Arronax and Nasrudin are HUMAN

WELL DUH. Read my post already. My statement is very simple: in Newtonian gravitation, with this two-body example, at large distances, a pretty fucking big quantitative difference shows between the ToEE and newtonian gravitation. I'm done explaining this, because it's become obvious to me that you either refuse to read my posts or refuse to give me a decent answer.

Well yeah, but my point is that linear motion and expansion cannot explain these two "attractions" we observe accurately. You can say "Expansion, same constant, tralala" all you want but you're not gonna be able to explain the periodic motion of a system like sun-earth-moon. It simply can't be done, from what I can see.

So in short, stop trying to give a first-year uni dynamics course and start actually reading the posts and giving a decent reply.

 

Calis, now you see why I gave up myself. It's no good her saying we don't reason with her and she 'wins by default', because she just doesn't pay a single shit to anything anyone posts except herself. :/ It's pointless trying to explain things to her. Or it's more likely she doesn't have a clue what any of us have actually been saying. :lol:

 

its kind of like when i try to explain politics to my 13 year old brother and if he doesnt agree with something that isnt in accordance with his naive view of the world, he says "no thats stupid, shut up, you're wrong" and ends the conversation. (he still thinks america won viet nam, and that marijuana couldnt possibly produce more paper than trees)

the strength of the ignorant is their ability to gain moral victory over the competent simply by ignoring their points. you wind up feeling like you lost even though and the there was no real argument taking place because one side refused to listen to the other.

 

Now, look. I read each of your posts very carefully and I consider them to the best of my ability. If you aren't able to convey your points clearly to me then perhaps the blame doesn't rest entirely with me. I feel I have been fairly explicit in my explanations. When I have been asked for clarification, I have provided it in my way.

Calis's most recent statement that there is "a pretty fucking big quantitative difference" between Newtonian gravitation and the ToEE seems overtly general. Nothing more is said on the subject as Calis is "done explaining this". Truly, you have not shown me how the ToEE is at variance with Newtonian gravitation. I think there has been a miscommunication here and I am entirely willing to continue this debate and get to the bottom of what might or might not be the cause of gravity.

 

um...ah...SCIENE SUCKS, NASRUDIN'S AN ELF!

 

Right, I'm just gonna quote my own posts on the subject.

Clear enough for you? Your only reply to this was "Shape dependence also exist with Newtonian gravitation, tralala". Where have I been unclear in what I meant? Well, in the last post, but can you blame me? I've made a number of attempts at explaining this, and never got anything beyond "It's still shape dependent!".
Which is a qualitative observation, something I have also tried to get out of this debate, if we're going to talk about the possibility of rhyming your theory with observations.

Also, I'd be REALLY interested in hearing how your ToEE can explain the periodic motion in the sun-earth-moon situation I asked about earlier.

 

Man, I can't believe this thread is still going. If university level physics was my forte I'd be having a ball...at least I think so. I'm just going to ignore the last 50 odd posts and ask this: What sort of qualifications in this area do you have Chalupa? I know Ferret has his science degree, Calis is nearing the end of his physics degree, but what are you basing your arguments on?

Perhaps after this you'd care to debate networking technologies at some depth with me. It would give me a reason to open up my textbooks and actually read them. Plus I'd also like to have an extended debate which I could participate in, and I know you like crapping on about areas which you have little expertise in.

 

YEA EXACTLY SCIENCE SUCKS!

 

Blinky, that's spam. I advise you to stop.

Jarinor, qualifications are overrated. Always have been, always will be. If you decide not to ignore the last 50 posts in this thread you might be able to find where I have listed my public studies on this topic. Besides, have you SEEN Ferret's degree, or studied side by side with Calis?? It would seem that you fall in with the masses in granting credence to little bits of paper that certify whether people are "qualified".

Calis, I don't get what you are driving at with your example. I don't think I got it before and your repetition of it has achieved the same effect. Please phrase it differently and tell me exactly how your example is at variance with the ToEE, please. I explained to you before that the ToEE defines the cause of g and that none of the math that we use now has to change. I also explained, somewhat implicitly, that the periodicities of our solar system's separate parts are taken from the original energy of the Big Bang; g helps to regulate orbital motion but it is not its cause, as I think you mistakenly believe.

 

Oh, you're also one of those types are you? On of the "Who needs to go to a university to get an education when you can just read in the library instead?" types. Well, you see, the reason I "fall in with the masses in granting credences to little bits of paper" is that you usually need to actually know something to get them. In other words, you have to demonstrate your knowledge on a consistent basis to get them.

There are always going to be people who buy their little bits of paper, but somehow Calis and Ferret don't strike me as the type who would do or have done that. I may not have studied beside them, but I believe their claims that they are either getting or already have them. Anyway, what makes public studies more credible than university/college?

You're so full of shit that it's pretty much responsible for the readings you get when you step on the scales - brains certainly aren't what's weighing you down.

 

Wow, I must be wrong to have cobra yelling at me for making useless posts, that's like Roise calling someone fat.

