studiot

OK I'll make a start The philosophy of any subject must be able to reach all parts of that subject and thus must include the foundations of that subject. Many subjects go beyond the foundations an usually this involves specialisation into non overlapping sections. But just as you would not build a house that only had foundations under the left but not the right, the foundations of a subject must support the whole edifice. Furthermore the scientific method is only a part of Science. More scientist-hours are spent on the dreary infil between the glory discoveries.

OK I won't look forward to it in the hope it doesn't happen again. 😃

Whyever not ? Is there a difference and if so what is that difference ?

and me Thanks +1 Don't you wish we could all learn something new everyday ?

This appears to be either an answer to a question or an explanation in a text. What do you want to know about it and yes English please. ? SN1 and SN2 are types of chemical substitution reactions See Skyes A Guidebook to Mechanism in Organic Chemistry

It's not firefox. Please tell us more exact detail, What do you mean send a message ? The option on editing says SAVE (for me at any rate) and the option on first creating the post says SUBMIT REPLY Are you moving from page to page between edits to try to collect quotes ?

As a fellow member who has also suffered the difficulties of the input editor you are fully absolved and forgiven. +1

Another snarky comment that is still completely missing my point. Of course that was not my challenge, which was made in my previous post which was That your original response to KJW was both rude and dismissive and incorrect. I regard that as both rude and dismissive. No one needs an NASA level computer to run an Excel spread sheet. I then supported KJW's contention that analysis could be carried out on relatively simple equipment by supplying further examples, which received another rudely dismissive remark from your goodself. Can you speak or parse or whatever Forth ? I don't suggest there are not more but I only know on one other member here who has used it ( and I have forgotten most of what i knew about it) and appreciates its special characteristic in its ability to compact/compress code.

You are the one that introduced 'snarky' incorrect comments about computing power. I neither downvoted it nor reported you as author. Instead I challenged the incorrectness with direct evidence to the contrary. Instead of supporting your false claim you chose to be rudely dismissive.

It was rude to the point of dismissive condescension. And quite outwith the rules here.

Another rude response and completely missing the point I (and KJW) was making.

I am not going to apologise for some sloppy programmer's idea of a suitable input box, especially to one whose last reply was as rude as yours was.

Now you are finally beginning to answer a question, though I am not comfortable with all the bif words, many of which are IMHO just journalistic fluff. The question includes all Science, not just

How far back does you memory of 'computing power' go ? For instance the language Forth was developed for processors no more powerful than the humble 6502 (and if you know what that was you will know its address space and instruction list). Forth was used to control alrge (at the time) astronomical telescopes for precision survey and study of the heavens. I used to use a program called Design View, which was a luxury simulation program with full colour 3D visual capability that was originally designed for DOS - I still have the 3 floppies for loading it. I say luxury because it was luxury for mechanical systems compared to a spreadsheet.

So provide some examples of how the same data might require different treatment or lead to different conclusions interpretation in different parts of Science.

Congratulations I confirm my suspicion that you are adept at avoiding answering questions.

Not only is it multifactorial, but many of the factors are not economic ones at all.

Really ? And there was me thinking that the Earth moves approximately 1 degree relative to the Sun in the time it takes to revolve once on its own axis. That is why we have leap years.

Have you ever been taught how to provide a reference ? Or have you ever studied the subject of the science of measurement errors ? In particular do you understand the definitions of and differences between accuracy, precision, tolerance, limits and fits, significant figures, boundedness ? The last one is particularly relevent as Seth has quoted an inequality.

Very interesting about the vitamins, I had no idea, especially in a northern country that lacks the environment to grow the more tropical and subtropical produce. Many foods, including bread. are fortified by law in the UK. Noted Bear in mind yesterday's local elections where Farage seems to have done rather well.

I just noticed what to me is a new forum function, although it may be just that I never noticed it before. I have two screenshots of the summary function showing what I was offered at the top of a thread and what happened when I accepted the offer of a thread summary. Can someone explain how 'the most posts are selected' please ? I am not complaining about this function, just trying to understand it.

I would be interested to learn why you think this is so.

I'm glad there is something we can agree on. You keep referring to a stored version and similar concepts..... The universe is defined as everything there is. So where is this stored copy kept ? The only way I can see to make your model workwould be if the universe was actually like The Matrix (this time I am referring to the films). There is a problem with perception in that it can be tricked. Have you heard of Trompe L'Oeil for instance. All our senses can be fooled. That is why scientists strive for objectivity. Granting your little scheme to fool folks by changing the clocks could be achieved in a thought experiment, it would still fail becasueof external markers. For instance if I were to have my sleep by the seaside and be woken 2 hours early, with my watch advanced the extra 2 hours, I would immediately know this was wrong becasue of the incompatible state of the tide. I include information for you that I thought was relevant. If you don't even acknowledge it, this ceses to be a discussion.

What makes you think I haven't aready done that ?