shirgall

The invention of the telescope was an extension of the senses, which allowed for more observations to support a law of gravitation. I'm somewhat baffled by your counter that man is made in the image of God, and is akin to a troop of baboon-like yahoos, and is therefore creative as an justification for existence. I need some help making sense of your claim. Circling back, since deities in general are a crowd-sourced innovation to explain away natural occurrences your use of deities to support creativity goes right back to the point I criticized earlier, that your construction of "creative reason" is all about putting the divine into places where such a construction is unnecessary if not anathema.

That's a huge jump from the 31.8% of just a couple of years ago: Mexico takes title of "most obese" from America http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-takes-title-of-most-obese-from-america/

Your "us versus them" attitude here is contrary to my experience. Science is a methodology not a castle to be claimed by Nobel lords (pun intended).

You can claim that investment has no value until I choose to not invest in your product. The investor owns the promise to pay, not the factory. The factory might get sold to satisfy the promise to pay, but the real test of value of the worker is whether he or she can convince an investor to risk their capital with them. You are inventing claims that were not part of my scenario, by the way, I made it as simple as possible for a reason. What I said was those who produce things borrow money (capital!) from other people by convincing them they would earn enough from their idea to pay them back with a little profit besides.

Beethoven didn't invent new musical instruments but he created new music. I don't think it's really the same context as Kepler at all. Where are we going with this?

Yes, his telescope inventiveness was just part of his story: http://www.visionlaunch.com/johannes-kepler-inventions-and-accomplishments/

We had a perfectly good word for that already, "engineering." Engineering is applied science. As someone who has "productized" ideas for over three decades, I'm somewhat familiar with it.

More often than not under capitalism those who produce things borrowed money (capital!) from other people by convincing them they would earn enough from their idea to pay them back with a little profit besides.

Heck, my family has been in America for 455 years, so is there any particular reason for this number in this statement? Or do Finns not count?

Please define "creative reason" as this is unclear to me. Creative, in context, seems to be "having the capability to create" and "reason" is "the ability to understand, infer, deduce, or explain." But, taken negatively, it could be, in combination, the power or ability to make excuses for anything... which is the key attribute of religion and the religious. Are you saying that only the religious (in this context NAP-religious) have the ability to cook up reasons that come across as moral to excuse any action? In a world assailed by lifeboat problems, it may come across as the NAP-obsessed being able to excuse anything, but the NAP is not the only objective moral rule.

Versus all the ways people are openly shaming males?

People should not be making agreements so binding that the stakes are debilitating when conditions change and the agreement must be terminated or altered. There are always changing conditions, or mistaken assumptions, or disagreements over material items to agreements, and good agreements are crafted to make resolving such things simple. Even common law contracts are such that you cannot agree to break a law or force consent at a later date.

I ran for office as a libertarian in 1998, got 15% of the vote, and it made no difference :-)

Non-Euclidian mathematical systems can be interesting and produce useful results, especially with projections and even cryptography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Do you have three years to talk about the math and physics? Start with tensors. Attacking a analogy for being weak is not a compelling argument.

When I went to college in the 80s I felt like I was just "doing time" to get a piece of paper. I was already working in my industry. I can't imagine that things are tremendously different now. However, as someone that worked through college in my industry I came out of it with experience *and* a degree *and* no debt. I think that combination made all the difference.

People are missing the point out there in the mainstream. 11,000,000 cars put out 40X the pollution they were supposed to in the past decade... and global warming was *still* less than all the IPCC models predicted...

The rubber sheet device is a way to explain by analogy, it is not the theory itself. They are describing the effects of mass in a relatable way. The analogy is rather limited, but it gets the point across at more easily than trying to explain tensors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor

The model describes how, not why. The map is not the territory. Every object places on the analogy's sheet of rubber pulls it down across the entire sheet, but the amount it pulls down drops by in proportion to the cube root of the distance from the object, and the amount it pulls down at the center is proportional to its relative mass. Yes, you have assert that mass and gravity exist because this is a model of how mass and gravity interact. As a result, you will see that all objects fall towards one another, but the amount they fall is in proportion to the relative difference in their masses. The sun, being the giant bowling ball in the middle of the sheet, will only move a tiny amount compared to the cue ball of Jupiter a long way away from it. Give each object sufficient velocity orthogonal to the pull of another, and you can get it or orbit. Making this analogy work in real life in only useful for a short period of time because there are other things like friction and so on that mess it up, and there are also things the model does not represent that happen in real life, like solar wind.

You can never expect a person not to change, but you should know a lot about them before you marry them. I made no contract with my wife about personal appearance.

Commitments are to more than just aesthetics... http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/through-thick-and-thin.html

The closest you get to this with gravity is treating gravity as if it was a massive electrical charge. This was explored as a possible solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations, and it's called the Reissner–Nordström metric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner%E2%80%93Nordstr%C3%B6m_metric I'm not an expert in General Relativity... and it's been a couple decades since I really studied this stuff (I studied Engineering Physics in my undergrad years).

Looks like a lot of people are making the choice... (Zero Hedge has great graphs)

Well, she is a porn star, she has to keep advertising.

There's no argument in what you wrote. Can you define what "moral" means so we can at least talk about the same things?