Soliton signing out!

12/25/2008 | Soliton

[Soliton]

After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.

I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.

For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.

I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.

Merry Christmas

[js1138]

No moderator has ever told me not to post to GGG. I have been in flame wars where the mods said knock it off.

Read the Kevmo post. Thick skin is recommended.

[js1138]

“Gravity is a particle? Please provide evidence to support your contention.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=535
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Graviton.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJK-4FB9FRP-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e62691fe0a5083267999c7d776fc558

Forces are not particles, but they are mediated by particles. Which is what I said, and not what you misquoted.

Your inability to see gravity does not make it unobservable. You cannot see radio waves, nor can you detect them without instruments, but they are the same phenomena as visible light.

[js1138]

Eureka:

It is most famously attributed to the ancient Greek scholar Archimedes; he reportedly proclaimed, "Eureka!" when he stepped into a bath and noticed that the water level rose – he suddenly understood that the volume of water displaced must be equal to the volume of the part of his body he had submerged. This meant that the volume of irregular objects could be calculated with precision, a previously intractable problem.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

just a few weeks ago, a defender of evolution on this board told me that the fact that I think there is any such thing as proof in science shows beyond doubt (proves, if you will) that I am completely ignorant about what science is.

Indeed, they usually say science can't prove anything. And then, of course, they ask for proof of whatever it is that you said. Some, like Coyoteman, go so far as to say that the word "truth" must be excised from the vocabulary of science.

[Coyoteman]

Some, like Coyoteman, go so far as to say that the word "truth" must be excised from the vocabulary of science.

That, as I have pointed out to you many times, comes from a CalTech physics website. But for those with a short memory, here it is again:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

If you want TRVTH, though, just ask the creationists here. They'll be happy to fill you full of it. But the problem is, each will give you a different version of the TRVTH and defend it to your death. That's why the Religion Forum has such tight moderation rules.

Thanks, science does just fine by seeking to be accurate. That's plenty good enough, don't you think?

[Swordmaker]

In free fall? You are saying you can use displacement to measure mass in free fall? Surely this is a typo.

No, JS, it is not a typo. Displacement is one viable method of measuring mass in a freefall... so long as the object being measured is less dense than the liquid it is displacing. If it is less dense, shove the item to be measure into a sphere of a liquid, measure the increase in diameter, calculate the additional volume, multiply times the known mass figure of the liquid per volume. Voila, you know the mass of the object. If it is more dense, then other methods would have to be used such as an acceleration measure.

By the way, the differences between gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable to every one of our techniques for measuring either.

[Swordmaker]

But the only easy and cheap way to measure body volume is by total immersion. It makes no difference how massive or dense a body is. Once it is totally immersed you have its volume. But weight is a separate and independent measurement.

If a body or object floats in the liquid, it also is a quick and easy method of determining mass. It will only work for mass if the object floats, meaning that the object is less dense than water. Every human body that I am familiar with is less dense than water. Ergo the water displaced by the floating body exactly equals its mass/weight. Force total immersion then the water displaced by the immersed body exactly equals it's volume.

[Swordmaker]

Please ignore my first paragraph in the last post. JS1138 is right on the freefall determination of mass. The method I described still requires a known acceleration to work. Sorry about that. Second paragraph is still accurate.

[js1138]

Thanks for the clarification.

But the argument started over a claim that immersion was used to measure weight, mass, and body fat. My first response — still correct after all these years — was that immersion measures volume.

You can measure the weight of an object by calculating the weight of the water displaced by a floating object, but as a practical matter it makes no sense to do this with human bodies.

The medical procedure for determining body fat uses displacement to measure body volume. Volume is an essential factor in the equation. Tpanther has consistently denied that volume is of any interest and he/she is wrong. Simple as that.

Even if you use displacement to measure weight, as with ships, you are measuring volume and calculating weight.

[js1138]

Second paragraph is still accurate.

Yes, gravity is equivalent to acceleration, and acceleration requires energy, and energy is interchangeable with mass. Therefore gravity is material, even if we still lack a complete description of its attributes.

[Kevmo]

You’re welcome. I doubt it was a lie.

[js1138]

Within the last month or two, GGG pinged the admins on this issue and was ignored. The policy is plain. Unless someone is violating the rules and due for a suspension, opponents are expected to defend themselves.

[Kevmo]

I agree about the policy, but your characterization of GGG’s actions is what I still have a ton of doubt about. Whenever I look through your posting history, I find half truths, distortions, lies, and spiritual sickness. I haven’t looked through GGG’s much because my alarm bells don’t ring when he posts. So, my assessment of the character between js and GGG is that the likelihood of finding a lie over this issue, assuming one is to be found, is about 80% js and 20% GGG, about 4X as likely to be found by looking through js’s posting history than GGG’s. Sorry, GGG, I might give you higher numbers if I were more familiar with your posting history.

[Swordmaker]

...gravity is material...

There I cannot agree with you. Just because a theoritician has proposed a particle called a "graviton," does not mean it exists. We have never observed one, have no idea of how to obseve one, nor do we have any theory as how a "graviton" can work at stellar distances.

All measurements of gravity is in some way "calculated" whether by an analog device such as the stretching or bending of a spring or by the finding of a zero point by trial and error of a balance scale. None of them measure gravity directly, they merely measure its effects.

Until we can find your graviton and describe how it works, I doubt we will be able to directly measure it.

Einstein proposed that gravity is a multi-dimensional bending of space-time relating to the presence of mass.

[js1138]

Forces in general are difficult to discuss in layman’s terms, and I don’t happen to have an advanced degree in general relativity.

The claim was made that gravity “...is no more detectable than God is and in no other way than God would be.”

This is nonsense. Whatever gravity is, it is detectable, measurable, quantifiable, consistent, predictable and all the other ables that make a phenomenon accessible to science.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for your 80% vote of confidence :o)

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m not lying. And JSXXXX knows it. But it isn’t strictly the mods directive telling us to stay away from one another that keeps me from replying to JSXXXX. What keeps me from replying to him is the fact that I lost all respect for him when he went behind the scenes to convince unspespecting FReepers to go to Jim Robinson to get me banned over my CONSERVATIVE position re: AIDS (not to mention all the threads he deliberately heated up in such a way to ensure they got pulled).

[Mr. Silverback]

I didn't realize I was that frightening to you ;-)

I belief the scientific term for this sort of thing is "advanced wussitis."

This appears to be 'yote's current position:

[Coyoteman]

Your childish taunts do you and your cause no credit, but that's pretty much all we see from many of you lately.

I guess if you had any real evidence for your crusade against evolution you would post it.

But here is some evidence for you to chew on:

Source

[Kevmo]

So how does that prove he’s lying?
***It doesn’t. Maybe I shoulda given GGG a higher rating of confidence ;-)