Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Closed Mouths Gather No Foot

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on January 28, 2002 20:42:05 UTC

Harv,

Don't get so upset, I could have treated you the way Alex does. Or worse, the way Dick does. I'm trying to be nice but I also have to be honest.

** You consider the work of reputable people in mechanical engineering as a high-school website? **

That's exactly the problem with you. Quoting from "reputable people" adds nothing to your claims, especially when you quote them out of context like you did.

** By the way, I am in no way embarrassed over last week. **

Well, I'd be if I were you.

** You are very unclear in your posts (even Alex thought you were looking for a definition of acceleration). **

My question was as clear as it gets, and Alex did understand it.

** Your little quiz was entirely out of context as to your point **

It wasn't a little quiz. You said something that didn't make much sense and I was trying to correct you.

** and I just happened to misunderstand it enough to believe that you were heading in the direction of reference frames. **

Where did I mention reference frames? Where in the definition of acceleration are reference frames mentioned? Do you see any factors accounting for changes in reference frames in the equation?

The whole problem is that you don't understand what a definition is. That is what I wanted to discuss; I chose acceleration but could have chosen a lot of other stuff.

** I am willing to admit that I am not a physicist. I have no qualms admitting that. **

Neither am I. I just think it's wrong to make claims based on misunderstanding.

** I'm just disappointed in you Aurino since rather than have a very friendly and challenging series of debates (and discussions) you select to take cheap shots of insulting someone who has been very cordial to you. **

Everyone takes cheap shots here and you are no exception. Perhaps you don't realize it.

** I still hold the opinion that if someone is wrong that their opinions can be shown to be in contradiction to the point to where they cannot reconcile their views. **

I was never able to do that with you, as you think your opinions are above everyone else's, because you think Einstein et al endorse everything you say.

>> Signs of being close-minded include silence (and then later you find that person just beating the same drum), or they make some dogmatic statement and drop the subject (e.g., "I am convinced that you cannot understand my position", "1=existence, 0=non-existence", "you obviously have no understanding of physics", etc).

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins