Re: more squiggly lines

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My statement

>....that Newton's Equations were, are, and will ever remain
> > DESCRIPTIVE - that is, NON-EXPLANATORY - of observed orbital mechanics.

clarifies what DESCRIPTIVE is meant to convey in the context.

Gunnar


----- Original Message -----
From: "Javier Finkman" <finkman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: more squiggly lines


> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>