On Apr 28, 8:30*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

It would be more accurate to say that at low velocities and in weak
gravitational fields Newtonian dynamics is the limiting case of of the
more complete theory of Einstein's relativity. Newtonian dynamics is a
lot easier to work with which is why we still teach it in schools first.

Martin Brown

All you are doing is chanting voodoo and a long way away from genuine
empiricists like Rouse Ball who accurately reflected the situation
after relativity emerged -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving
them." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908

The situation in 1905 was that Newton rejected an aether although they
somehow managed to fabricate a new 'revolutionary' approach by using
the texts of Newton against itself to such an extent that they could
dump aether on Newton as 'absolute space' .The current morphing of
'global warming' into 'climate change' is many,many,many magnitudes
worse than the fabrications which make it appear that relativity is a
better form of Newton's agenda,what it does represent is a bigger can
of worms and all protected by chanting voodoo in the hope that nobody
spots it.

Call me what you will,a person who can state that 2+2=4 in the
astronomical sense that the Earth turns once in 24 hours
has,unfortunately due to extremely low standards,the superior view to
those who can't state that fact.Humboldt knew the vicious form of
empiricism you practice must be met head on so deal with it son.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:38:31 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:24:32 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW, and that
Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate science

Damn, that's a tough question. May I thjink about it for a few hours?

Indeed you may 'thjink' (sic) for as many hours as you like.

WE all know you (and the worm) don't know **** about science, thus Worm's
irrelevant meta-arguments and non-science appeal to you.

Don't let Ivar Giaever get in your muddled "thjink", you might kill your
last neuron.