1. A single ruler cannot measure itself. It would need another ruler to measure the first ruler.
2. What is a ruler? Take the root word of ruler... rule. It measures whether or not an object is following a rule. This rule being 'a yard is 3 feet'.
3. If I say 'a yard is 10 inches' I create a new rule, a rule in my rule system. Inside my system(game) my rule is 'a yard is 10 inches' within my system you have no right to say I am wrong. You could say, 'but within this system a yard is 3 feet' but you could never say I was wrong nor could I say you were wrong. The rules are normative and not 'universal'
Now, you already knew this because it is essentially the crux of your argument. However you are misapplying it.
First, have you ever had a physics class, are you in college? Don't think I'm being an asshole because these questions are important. If you answered yes and yes then I ask 'what did you miss?'.
Second, the data coming from real world experiments don't follow rules. They are simply raw data. Of course we measure this data with rules like 'c' and 'miles' etc. However don't confuse what I said previously with this. Especially with 'c', we didn't create 'c' and make it a rule. 'c' made itself known to us and we made it a rule. It may be normative but 'c' is not subjective but connected to an essential part of nature. We may all agree 'c' is a certain speed but that is because nature agrees with us. This is a rule in the game science plays. There is nothing wrong with this rule. However if you were going to attack my argument I suggest you start here. Attack that this rule is incorrect and this attack would be justified since you are attacking from within the internal rule system or game. Yet I'm not sure whether this argument would be right or not.
Third, when we received the data we plugged it in with the reworked formula. Such as
y = mx + b
7x + 4y = 8
y = (-7/4)x + 2
There is nothing wrong with what I just did. I solved the equation for y. Essentially they solved the equation for c. Now I assume you would say 'look see they already solved for c, its already going to be c' No, It doesn't have to be c. If the data correlates, c will be the answer. If not c will not be the answer. That is all you can ask from the reworked formula.
Overview:
Rules are normative.
Science takes normative rules and checks whether or not rules apply to nature. If the rule does coincide with nature according to the *game* science plays this rule is correct. You are claiming that this rule is incorrect because you are playing a different game. This is like playing chess then picking my king and saying 'I win'. Remember what I said before you have no right to come from an external rule framework(game) and claim a rule is incorrect or not.
Please, think about all this for a day or so and if you do not agree please reply.
You're essentially saying you can't use a mathematical formula to prove itself. Which is sorta right. However what they did was rework a formula and plug in real numbers to coincide with the formula. They tested the reworked formula against real measurements and it worked out like it should. Its not like they magically changed around all the variables and suddenly the speed of gravity is c.
They looked at radio waves being affected by gravity and made the right measurements. Then they reworked the formula so they could plug in the numbers without gravity waves... since they have yet to be found. I'm still not exactly sure what your problem is.
I think you are getting caught up in the idea that the theory of relativity already assumes the speed of gravity is c. If the data showed that the speed of gravity was not indeed c then their formula would not have worked.
You can't say your ruler is a yard, then use it to measure itself as evidence that your ruler is a yard long.
Unless that ruler is a yardstick. Plus how can a ruler measure itself? The idea of a yard is not the ruler but the ruler is a measurement of a yard. You need to know what a yard is first to then have a ruler you can call a yard. If I define a yard as 10 inches and I say 'look my ruler is a yard it is 10 inches'... then am I wrong?
Did you read the article? It made sense to me. What exactly is your argument? You can't prove something correct by using the same mathematical formalism that raised the question? That makes no sense whatsoever... you would need Martian math in order to prove Earth math. Yet that doesnt make sense either.
Look they reworked the formula so they wouldnt need gravity waves. They clocked how fast gravity effects radio waves. And the numbers fit with the reworked formula. Sounds fine to me...
Do you shoot people down all the time? Do you believe you are superior to other people? Are you easily irritated by questions from inferior beings? Do you think everyone else is stupid except yourself? Do you have a hard time relating to other people? Are you lacking social skills? Do you surround yourself with people who share the same ideas as you? Do you laugh at other people's misfortunes? Will you one day find yourself completely devoid of any meaningful human relationships while you still justify your existence out of a myth of genetic superiority?
