Re: more squiggly lines

["Javier Finkman" <finkman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why DESCRIPTIVE implies NON-EXPLANATORY? I can think of a description that
does not explain though I cannot think of an explanation that does not
describe. So, your comment is non-sense to me. Could you explain it, please?
Thanks.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: more squiggly lines


> Alan:
>
> Re. the following:
>
> > Actually what I argued in the text that you failed to quote is that
> > your ability to quote Newton in support of the point you were trying
> > to make "works" only because you ignore almost everything he wrote and
> > indeed further ignore the evident meaning of the paragraph you
> > selected.  If you care to take up that specific point, feel free.
>
> The ball is in your park.
>
> I shall be pleased to respond to any substantive comment you may have on
my
> proposition that Newton's Equations were, are, and will ever remain
> DESCRIPTIVE - that is, NON-EXPLANATORY - of observed orbital mechanics.
>
> Gunnar
>
>
>
>
>