The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

a reply to: Phage

What facts did I make up?

a reply to: WeAre0ne

It's like trying to understand how a complex computer program works by only studying the functions by themselves, and not how the functions are used.

If the subroutines don't work, the program don't work.
Your functions don't work.

a reply to: Phage

How can you possibly gauge if a subroutine or function works if you don't study the whole application?

I can write a function right now that, when given to an average programmer, would think it is not functional or produces a bug / error. But when used with the rest of the app, works exactly as it was designed.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

How can you possibly gauge if a subroutine or function works if you don't study the whole application?

By testing it to see if it does what it is supposed to do. Give it input, what's the output?

I can write a function right now that, when given to an average programmer, would think it is bugged. But when used with the rest of the app, works exactly as it was designed.

You aren't talking to average programmers. Unlike the guy in the video. He knows his audience.

originally posted by: Phage
By testing it to see if it does what it is supposed to do.

Right, but to understand what it is supposed to do you need to know how it is going to be used... in the whole app. You need to know what input its going to get, and what the output is going to be used for to understand what it is supposed to output.

You aren't talking to average programmers.

Yes I am. You learned to program one way, and only one way. When someone comes along an starts changing up your algorithms you cry foul, and claim it will never work.

The same application can be programmed multiple ways....

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Yes I am. You learned to program one way, and only one way.

That is quite a presumptuous statement.

When someone comes along an starts changing up your algorithms you cry foul, and claim it will never work.

Not if they can demonstrate that the algorithms work. Again, with the presumption.

The same application can be programmed multiple ways....

Yes. And still, the subroutines all have to work.

a reply to: KrzYma

originally posted by: Astyanax:

Electric-universe theory is utter bunk.

originally posted by: KrzYma:

if you think so...
then why bother and answer if it's clear for you?

Because I think it's important for those of us who understand science to help others understand it too, and to combat falsehood with scientific truth. It's an ethical obligation that more fortunate people owe to less fortunate ones; a Christian would call it charity.

I don't comment threads about God and Religion or other crap I know is bunk

With God and religion, no-one can really tell if it's all crap and bunk, or whether it's true. Science is different. We can do experiments, work out the maths and test our theories. We can be reasonably sure (provided we are learned enough in the relevant subjects) of what is true and what is false. Electromagnetism is a powerful force affecting the state and distribution of matter in the universe, but electric-universe theory is false. General relativity is true. The whole universe bears witness to this.

I see you don't know what light is at all, for you it's some particle traveling in space or rotate around something.

My dear fellow, I once studied for a physics degree, though admittedly it was many years ago. I am familiar with quantum theory and the photoelectric effect. Are you? I am familiar with Maxwells's field equations — are you? There was a time when I was capable of doing Fourier transforms — though admittedly, not any more. But do you even know what they are, without looking them up on Google?

I am not claiming to be an expert in anything, but I assure you I am familiar with this area of knowledge.

please tell me your view what light is and how it "travels".

Nobody on Earth knows that, and never has. All we know is that we can model its behaviour in certain ways. One way is to think of it is as a particle. Another is to think of it as a perturbation propagating through a field. However, it is foolish to imagine that either of these is what light 'is'.

Ignorance of physics can be a serious problem if you wish to discuss subjects of this kind.

a reply to: Astyanax

Step back and watch how one proclaims something is true or false with absolute certainty, but ends with admitting not knowing part of the whole.

The observers laugh.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

General Relativity simply gives us a way to describe gravity, it doesn't explain it.

What would you regard, in this instance, as the difference between description and explanation?

GR says that an inherent property of massive bodies causes a distortion in spacetime, the effect of which is gravity. Can you think of a better 'explanation' for any physical phenomenon?

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Step back and watch how one proclaims something is true or false with absolute certainty, but ends with admitting not knowing part of the whole.

'Absolute certainty'? By what mad contortion of the brain does 'We can be reasonably sure' equate to 'absolute certainty'?

