to get back at Troy. :(

 

Meanwhile, Pioneer settles into his false modesty mode by "deferring" to the academic credentials of others even as he totally rejects their educated rebuttals, preferring his "scientific" versions which originate in the school where he is the principal and whose motto is: "we are right, no matter what".   -_- 

 

Troy cruises along, insulated by his unwavering loyalty to science,  seizing any chance to confront and squelch people with what he denotes as proof of their wrongness, exuding a confidence that borders on smugness,  too entrenched to even consider that even Einstein's  “E = mc² " equation is now being challenged by scientists.  ^_^

 

This clash of the "titans" all boils down to the competitive spirit of males and it is interesting to observe their stances. i'm sure you each have your opinion about me which, of course,  will roll off my back.  :P

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved to Australia because I fell in love with an Australian women and could see our kids in my mind's eye  . You are projecting the disillusionment with America.  You have said explicitly that you have gotten to the point where you don't care. Yet you have displayed an annoyance with both Troy and Pioneer.

 

I am not switching sides for some emotional reason, Since I don't have a side. I see the dynamic as you and Mel on one side, and Troy and Pioneer sometimes on the same side but for differing reasons. Can you think of one argument where I was on the same side with Troy and Pioneer. I don't take sides like in the  Viola Davis discussion. I am less interested in agreement than thought. Have you noticed I have agreed with everyone here on some position or another because I could see logic in the argument. The argument didn't need to echo my opinion. I can see both sides in the argument about race and oddly it isn't terribly interesting. Have you noticed most of my comments have been either very short, not emotional and mostly in the last few days

 

Troy's posts annoy me at times. Which means he is doing his job. Too much agreement would be boring.  I was acknowledging Pioneer's recent posts. Was I trying to curry favor when I said that you and Mel write clearly and the logic is reasonable. What I have noticed, is that everyone here has had an emotional argument. You Mel Troy Pioneer and myself.

 

I have no idea about what Pioneer is doing internally. I take him at his word. I think your criticism is mostly a projection. However like other criticism directed at me, like my typos and my being cryptic I will ponder.

 

For me there is no title to be won. I just enjoying a bit of mental jousting. So you may be seeing another version of Del Strachen here  or maybe you won't .. see it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Delano said:

Troy this is a discussion. So unless you want to censor me or delete my post.  I will point out why and where you are mistaken. You ability to think critically or to even withstand criticism is appaling . If you want to be seen and respected as an expert. Your delivery and content of your arguments need to be sharper. or maybe just learn yo argue using rhetoric. 

 

Or I can just stop posting.  or engaging with you.

 

I'll close my mouth when you start opening your mind.

 

Having knowledge in engineering doesn't make youan expert in any other field. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Delano

To me, the whole tone of the above post was one of petulance and indignation.  But that's an impression more than a projection.  When i said you sounded disillusioned i didn't mean with this country, but with people you interacted with here.  i have no love for America but i wouldn't move to a faraway location. For me, that would be more trouble than it's worth and i like poking fun at black folks who do love this jive-assed country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The peevish bit I get but you think it was rude. 

No I have very little illusion about my fellow posters.

 

I loved growing up in New York. However i saw the city i love disappear. 

Perhaps will see how things develop 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Del

Don't let Cynique vex you.
She's just frustrated at the fact that you said a few good things about me.

Some people don't like to see Black men getting along with eachother....lol.



 

Cynique
 

So now you turn to Pioneer, who you previously dismissed because he didn't take your predictions and astrological claims seriously, and you do an about-face, heaping flattery upon him to get back at Troy.


Damn.
Lol, couldn't you have given me a FEW days to enjoy the compliments before bursting the bubble????

BTW, my modesty isn't false.....
I truly understand and accept my limitations in scientific understandings.

I would never compare my accomplishments with Troy's or claim to have as much knowledge as he does.

But when I'm right....I'm right.

Why?

Because I base most of my convictions on EXPERIENCE or DIRECT OBSERVATION....not academic findings and paperwork from other sources that I had no hand in preparing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique you may see me as wanting to be a leader here. Perhaps your are mistaking my comments to Troy as wanting to be a leader. I am an idea person. Having followers gernerally ends . badly. My compliment to Pioneer is a stand alone statement. If a person can be objective about a topic they love that is impressive. since objectivity is very rare.

 

Having facts or factoid is not as impressive to me as reasoning. 

 

No my frustration about the psychic comments is more about my perceiving Pioneer as being dismissive about a field that he isn't conversant. Was it annoying yes. Was I emotionally wounded no. I don't geth urt feelings if I am wrong. I just say okay I missed it. Like with a few ofther readings I did here or my predictions about the academy awards

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I don't delete posts when people are wrong, or even say stupid things, but I will reject them including your statement that I've never provided Pioneer proof, because it is false.  I told you, in a manner of speaking, to STFU, because you on that point you don't know what you are talking about and you are becoming increasing arrogant in your ignorance. Even sinking as low as to suck up to Pioneer, Have you no shame! :lol: 

 

@Pioneer1 can be confident that I'll agree, or disagree, based upon my own opinion or my knowledge of given subject. I'll even adjust my opinion accordingly. 

