Freethought & Rationalism Archive

cfgauss · 01-09-2003, 02:03 PM

It's not a fallacy. Look at CNN's site. Is it a fallacy to determine that it's a news site from looking at its articles?

And the speed of gravity *is* the speed of light, or GR wouldn't work, and it does.

fando · 01-09-2003, 02:12 PM

Crap is relative.

cfgauss · 01-09-2003, 02:17 PM

Crap is so real & absolute that one could mathematically define it, if one had a lot of time on one's hands

.

John Page · 01-09-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man
Nah, if we couldn't experience the electromagnetic spectrum, I don't think we would ever have come up with the Theory of Relativity. We would be permanently stuck with Newtonian Mechanics, since it would appear to apply in every situation we could possibly observe (touch?).

I agree regarding Einstein's Theory, but wouldn't we have come up with a theory of relativity? We'd still have a sense of touch and therefore movement/distance over time, and we'd be able to hear the sounds. Perhaps, therefore, we'd discover that observers traveling at different speeds would hear different frequencies.

I'm still thinking about your Newtonian physics comment - in a way I agree but Isaac didn't come up with the Doppler effect.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi · 01-09-2003, 02:21 PM

John,

you are saying If we could not sense electromagnetic radiation then we would have been limited by our senses to the speed of sound. We would be blind bats in other words.

OK, so we would have been blind bats with hands and feet moving to the beat. I hope we would have had better overall perfomances than M&M.

So light would not have played a part in evolution. I guess you are really asking if all information relays available in our universe were included in our evolution. If the answer to this question is YES, which it seems to be, then YES, our theory of relativity in our batworld would have been limited by sound phenomena.

So John, I think you have asked a non-sensical question, pardon my light.

* * *

Gravity has a speed? I thought gravity had an effective sphere of simultaneous effects. The speed of the force, reaching out to get ya. Any chances of propogation delays?

I read the articles...

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mageth · 01-09-2003, 02:22 PM

It's not a fallacy.

Yes it is. Specifically, it's a form of argument ad hominem. The truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person (or web site) asserting it.

Look at CNN's site. Is it a fallacy to determine that it's a news site from looking at its articles?

No, but it would be a fallacy to assume an article posted on it was accurate just because it was posted on a news site, or if it was a news site you thought was crap, to assume an article posted on it was crap just because it was posted on the site.

And the speed of gravity *is* the speed of light, or GR wouldn't work, and it does.

I'd posit that in the way that one of the experimenters did in the news I posted ariticle about the experiment (emphasis mine):

"We now know that the speed of gravity is probably equal to the speed of light," Fomalont said. "And we can confidently exclude any speed for gravity that is over twice that of light."

cfgauss · 01-09-2003, 02:26 PM

Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...rav_speed.html

Mageth · 01-09-2003, 02:30 PM

Yeah, I read that article previously, and alluded to it in an above post when I said "other previous measurements."

cfgauss · 01-09-2003, 02:34 PM

Logic needs to involve less philosophy and more psychology!
People's actions aren't random or arbitrary, and there is in fact such a strong correlation between past actions and future ones that we can form models that accurately predict people's actions to certain situations! So, yes, under the psychological model I can say that there is an extremely large probability that all of the articles there are crap, and with an even larger one that the articles that contradict reality are!

And I know it would've been better stated that way, but (psychology again!) people react better to an absolute statement than an uncertain one. You tend to get the uncertain belief from someone when you make an absolute statement, and almost a null belief when you make an uncertain one.

John Page · 01-09-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi
So John, I think you have asked a non-sensical question, pardon my light.

Think about this proposition, then.

HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY

Entry- GARGLEWARP

Humankind has evolved without any knowledge of garglewarp, the non-deterministic framework within which uncertain particles ocassionally kiss and produce quanta of deterministic effects such as photons.

Without this knowledge, humankind has not yet developed the infinite improbability drive into which can be fed paradoxes and out of which emerges complete crap.

The human condition is thus, for humans, analagous to those species that have evolved without any knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum.

(Apologies to Mr. Adams).

Cheers, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

01-09-2003, 02:21 PM	#15
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	high bound speeds... John, you are saying If we could not sense electromagnetic radiation then we would have been limited by our senses to the speed of sound. We would be blind bats in other words. OK, so we would have been blind bats with hands and feet moving to the beat. I hope we would have had better overall perfomances than M&M. So light would not have played a part in evolution. I guess you are really asking if all information relays available in our universe were included in our evolution. If the answer to this question is YES, which it seems to be, then YES, our theory of relativity in our batworld would have been limited by sound phenomena. So John, I think you have asked a non-sensical question, pardon my light. * * * Gravity has a speed? I thought gravity had an effective sphere of simultaneous effects. The speed of the force, reaching out to get ya. Any chances of propogation delays? I read the articles... Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2003, 02:03 PM	#11
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	It's not a fallacy. Look at CNN's site. Is it a fallacy to determine that it's a news site from looking at its articles? And the speed of gravity is the speed of light, or GR wouldn't work, and it does.

01-09-2003, 02:12 PM	#12
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	Crap is relative.

01-09-2003, 02:17 PM	#13
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	Crap is so real & absolute that one could mathematically define it, if one had a lot of time on one's hands .

01-09-2003, 02:22 PM	#16
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	It's not a fallacy. Yes it is. Specifically, it's a form of argument ad hominem. The truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person (or web site) asserting it. Look at CNN's site. Is it a fallacy to determine that it's a news site from looking at its articles? No, but it would be a fallacy to assume an article posted on it was accurate just because it was posted on a news site, or if it was a news site you thought was crap, to assume an article posted on it was crap just because it was posted on the site. *And the speed of gravity is* the speed of light, or GR wouldn't work, and it does.** I'd posit that in the way that one of the experimenters did in the news I posted ariticle about the experiment (emphasis mine): "We now know that the speed of gravity is probably equal to the speed of light," Fomalont said. "And we can confidently exclude any speed for gravity that is over twice that of light."

01-09-2003, 02:26 PM	#17
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...rav_speed.html

01-09-2003, 02:30 PM	#18
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Yeah, I read that article previously, and alluded to it in an above post when I said "other previous measurements."

01-09-2003, 02:34 PM	#19
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	Logic needs to involve less philosophy and more psychology! People's actions aren't random or arbitrary, and there is in fact such a strong correlation between past actions and future ones that we can form models that accurately predict people's actions to certain situations! So, yes, under the psychological model I can say that there is an extremely large probability that all of the articles there are crap, and with an even larger one that the articles that contradict reality are! And I know it would've been better stated that way, but (psychology again!) people react better to an absolute statement than an uncertain one. You tend to get the uncertain belief from someone when you make an absolute statement, and almost a null belief when you make an uncertain one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.