Please correct me if anything I say is wrong, I don't proclaim to be any source of knowledge on the topic, and these are probably moot points I'm stating, but what I understand from Canis, or at least think I understand, is that, while shape may play a role in gravitational forces, it becomes negligable when you deal with great distances. Now I don't know what a great distance would be in physics, I tend to think the distance between every heavenly body is great. Chalupa, you can act all intelligent if you want to, but you still haven't answered any of Canis' questions, and you can't understand points that even a layman like me can at least grasp to a semblance.

This doesn't surprise me however, I have noticed that most people who disregard college degrees don't have one. The piece of paper isn't a credence, the person who can earn that piece of paper lends credence to himself or herself.

 

Read Blinky's post, he got it. It's just one example that shows a mathematical inconsistency. I really can't explain it better. I've tried and I've tried. Just read his interpretation, and take "large distance" as "a distance that is much larger than the dimensions of the objects involved". If you still don't get it, I don't really know what else I could add.

What I'm driving at though, is that there is a fundamental difference between calling gravitation a cause of force and calling it an observed effect due to *independent* expansions. Once again, you can't just say it's the cause of g and expect all the math to work out.

And I don't understand how you could get a periodic system like our solar system, where, say, two planets are on the same side of the sun at one point in time and on opposing sides at another. You'll need a real change in direction for that, and as far as I can see you can't explain it with linear motion, energy imparted by the big bang, and expansion of all the bodies involved. I just don't see it.

Oh, and I'd really like to see you weasel your way out of my general relativity question.

EDIT: Blinky, I deleted two of your triple post. Next time do it yourself, you can delete your own posts if you want / need to.
Also, I'm Calis, not Canis.

 

Yea I really need to chill with the submit button hitting. Sorry bout that, and thanks

I'm sorry I messed up your name too, I type too fast for my own good. It's only 40 words a minute, but it's still too fast for me

 

[SPOILER CONTAINED]
I didn't have the patience to read all five pages, so bear with me if I repeat something that someone else started... (this is a SPOILER) when you speak with Nasrudin, he says that he retreated into his 'shell' for nearly two thousand years.... it could be that he was elven, but his 'shell' looks human b/c it has no racial distinctions such as pointy ears... and the same with Arronax... he tells you in the Void that he too had spent nearly two thousand years in his shell.... and it's prolly the same case... but speaking of such things... why was Kerghan a snake-like creature? I didn't understand that (I apologize to anyone who has read this and hasn't beaten the game, you now you the ending, but you were warned!!)

 

I'd just like to confirm/reinforce some of Jarinor's points. I'm a student, also studying networking technologies. Before doing so I used to think I was pretty adept at computers and networks in general.
The thing is, if you're "self taught" you tend to miss stuff. Stuff which might seem self-explanatory to someone who has had access to an environment where he or she had the ability to talk to people with more experience, try stuff with lab equipment and so on.
Thats not to say that a person with a degree is always better in their field then someone who is self taught. But most degrees are pretty damn hard to get. So if a person has one you can be pretty sure they know what they're talking about.

 

Matt this has become a debate.

 

Matt, damn it, how come you have to come and start with all this crap that's on topic!! God damn it! Making us actually do stuff besides just watch Chalupa be mentally beaten like a red-headed step child by everyone else! How could you?!?

 

Qualifications are called qualifications because they qualify your knowledge. They're not just bit of paper you can get (unless you're American, but even then, you can't get University degrees - only college ones) but are the representation of the the years of hard study and exams that you have understaken in order to PROVE you have the knowledge it says you have.

It's really eating at you isn't it? I spent 4 years hard study to develop my knowledge. I'd have to say that just the level of understanding demonstrated by both Calis and I would go a long way to showing you we know what we're talking about.

If, of course, you actually understood anything that we wrote.... :lol:

 

Besides, what other more effective method of verifying that work can you come up with Chalupa? You don't like paper, fine let the university give graduation tatoos, you can get branded by your gpa. Of course, there would probably be alot more studying in college, I know I wuldn't want to screw up and have 1.4 stuck on my ass for the rest of my life.

 

I DID get the gist of what Calis said before. If this didn't come across clearly before then perhaps you should go back and read again what I have written. I was saying that his counter to the ToEE seemed overly general and I was asking him to clarify what he meant by "a pretty fucking big quantitative difference" or "a distance that is much larger than the dimensions of the object involved". At what point does that "distance" become large enough to ignore "the dimensions of the object involved"?? Fifty times the breadth of the object?? Four quintillion times?? What?? The vague generalities that Calis has provided don't go very far in showcasing his alleged knowledge on this matter. If there really is a point at which integral slices of objects become negligible then that point must be definite; that, or Calis was just pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

It seems counterproductive that the people who have most recently joined this thread contribute spam and insults. I ask all of you (and you know who you are) to stop now. If you don't have something to contribute to the debate besides your vitriol or divergent nonsense then please refrain from speaking it here; kindly take it to some other thread. We've all had a chance to voice our opinions of diplomas and degrees and we should now drop it; let's get back to the topic at hand.