Always wondered this;

[Heisenberg]

FTL neutrinos would KILL all of Einstein's theorys as they are all based on the speed of light is the universal maximum velocity!

I will look over his links but I'm 99% sure they are all still theory as it would be a breakthrough if we knew more about gravity... The integrity of our physics would be compromised, let alone e=mc^2...

I understand why FTL neutrinos would radically change physics. What I was saying is, when the data was presented people were more skeptical of the results than they were of E=MC2. If the data had proven valid then there would be re-examination and possible modification of relativity, but it did not survive review.

As relativity predicts gravity traveling at light speed, I am not sure how experiments which show gravity traveling at within 1% of c is a compromise.

I was unaware of these experiments myself and it does seem there was some controversy for a while, but it appears that the experiments have been able to answer every challenge so far.

 

[fb360]

I understand why FTL neutrinos would radically change physics. What I was saying is, when the data was presented people were more skeptical of the results than they were of E=MC2. If the data had proven valid then there would be re-examination and possible modification of relativity, but it did not survive review.

As relativity predicts gravity traveling at light speed, I am not sure how experiments which show gravity traveling at within 1% of c is a compromise.

Hey man you are pretty good with your approx. but the beauty of this argument (the reason I jumped on it) is that is is purely opinionated.

My response was merely speculation, and as I already mentioned, "My thought is equivalent to MP's"....

I just like to speculate otherwise
e^2; I love the cosmos and it's inherent speculation. Lets have fun

e^3; for heisnberg;
Surverys do not have any indication of universal constants; You and I can appreciate that. Besides that, remaining "universal" is "imo", the best stance to take.

 

[blacksun]

You have to realize that someone had to write the code to have the software do that. That code is in the form of math. That math is based on a theory, not fact. Essentially, that video is no better than any of our opinions...

Here's my post right before that one that you quoted:

that's what it's programmed to do...

So, you're a little slow, I already beat you to saying that!



I was merely showing that video as a visual representation of what the post two above mine was saying:

I imagine a tetherball, the rope being gravity, the pole being the sun and earth being the ball. Imagine hitting the ball and as it takes its course in a circular motion the rope is cut instantly. The ball will not continue its circular trajectory it will immediatly fly of course, this is a direct simulation of what I think would occur in the immediate absence of the sun. Also this "test" would still consider and display all of our known laws of physics.

 

[mindphuk]

MP thinks I'm attacking him (even though I agree with him), just because I commented on how he asserted his opinions

Wrong. I made no comment about attacks until this post

The irony.

You live in delusion... You can't even accept the absolute fact that you tried to make a claim upon others that just isn't true. And yes, everyone can see you are a pathological liar. Again, I can link the posts if you would like.

I am quite sure being called delusional and a liar is a personal attack, an ad hominem that does nothing to support your position or logically hurt mine.
Fine, you win, my acceptance of theory is my opinion. I also believe man and chimps share a common ancestor. I guess that's opinion too.

I'll take "Things anti-science creationists say" for $1000 Alex..

That math is based on a theory, not fact. Essentially, that video [theory] is no better than any of our opinions...

So theory is no better than opinion huh? I guess we should all just stop walking over bridges since they use stress theory, and quite taking antibiotics based on germ theory.
When I answered the question, I was not stating my opinion when I explained how modern physics would answer this problem. Am I just as wrong when I tell Intelligent Design "theorists" that they are wrong when making incorrect claims about how modern biology would answer a question about evolution?

Most people use the term 'opinion' to refer to subjective things, not objective things that are considered factual like whether or not gravity moves at light speed.

 

[mindphuk]

You try talk to me like you understand electrical engineering. 100% on theory eh? Then why can I manufacture one of my designs and have it work exactly like I simulated? Riddle me that Sherlock.

Things based on good theory usually do work. Every experiment and piece of technology that has been created from quantum mechanics works, because it's a good theory. So is chemistry and nuclear physics.

Not all science is theory. The science of life is absolute. We know given an average population, a human will live 70 or so years.

WTF? I never said ALL of science is theory, but all scientific theories are the pinnacle of knowledge. Much of science is proving yourself wrong, over and over and over again. We data (facts) and laws (consistent observations) to develop a theory based on a hypothesis. ALL of science is inductive, it is never proved, as we consider all theories tentative until we learn more. However, that doesn't mean we can't treat the theories that have been strengthened by repeated confirmation as objective truth.

Quit imposing your beliefs upon others asswipe.

More angry name-calling. You sound more and more like an anti-science creationist with each post. Imposing beliefs on others, another widely used canard, usually reserved for atheists, not science.

I will not only destroy you intellectually, especially in terms of mathematics,

Well then do it or STFU. I have no fear defending the science, yet so far all you have done is bloviate and scold me for telling other posters they were wrong. You probably will school me in math. I haven't taken calculus in over 20 years, but I do know a thing or two about how science is done and the meaning of scientific theory.

but your arguments give a "legs wide open" basis to pick you apart as well.

