We don't learn about the center of the galaxy by looking something up in a dictionary. You learn by using a telescope.
What is this obsession about definitions? A word is a human artifact, it tells us nothing except someone has devised it as a description of a thing or action. It is purely subjective. Even if we all agree on a definition, that is no guarantee the definition tells us anything about the object or action or property we are discussing.
Think about it. You don't learn what "love" is by looking it up in a dictionary. In fact, if you have to look it up then you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and the definition(s) in the dictionary entry will do you no good at all.
Space/Science » in reply to Your argument is valid, except for the fact that
Use or misuse of a word tells us nothing about what the word allegedly describes.
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Why black holes don't suck.
- A 10 y/o plays football against the 49ers.
- Your argument is valid, except for the fact that
- Use or misuse of a word tells us nothing about what the word allegedly describes.
- The galaxy is expanding? I don't think so.
- My reasoning is that
- Objects that close are both red-shifted and blue-shifted...
- But stars and galaxies of stars were formed by gravity? Tthey formed by contraction. I
- Why not use your reasoning, instead,
- My reasoning is that
- Well done, 4.0, except they do seem to suck, a lot, and blow, a little.
- Excellent, thanks n/t