 

@Del have you ever modified your opinion on anything as a result of something you've read here?  If so, can you share one or two examples?  If not, how can you grow, if you always think you are right and everyone else is always wrong? I bolded the question to ensure that you saw it.

 

@Cynique, I'll say poorly educated because this science is not that new; plus the American public education system is known to be poor by global, first world, standards.

 

Man's knowledge changes over time and that knowledge takes time to disseminate.  Isaac Newton laws of gravity stood for hundreds of years until they were shown to be wrong.  The calculations are good enough for a great many of things, but 'ole Isaac did not know anything about the warping of space/time and as you suggest even Einsteins who corrected Newton, can be corrected as well.

 

Look you can have a great life completely ignorant of space/time, the nature of race, or even the causes of global warming. But when you say things that direct contradict what the best minds have collectively determined, based solely upon your own uninformed musings, you just sound like a kook.

 

The world is not flat gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between me saying you are wrong and saying I am right. 

 

Asking a personto give an example to back up a statement is an effective tactic in argument. Most people can't which then weakens the rest of the argument. This is the second time. After some thought I changed my mind and realised Cynique was correct. Years back i was wrong and you were right about sampling. The climate is changing. It may also be due to fossil fuels. But the models and the predictions are misleading. The two not for profits are making misleading statements.

 

I have recently been very critical about Troy's usage of words. I am not defending Pioneer in order to get back at Troy. I find intelectual  bullying distasteful. Elitism Racism Sexism are all ways to diminish and or dominate the target.

 

Troy's attempts to use science and mathematics  to silence the opposition. That is distasteful. Pioneer mentioned that he didn't go to university a while back. That moved me. Whether it was said with humility I don't know. What i have noticed with Troy recently is a need to attempt to use his pedigree to win arguments. 

 

Troy you are clearly a focused driven guy with multiple degrees. If the conversation is about engineering and mathematics, your opinions are informed. Being an expert in one field doesn't make you an expert in others.

 

You telling me to Stfu doesn't warrant more of a response.

 

 

3 hours ago, Troy said:

Del I don't delete posts when people are wrong, or even say stupid things, but I will reject them including your statement that I've never provided Pioneer proof, because it is false.  I told you, in a manner of speaking, to STFU, because you on that point you don't know what you are talking about and you are becoming increasing arrogant in your ignorance. Even sinking as low as to suck up to Pioneer, Have you no shame! :lol: 

 

@Pioneer1 

 

@Del have you ever modified your opinion on anything as a result of something you've read here?  If so, can you share one or two examples?  If not, how can you grow, if you always think you are right and everyone else is always wrong? I bolded the question to ensure that you saw it.

1 Sampling 

2 Alpha male

 

 

Man's knowledge changes over time and that knowledge takes time to disseminate.  Isaac Newton laws of gravity stood for hundreds of years until they were shown to be wrong.  The calculations are good enough for a great many of things, but 'ole Isaac did not know anything about the warping of space/time and as you suggest even Einsteins who corrected Newton, can be corrected as well.

 

You are wrong.

Newtowns law work within one sphere. Quantum physics works on the quantum level. They work within their respective domains.

 

3 hours ago, Troy said:

Look you can have a great life completely ignorant of space/time, the nature of race, or even the causes of global warming. But when you say things that direct contradict what the best minds have collectively determined, based solely upon your own uninformed musings, you just sound like a kook.

 

I can't convince you to think past your ignorance about the numbers being presented. The following statement is for rational people. 

There's a diffeence betwen 97% of scientist saying climate change is an incontrovertible fact. When the statement made by climate scientists is that 97% of climate scientists think its an incontrovertible fact. Using yhe word incontrovertible fact should make a thinking person suspicious. 

The climate change data is not transparent. The undelying numbers have been altered. Go to Princeton University's site. They geometerological department says they have questuins about climate change that they can't answer. I don't expect that Troy will look at the opinion from credible scientist. You have made up your mind. We have a change in the climate. I am uncertain of the cause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Del, I know you are not a mind reader, despite your vocation so I'll clarify a few things.

 

I never use my credentials in the manner that your described to win arguments, that would make for a very weak argument.  I was making a point about people who are willing to argue with someone on a subject where one people demonstrably knows more.  I gave several example of this including your knowledge of Astrology, but you are so fixated on believing what you want to believe the point which was clearly expressed escaped you, but I'll rephrase:

 

The climatologist and scientist who study this stuff no far more than I do.  I would never try to use what minimal knowledge I have to rejects their findings.  I say this because I know they know a lot more than I do. Credentials, study, and experience do matter.  

 

I don't remember you ever conceding that I was right about sampling, but that is big 'cause you quite adamant that I was wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Delano said:

Newtowns law work within one sphere. Quantum physics works on the quantum level. They work within their respective domains.