Personal attacks are not appropriate in a discussion such as this but you don't seem to understand that. You know nothing about me to pick apart, except what you drew up in your imagination.

You are not going to try come out of this as a victim. You are a douche bag who told others their opinions were wrong because you dont agree with them

More name calling and the obvious incorrect use of 'opinion' again.

e;Because you are a halfwit;

More name calling just demonstrates that you can't be civil during a disagreement. I have done nothing to you. I have refrained from personally insulting or attacking you, but you persist. You mad bro'?

 

[fb360]

Here's my post right before that one that you quoted:



So, you're a little slow, I already beat you to saying that!



I was merely showing that video as a visual representation of what the post two above mine was saying:

A little slow huh? yet you post the same video and claim it declares theory!

 

[Kite High]

oops he found that trigger again

 

[fb360]

oops he found that trigger again

Seriously... anyone who agrees with mindphuk in this instance just stop replying to my posts... I can't stand to see individuals who lack intelligence, let alone the ability to discern from intelligence and blasphemy...

If you can't respect keeping an open mind versus closing yours as well as attempting to close others, we are not on the same page, and you can screw off
I never even refuted his statement, only that he tried to apply it to everyone

 

[Kite High]

Seriously... anyone who agrees with mindphuk in this instance just stop replying to my posts... I can't stand to see individuals who lack intelligence, let alone the ability to discern from intelligence and blasphemy...

If you can't respect keeping an open mind versus closing yours as well as attempting to close others, we are not on the same page, and you can screw off
I never even refuted his statement, only that he tried to apply it to everyone

damn I was even trying and I found it too

[video=youtube;SMwXPueu-RM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwXPueu-RM[/video]

 

[gonzoman]

Stop commenting, your mathematical ability is 1000 years behind mine...

Just being curious, what fields of mathematics did you study ?

 

[fb360]

damn I was even trying and I found it too

[video=youtube;SMwXPueu-RM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwXPueu-RM[/video]

You were trying and you found it! Grats brah

Just being curious, what fields of mathematics did you study ?

Seeing as how this sections fails to comprehend even basic algebra, any calculus makes this section look like the stone age. Don't believe me, check me thread about modern EE circuits which is posted in this section; You guys are pretty damn slow...

I was doing second order diff when I was 15... Not to be a dick but...

ps:
this whole thread is about:
dx/dt...

 

[mindphuk]

Firstly, you did make an opinion... Post 9 jackass.

Secondly. you're a fucking moron. You attempted to compare bridges to universes. Fucking moron. Stop posting. Stop trying to say you understand electrical engineering, you are oblivious dude. You are beyond fixing. Stop commenting, your mathematical ability is 1000 years behind mine...

Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment. A judge in a court of law is expected to engage in reasoned judgment; that is, the judge is expected not only to render a judgment, but also to base that judgment on sound, relevant evidence and valid legal reasoning. A judge is not expected to base his judgments on his subjective preferences, on his personal opinions, as such. You might put it this way, judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone. Facts are typically used in reasoning, but good reasoning does more than state facts. Furthermore, a position that is well-reasoned is not to be described as simply "opinion." Of course, we sometimes call the judge's verdict an "opinion," but we not only expect, we demand that it be based on relevant and sound reasoning. Here's a somewhat different way to put this same point. It is essential when thinking critically to clearly distinguish three different kinds of questions: Those with one right answer (factual questions fall into this category). What is the boiling point of lead? Those with better or worse answers (well-reasoned or poorly reasoned answers). How can we best address the most basic and significant economic problems of the nation today? Those with as many answers as there are different human preferences (a category in which mere opinion does rule).Which would you prefer, a vacation in the mountains or one at the seashore? Only the third kind of question is a matter of sheer opinion. The second kind is a matter of reasoned judgment — we can rationally evaluate answers to the question (using universal intellectual standards such as clarity, depth, consistency and so forth). When questions that require better or worse answers are treated as matters of opinion, pseudo critical thinking occurs. Students come, then, to uncritically assume that everyone's "opinion" is of equal value. Their capacity to appreciate the importance of intellectual standards diminishes, and we can expect to hear questions such as these: What if I don't like these standards? Why shouldn't I use my own standards? Don't I have a right to my own opinion? What if I'm just an emotional person? What if I like to follow my intuition? What if I don't believe in being "rational?" They then fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and simply asserting the view as true. The failure to teach students to recognize, value, and respect good reasoning is one of the most significant failings of education today. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/three-categories-of-questions-crucial-distinctions/482 ​

The question of the speed of gravity is a factual question. It is one that has a definite right answer, all others are wrong. A question can still be factual even if the answer is not knowable, like, "did Caesar have colon polyps?" Even though we don't have Caesar here to examine, we might not even have indirect evidence to support or refute either answer, there still is one actual, factual answer, either he did or he did not.
The speed of gravity is such a factual question. It has a right answer. The physicists might be wrong about it moving at the speed of light, but presenting that position, based on indirect evidence, is NOT AN OPINION. Continuing along this line of attack is just making you look bad. Calling me moronic and oblivious and getting bent out of shape about this is also making you look obnoxious, angry, and hateful, and it appears others are seeing it too. I've proven myself here over the last 4 years. I don't have to call others stupid in order to make a point.

