Re: Date's First Great Blunder
Date: 21 Apr 2004 05:03:00 -0700
neo55592_at_hotmail.com (Neo) wrote in message news:<4b45d3ad.0404202015.7bd34e60_at_posting.google.com>...
> > > > In other words, it DOES tally with reality except in esoteric domains
> > > > outside the realm of everyday life.
> > >
> > > Excuse me but it is a human's perception of everyday life that is
> > > ESOTERIC (in the scope of the universe or do you perceive that the
> > > universe revolves around you :)
> > In everyday life, the deviations of reality from the Classical
> > Mechanics model just don't matter. They only matter to cosmologists
> > and particle physicist, who form a small (which is not to say
> > unimportant) minority. That is what esoteric MEANS. Look it up!
> Apparently you do think that the universe revolves around humans'
> perception of "everyday life". We are not talking about what matters
> to humans, but whether a model matches reality. Of all the activity
> taking place in the unverse at any one moment, things that are
> "accurately" modelled by Newton are ESOTERIC compared to the
> number/scope of things that are "accurately" modelled by Quantum.
Apparently you missed the point, and apparently you haven't found a dictionary yet to check what the word ESOTERIC actually means.
What the heck any of this has to do with the relational model I have no idea. Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 14:03:00 CEST