 

Del the statement above has nothing to do with what I wrote.  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?  I assume that you know the orbit of a planet is not in the realm of quantum physics.  You wrote "You are wrong," but I'm not.  You just don't know enough yet to know why.   Now if you asked me for proof I'll tell you to look it up, because we had this conversation before (why is why I used the example), and I now know you never used the opportunity to learn anything. 

 

Del in the documentation that YOU provided they explained why the temperature numbers were recast, and may be recast in the future.  Honestly, did you read the entire website?  Basically, they are attempting to compensate for known problems with the historical temperature taking methodology.  For example, the old style thermometers were less accurate, and they use sophisticated computer models to correct for the measurements. 

 

Del figuring this stuff out is not as simple as correlating CO2 levels with temperature over time... again, with all due respect my friend, I don't think you know enough about the subject to speak intelligently about it, let alone reject the findings, of the world's scientists.  I know I don't. I still don't comprehend you think that you do?

 

If we were face to face and you told me I never presented Pioneer with information to support my claims, I would have said, "N-word, STFU 'cause you don't know what the h-ll you're talkin' about." ;)

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists

 

Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.

 

Have a read. The text below the link is from the article. 

 

 

https://futurism.com/newtonian-physics-vs-special-realtivity/

 

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae392.cfm

Newtonian Mechanics turns out to be a private case of Quantum Mechanics. In some situations, the behavior of the sub-atomic particles can be described well enough by Newton's Laws, but the more general theory is the Quantum Mechanics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is hard to correlate tempeature with Co2, isn't that the point of Global Warming?

 

Yes I admittht I am wrong about sampling and you may be right. I have no issue admitting that I am wrong. And sometimes I can figure it out on my own. I don't knowwhy you keep saying that I am not an expert in climate change. If yu see the doctor they tell you your options and you decide. That is my approach look at issues then ask a question. You teach science to kids, that's good an commendable.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I boldfaced the questions to be sure you would not dodge them, but you did  anyway. 

 

Newtonian mechanics CAN NOT describe the quantum world.  This is patently false (why am i having this conversation?).  But again ,why do you keep bringing up the quantum world in a conversation about planetary orbits?  You can not properly predict the path of Mercury without taking into a account the warpage of space/time, which Newton was unaware of.  This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.  in fact, the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanic is currently unknown.

 

Del, creating an analogy between the choice of options a Dr. give you for treatment versus whether considering whether climate change is real in inappropriate.  A better analogy would be climate change is the diagnosis, and the treatment options are analogous to what we should do to address man made climate change.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Troy they weren't as precise.  Precision and accuracy are different. You are saying the aren't accurate. 

@Troy 

Read this and then admit you are wrong. Not impecise but inaccurate.

 


Let me skip to your third paragraph, because this highlights a very important point not commonly appreciated by non-scientists.

In Physics a "theory" is a mathematical model based on various assumptions and valid for a limited range of physical conditions. Newton's laws are a mathematical model that is limited to non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields, and within those limits it is exceedingly accurate. 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.


 

18 hours ago, Troy said:

You can not properly predict the path of Mercury without taking into a account the warpage of space/time, which Newton was unaware of.  This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.  in fact, the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanic is currently unknown.

 

Del, creating an analogy between the choice of options a Dr. give you for treatment versus whether considering whether climate 

 

 

 

 

You are smarter than rocket scientist who use Newtonian physics.

 

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocket Science in 120: Newton's Laws - YouTube

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6lD3mnRVNAProxy  Highlight

18 Jun 2016 ... Sir Isaac Newton: Physicist. Mathematician. Astronomer. Rocket scientist? Learn how Newton's work shapes how we launch rockets to space.

(Someone is going to point out this isn't strictly true because the precession of Mercury is about 500 arc-seconds/century, however only 43 arc-seconds of this are due to relativistic corrections. The rest is due to perturbations from other planets accurately predicted by Newton's laws.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del all you have done is provide evidence to support MY case.  Now if you would be kind enough to explain the relationship of any of this to quantum mechanics I'm be happy to admit I was imprecise, inaccurate or however you'd like to describe it.  Otherwise, I was not "wrong," as you have clearly demonstrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2017 at 10:15 AM, Troy said:

 

 

Del the statement above has nothing to do with what I wrote.  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?  I assume that you know the orbit of a planet is not in the realm of quantum physics.  You wrote "You are wrong," but I'm not.  You just don't know enough yet to know why.   Now if you asked me for proof I'll tell you to look it up, because we had this conversation before (why is why I used the example), and I now know you never used the opportunity to learn anything. 

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a wily one one Del LOL! 

 

I'll assume you are conceding that quantum mechanics and no place in this conversation.

 

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 is not as accurate as Einstein's. 

 

Did I tell you I worked on the GPS satellite system in the early 1980's?  I bet you did not know that if you used Newton's calculations you would you would not be able to accurately pinpoint one's location on Earth.  You HAVE to use Einstein's calculation which account for relativity. This is a practical example where the inaccuracy of Newton's calculations make a real difference.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×