I have no idea what I did to deserve your wrath. I have tried to be patient with you and avoid name calling, yet every post you make is more and more hostile. You are making accusations that never happened, i.e. what post did I say anything about understanding EE? It's too bad too since I have a electrical problem that you might have been able to help me with.

 

[Kite High]

you pressed his trigger by challenging his imagined superiority

hey fb360...your math makes you a god huh?

narcissism at its finest...equate that Sir Fig Newton

 

[gonzoman]

Seeing as how this sections fails to comprehend even basic algebra, any calculus makes this section look like the stone age. Don't believe me, check me thread about modern EE circuits which is posted in this section; You guys are pretty damn slow...

I was doing second order diff when I was 15... Not to be a dick but...

ps:
this whole thread is about:
dx/dt...

Ok, basically you dodged the question.

 

[mindphuk]

Ok, basically you dodged the question.

No use to reply in a straightforward way. His intellect is so far beyond us, we're like ants to him.

 

[Beefbisquit]

You were trying and you found it! Grats brah



Seeing as how this sections fails to comprehend even basic algebra, any calculus makes this section look like the stone age. Don't believe me, check me thread about modern EE circuits which is posted in this section; You guys are pretty damn slow...

I was doing second order diff when I was 15... Not to be a dick but...

ps:
this whole thread is about:
dx/dt...

RlVDSyBPRkY=

Figure that one out.

Thanks.

 

[Heisenberg]

Seriously... anyone who agrees with mindphuk in this instance just stop replying to my posts... I can't stand to see individuals who lack intelligence, let alone the ability to discern from intelligence and blasphemy...

If you can't respect keeping an open mind versus closing yours as well as attempting to close others, we are not on the same page, and you can screw off
I never even refuted his statement, only that he tried to apply it to everyone

As usual in these matters, it seems "keeping an open mind" means "agree with me or shut up".

You've came in with nothing but nonsensical caterwaul and so far have only been able to answer questions with bellyaching hyperbole from a jaded high horse. You appear to be better at inane self-aggrandization than you are at refuting or explaining anything. We do not know your credentials or qualifications and can only judge you by what you have presented. Abusive attacks are a poor substitute for articulation, but seem to be your only skill-set. I do not mean to belittle you but I can only size you up based on how big you have chosen to appear.

 

[NietzscheKeen]

Oh God... Don't tell me he is equivocating shit and spouting his arrogant nonsense again.

This dickhead doesn't know the difference between propositional logic and computer programming. Also he touts his "math skills" but what he really means is his community college computer programming knowledge. That's not math my friend, and in the vague sense that it can be considered math... it is basic math at best. Please don't waste any more time on him.
We had a long conversation where I was berated post after post for trying to explain Logic to him and to get him to clarify the point he was trying to get across. He thinks he knows everything and has closed off any new information.

 

[blacksun]

A little slow huh? yet you post the same video and claim it declares theory!

Can you even point to where I claimed that video "declares theory"?

Maybe a slight explanation or a quote of the person I was showing that video in response to would have helped.

Or you could just read the third line in that post of mine that you quoted.

Oh well.

And yeah, when your entire post is trying to make a point that I already acknowledged a page before, you ARE a "little slow".

 

[mindphuk]

Oh God... Don't tell me he is equivocating shit and spouting his arrogant nonsense again.

This dickhead doesn't know the difference between propositional logic and computer programming. Also he touts his "math skills" but what he really means is his community college computer programming knowledge. That's not math my friend, and in the vague sense that it can be considered math... it is basic math at best. Please don't waste any more time on him.
We had a long conversation where I was berated post after post for trying to explain Logic to him and to get him to clarify the point he was trying to get across. He thinks he knows everything and has closed off any new information.

More disturbing is the fact that he supposedly has some training in science yet still comes up with gems like, "That code is in the form of math. That math is based on a theory, not fact. Essentially, that video is no better than any of our opinions..."

Someone that understands science would never equate theory with opinion or use the tired cliche of "theory, not fact" something I'm used to seeing used by creationists arguing against evolution, not by a self-admitted engineer. He refuses to answer the questions about germ theory, stress theory, quantum theory, etc. instead uses it to attack with the strawman that I'm "equating bridges with universes."

I have seen this with engineers before. They are good at applied science but don't necessarily know (or care about) the actual philosophy of science and the critical thinking that is necessary to let go of these flawed concept of facts, theories, truth and opinion, assumptions and whatever else he chooses to conflate.