Spam Alert: Re: [Amps] The Philosophy of Science

[Merv Schweigert]

> Okay, I sincerely apologize for the aggressive broadside. I am just sick
and
> tired of hearing all of the distortions of theoretical science and
> engineering that I hear EVERYWHERE >

Since I am not in the field of Science, but a mere engineer at best.  One
thing
that troubles me from the Scientific community is a statement as the above,
"distortions of theoretical science"
WEBSTER:
Theory : explanation of which has not been proven but which you believe is
true, statement of general principles (which may not apply in practice)
theoretical: referring to a theory, not proved in practice.

So seems our definition of the word may be in question here.  Somewhere
along the ages theory has been taken for fact and fact is criticized.  How
can
there be  a distortion of something that is not fact.  In essence the theory
may
be a distortion of fact itself.

 I would like to ask for a polling by everyone reading this (if you are
still
> awake) on the following: Does the fact that my calculations were
terminated
> at an accuracy of .01%, as opposed to the known errors of 10% or greater
in
> old data, mean that my calculations are not exact? And if not, how precise
> would I have to make them  in order to qualify as a standard against which
to
> measure simple approximated calculations, such as Jeff's? Does it bother
you
> that I use the word 'exact' in the context of "high-accuracy, so high that
> its estimated error is too low to be of  any concern" ?.

I have no problem with one calculating a capacitor to the tenth digit, I
have
a problem finding that capacitor in real life, or as many have quoted within
even a 10 per cent range.  The word exact in effect means precise so whats
the diff ?  Sometimes words mean nothing as do numbers.
Merv K9FD/KH6