I was at the wedding myself and I'd have to say CowboyNeal really likes shrimp. Anyhoo congrats to Hemos and CmdrTaco for continuing the charade that is their heterosexuality.
PS: All jokes aside really congrats and I hope the marriage lasts longer then Slashdot's credibility.
Obviously the poster(ameoba) has serious problems himself and is lashing out against the orginal poster for getting attention he(ameoba) thinks he deserves. I sense a lot of jealousy, anger and remorse in that post. It is not insightful but rather 'incite'ful.
If someone is trying to climb out of the gutter you dont kick them in face because they got slime on your shoes. You pick them up and point them in the right direction.
by them I meant the artists. If you do indeed steal a cd instead of buying it you are surely taking x amount of cents out of their(artists) pockets. And really it doesnt matter how large x is... its still wrong.
quickly notice the difference between not buying/paying and stealing.
If you do not purchase a cd because you don't like it then yes, that is a dollar vote.
However if you do not purchase a cd because you like it but would rather steal it and justify this act of stealing by claiming the record label they are signed under if somehow stealing as well... That is completely different.
If you can buy the art directly then do so. However that will not always be the case but rather a rarity.
So what is your point? If the artist happens to be signed or uses the facilities of a major publishing/distribution company then you shouldn't buy their stuff? Sometimes an artist feels in order to spread their art to as many people as possible they will need the help of a major company/corporation. Why punish them by pirating their material?
the majority of the Slashdot editors are imaginary figures who represent perl scripts written by Cmdrtaco. That way he can collect more then one salary for basically doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you read this.
1. A single ruler cannot measure itself. It would need another ruler to measure the first ruler.
2. What is a ruler? Take the root word of ruler... rule. It measures whether or not an object is following a rule. This rule being 'a yard is 3 feet'.
3. If I say 'a yard is 10 inches' I create a new rule, a rule in my rule system. Inside my system(game) my rule is 'a yard is 10 inches' within my system you have no right to say I am wrong. You could say, 'but within this system a yard is 3 feet' but you could never say I was wrong nor could I say you were wrong. The rules are normative and not 'universal'
Now, you already knew this because it is essentially the crux of your argument. However you are misapplying it.
First, have you ever had a physics class, are you in college? Don't think I'm being an asshole because these questions are important. If you answered yes and yes then I ask 'what did you miss?'.
Second, the data coming from real world experiments don't follow rules. They are simply raw data. Of course we measure this data with rules like 'c' and
'miles' etc. However don't confuse what I said previously with this. Especially with 'c', we didn't create 'c' and make it a rule. 'c' made itself known to us and we made it a rule. It may be normative but 'c' is not subjective but connected to an essential part of nature. We may all agree 'c' is a certain speed but that is because nature agrees with us. This is a rule in the game science plays. There is nothing wrong with this rule. However if you were going to attack my argument I suggest you start here. Attack that this rule is incorrect and this attack would be justified since you are attacking from within the internal rule system or game. Yet I'm not sure whether this argument would be right or not.
Third, when we received the data we plugged it in with the reworked formula. Such as
y = mx + b
7x + 4y = 8
y = (-7/4)x + 2
There is nothing wrong with what I just did. I solved the equation for y. Essentially they solved the equation for c. Now I assume you would say 'look see they already solved for c, its already going to be c' No, It doesn't have to be c. If the data correlates, c will be the answer. If not c will not be the answer. That is all you can ask from the reworked formula.
Overview:
Rules are normative.
Science takes normative rules and checks whether or not rules apply to nature. If the rule does coincide with nature according to the *game* science plays this rule is correct. You are claiming that this rule is incorrect because you are playing a different game. This is like playing chess then picking my king and saying 'I win'. Remember what I said before you have no right to come from an external rule framework(game) and claim a rule is incorrect or not.
Please, think about all this for a day or so and if you do not agree please reply.
You're essentially saying you can't use a mathematical formula to prove itself. Which is sorta right. However what they did was rework a formula and plug in real numbers to coincide with the formula. They tested the reworked formula against real measurements and it worked out like it should. Its not like they magically changed around all the variables and suddenly the speed of gravity is c.
They looked at radio waves being affected by gravity and made the right measurements. Then they reworked the formula so they could plug in the numbers without gravity waves... since they have yet to be found. I'm still not exactly sure what your problem is.
