sethoflagos

You're clearly not familiar with the Arsenal of yore.

So be it. Agreed; hence my point about time-stamping: Joe is an ammonite during his lifetime becomes Joe was an ammonite at some time during the Jurassic. That fact does not change; just the grammatical form needed to express it. It's a case of comparing apples and oranges. The inviscid assumption is unphysical and therefore false by at least the principle of naturalism.

A Guardian article highlighting the extent to which the major manufacturers of ultra-processed food are abusing the courts to subvert progressive health legislation. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/22/processed-food-firms-courts-obstruct-health-regulations

I also share @TheVat 's dislike of the word. In my part of Britain we have 'gobsmacked', an ancient isolated past participle in search of a root that would literally mean 'the feel of something in the mouth'. Why invent an ugly new word when our language offers us a perfectly suitable alternative: 'This Old Brewery Bitter has a gobsmack of exquisite malty hoppiness'

I once worked out that it was the geometric equivalent of my house being hit by a dried pea. Helped me get my head around the scaling. I saw that. The thing is, the thermal shock of impact would have exceeded that needed to strip the oxygen from both SOx, at least to SO, so I don't see how the dioxide/trioxide split could be diagnostic.

These branches of thought are generally seen as complementary: all rooted in the Aristotelian tradition that was resurrected during the Enlightenment by John Locke and Co. I've not found any deep internal contradiction in them in over 50 years, so if you've found one, I'm going to need your help in locating it. I agree. However, it sounds a strange way of putting it. A semantic point rather than a logical one. I think it's clear that I was using 'atom' in its original sense. Time-stamped facts don't change. When ammonites ceased to be, they didn't cease to be ammonites.

Without it, the last line of defence would not be able to advance upfield in support of an attack for fear of giving away an easy goal from a long ball over their helds. Attacks would be blunted, leading to fewer goals overall.

What else do you think science is for? Small talk?

I had to take a break from bread making and brewing due to a house move, but now I've settled into the new nest, I've got the production lines back online. After an enforced change of whole wheat flour brand, and risking a couple of minutes extra oven time, the crumb structure is definitely improved.. Delish with a bit of butter and pineapple chutney!

Accepted, for my part. Naturalism Realism (specifically Scientific Realism or sometimes Empiricism on off-days) Correspondence Theory of Truth Within these thoughts, a truth may be deduced from a number of pertinent facts, whereas the reverse would sound strange. I'm open to that being a relevant difference in regards to the OP presumption. Facts may be viewed as 'atoms' of more general truths.

We do have both the incompressible and compressible forms of the Navier-Stokes equations. Not really a big deal to swap a large finite bulk modulus for an infinite one. Or am I missing some subtlety here?

How would they distinguish bolide sourced sulphur from the oto 1014 kg of SO2 estimated to have been sourced from the extensive anhydrite deposits below Chicxulub? Ref: Emission spectra of a simulated Chicxulub impact-vapor plume at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

In what respect? Which of my vices are you calling out here?

Pray, why didst thou state that some may find my statement 'in my world, truth is absolute' ironic?

I said NO MORE DEFLECTION! WHY!

Don't deflect: I'm asking you a straight question and demand an honest answer. Why?

Why?

Rhetorical deflection: truth value irrelevant God only knows: too incoherent to parse. In my world truth is absolute. However, general speech often requires some interpretation to work out what is actually being said (see examples above). Take the old chestnut from Vic Reeves: Clearly, no one (except an American tee-hee) could take this statement at face value. Yet beneath the layers of humour there is some truth being spoken. In this case about the honesty of commercial advertising if I remember correctly. "6 out of 10 cat owners said their pets preferred MouseyBitz over Slug Knacker", or some such nonsense.

Funny old game, innit?

How about this slight rewording: Taking these figures on trust (or possibly by checking the references), we could well agree that both statements are true. We could equally well agree that both statements are factual.

Thermodynamics of the Gravity from Entropy Theory Deep dive into the possible persistence of significant cosmological structure deep into the far future of the universe.

For me at least, it goes beyond that. Positive, constructive relationships are built on trust (again, that same 'sturdy and reliable as an oak' Germanic etymology). Fundamental to this understanding is that in all serious and significant matters, each partner can rely on the other's word being true as both understand that to mean. What point is your science or philosophy if you give no one any grounds for believing your word? Especially, if you broadcast an opinion that you regard the word of everyone else as worthless. Game theory has been mentioned. Here's my take on it. Tell me one truth, and I'll probably take your next statement on trust. Tell me one lie, and you're blocked out for good. Tough love, but that's how it is.

Disagree. If all subjects answer honestly and without error, then their actual statements may vary in detail according to circumstance, but all responses will be both true and mutually consistent. Obviously, if someone offers a precise value, then their claims are probably false. If another defines pi as some applicable zeta function, they are providing a tautology of no information value (not exactly a lie but... )

A couple of examples then: "I don't know the exact value of pi" "22/7 is an acceptable approximation for pi in some instances" I'd suggest that both these statements are absolutely true to the extent that I might have an issue with anyone who questioned my honesty on the matter. The key is that telling the truth does not require an absolute and precise understanding of the universe: it just needs clarity on the applicable limits to one's knowledge. As in the standard note to mechanical general arrangement drawings: ... the dimensions are nominal approximations, but the degree of ignorance is precisely defined.

Truth is easy. Just stand in front of a mirror and practise saying the words 'I don't know' until word perfect.