The observers laugh.

Pompous, self-important jackasses who have mistaken the voluminous vacuums of their ignorance for superior knowledge may, indeed, laugh — yattering oafs are good at projecting their incomprehension on others and finding it funny even when nobody else does so. But you're not like that, of course, and I'm sure you read my post with a perfectly straight face.

originally posted by: Astyanax
General relativity is true. The whole universe bears witness to this.

The above quote is absolute certainty. This certainty is the source of the all encompassing scum that coats the innards of science.

originally posted by: Astyanax
What would you regard, in this instance, as the difference between description and explanation?

Do you really need someone to explain the difference between a description and an explanation?

a reply to: WeAre0ne

This certainty is the source of the all encompassing scum that coats the innards of science.

And out of that scum comes the ability to communicate instantly across the planet.

a reply to: Phage

Actually, it can be argued that 'uncertainty' was the driving force for those scientific feats, not certainty.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: Astyanax

Step back and watch how one proclaims something is true or false with absolute certainty, but ends with admitting not knowing part of the whole.

The observers laugh.

Observe the lowly that study the image they behold, knowing not the image is but a silhouette of that which they will never discern. Humbly allow them to categorize the silhouette's shapes and movements while they exclaim with certainty how the next silhouette will appear, for they do so not with wisdom but with fear.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Do you really need someone to explain the difference between a description and an explanation?

In this context, yes. Are you capable of it?

as always, no real discussion about how it could work, but who knows what better, who is stupid and ...

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Altering the speed of light doesn't mean it's not constant, it just mean it can be altered.
Sigh

How does that even begin to make logical sense to you?

If it can be altered, then it is not constant.

That means throughout the Universe the speed of light can be different.

If something alters it. 1000/1000 times the lunar laser reflectors will provide the same exact results. Same as deep space contacts. Light has a constant speed or those things would never work.

Is it possible those same results are tied to the equipment/technology used? or location(earth,galaxy)?even the configuration of the solar system?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WeAre0ne

This certainty is the source of the all encompassing scum that coats the innards of science.

And out of that scum comes the ability to communicate instantly across the planet.

Well that scum wasn't a huge fan of general relativity.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: Astyanax

Step back and watch how one proclaims something is true or false with absolute certainty, but ends with admitting not knowing part of the whole.

The observers laugh.

You seem to be searching for a religious solution here.

You want a revealed truth, not a discovered one,

and you constantly make the point that it's ok if the details are wrong if the big picture is right.

Sounds like Southern Baptist. Inerrancy, and metaphoric details.

In science, the big picture's what evolves out of the small things being as right as we can understand them.

About a century ago, thermodynamics was considered fairly cut and dried. There was a little matter of blackbody radiation not fitting the calculated spectra. But overall, thermo was really useful, gave predictable results, and was easily demonstrated. Except for that distribution being wrong for blackbodies. The big picture was right. Just that small detail.

In a religious understanding context, good enough. The big picture was correct. For steam engines, it was just right. Why nitpick about blackbody spectral distribution?

Then Planck came along and turned Newtonian science on its ear with the explanation. Didn't mean that all the answers were wrong, or that everyone was a fool, or that it was all a lie. Just that there was more to the thing, another layer of detail that often didn't matter. But sometimes it really did, and thus quantum mechanics were born.

On the other hand, Planck had data, observation, math. They explained what had been observed better, and it was falsifiable and replicable.

The OP guy, however, is stating things that are false, and demonstrably wrong. If gravity is an electric field, well, we know how electric fields work. And we know how to measure them, and they don't explain gravity. So OP guy has an observation that conflicts with known observation, no data, no math, and a screed out of the crank's bible that includes the inevitable 'trust me, they don't want you to know the truth'.

People such as yourself seem to really want to believe. Thus my comment, maybe I'm wasting my time doing science when I can apparently get marks to pay me for turbo encabulator presentations. Either way, it's a power point show, one's fun and easy and the other's work. Hmm.