I think you are getting caught up in the idea that the theory of relativity already assumes the speed of gravity is c. If the data showed that the speed of gravity was not indeed c then their formula would not have worked.
You can't say your ruler is a yard, then use it to measure itself as evidence that your ruler is a yard long.
... then am I wrong?
Unless that ruler is a yardstick. Plus how can a ruler measure itself? The idea of a yard is not the ruler but the ruler is a measurement of a yard. You need to know what a yard is first to then have a ruler you can call a yard. If I define a yard as 10 inches and I say 'look my ruler is a yard it is 10 inches'
Your logic is out of bounds.
Did you read the article? It made sense to me. What exactly is your argument? You can't prove something correct by using the same mathematical formalism that raised the question? That makes no sense whatsoever... you would need Martian math in order to prove Earth math. Yet that doesnt make sense either.
Look they reworked the formula so they wouldnt need gravity waves. They clocked how fast gravity effects radio waves. And the numbers fit with the reworked formula. Sounds fine to me...
nebbian - Phd in Physics/Math = doesn't know what he's talking about.
or
slashdot + article about physics/math = idiots get modded +5
or
Stalyn - slashdot = no headache
that theory of relativity is incorrect. Oh wait... slashdotter? common sense? proves incorrect?
Now who sounds mad?
Yeah that made a lot of sense you little twit. Could you string along any more clichés to somehow enlighten me? God, you suck.
Do you shoot people down all the time? Do you believe you are superior to other people? Are you easily irritated by questions from inferior beings? Do you think everyone else is stupid except yourself? Do you have a hard time relating to other people? Are you lacking social skills? Do you surround yourself with people who share the same ideas as you? Do you laugh at other people's misfortunes? Will you one day find yourself completely devoid of any meaningful human relationships while you still justify your existence out of a myth of genetic superiority?
You people make me sick.
Quantum Physics was president we wouldn't have the problems we have today...
Now that's funny!
Hemos is still hungover from CmdrTaco's wedding.
Happy Birthday everybody!
I was at the wedding myself and I'd have to say CowboyNeal really likes shrimp. Anyhoo congrats to Hemos and CmdrTaco for continuing the charade that is their heterosexuality.
PS: All jokes aside really congrats and I hope the marriage lasts longer then Slashdot's credibility.
men pay to have sex with frenetic3!
C# has a worthwhile purpose!
That is encredibly facinating. Certanly more intresting then any of the following
Have you been drinking?
I certainly agree with you though, your submissions were definitely more interesting.
is that post considered Insightful?
Obviously the poster(ameoba) has serious problems himself and is lashing out against the orginal poster for getting attention he(ameoba) thinks he deserves. I sense a lot of jealousy, anger and remorse in that post. It is not insightful but rather 'incite'ful.
If someone is trying to climb out of the gutter you dont kick them in face because they got slime on your shoes. You pick them up and point them in the right direction.
all this happened on Everquest?
Pi calculates YOU!
sorry...
but of course we should trust you since your name is PhysicsGenius.
non-science-related graduate students are full of shit. I'm sure you could teach monkeys to write some bullshit about anything... oh wait we did.
by them I meant the artists. If you do indeed steal a cd instead of buying it you are surely taking x amount of cents out of their(artists) pockets. And really it doesnt matter how large x is... its still wrong.
quickly notice the difference between not buying/paying and stealing.
If you do not purchase a cd because you don't like it then yes, that is a dollar vote.
However if you do not purchase a cd because you like it but would rather steal it and justify this act of stealing by claiming the record label they are signed under if somehow stealing as well... That is completely different.
If you can buy the art directly then do so. However that will not always be the case but rather a rarity.
So what is your point? If the artist happens to be signed or uses the facilities of a major publishing/distribution company then you shouldn't buy their stuff? Sometimes an artist feels in order to spread their art to as many people as possible they will need the help of a major company/corporation. Why punish them by pirating their material?
the majority of the Slashdot editors are imaginary figures who represent perl scripts written by Cmdrtaco. That way he can collect more then one salary for basically doing nothing.
and everytime you pirate a cd/game/movie you enjoy you are essentially telling it's creators to go back to busing tables.
In democratic-captialism the only votes that count are the ones in dollars.