16f3e470
From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk
In message
,
ghost writes
>In article ,
> Kevin Calder wrote:
>
>> In message , alias
>> writes
>> >On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:42:42 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:
>> Well, an understanding of some descriptive scheme is required for *you*
>> to talk about, or even quietly contemplate gravity. Without some kind
>> of linguistic structure, inherited from Newton, Einstein or String
>> Theory and massless, spin-2 gravitons, your totally fucked when it comes
>> to talking about or thinking about gravity. You might 'feel it' without
>> *some kind* of understanding but you couldn't know it. And you wouldn't
>> be able to discern it from accelerated motion :p
>
>See... that's not what alias was pointing out and two people have no
>missed it. Amazing...
Isn't it?
> one wonders how we manage to do anything but shit
>ourselves as a species since very few seem capable of actually READING
>the fucking sentence as it stands without adding or infering some kind
>of unimplied statement.
Oh, go imply yr face.
>No understanding of MASS is needed for GRAVITY.
>Meaning ... you don't have to know what mass is for gravity to have an
>effect on it.
If you don't know what mass is, then there "is" no such thing as "mass"
for gravity to have an effect on. If you have no understanding of
gravity, and no understanding of "gravitational effects" or "effects"
generally then you don't have a fucking clue what is going.
See below and elsewhere in this thread...
>And for you to talk about the effects of gravity ..
Imagine!
> well, don't have to
>understand mass for that either ... I'm sure the civilizations before us
>who didn't have all the mathematical bullshit spouted up there didn't
>give a fuck either.
Mathematical bullshit?
Didn't give a fuck?
Bleh...
>Roman aquaducts still managed to work without the 'understanding of
>mass', 'string theory', or anything from Newton onwards...
This is true, but it just demonstrates that our conception of "gravity"
has been reformed several times, each time in an attempt to make it
correlate more satisfyingly with our conception of something that seems
to be occurring within our conception "objective reality" (sorry if that
was a bit verbose, but I am trying to be clear). Note that the closest
that we can get to "objective reality" is our subjective conception of
it. So if you want to start talking about, or thinking about "gravity"
you need some sort knowledge of it. So my point was that claiming that
"gravity exists" independently of human understanding is nonsensical
because "gravity" and "existence" are both man made, man dependant
concepts. They were both constructed from a subjective point of view,
and therefor are only applicable in terms of subjectivity.
A notion of gravity which somehow transcended the need for someone's
point of view for it to make sense, would probably be impossible to
assimilate!
>Gravity summed up: What goes up will come down.
>down being defined as towards the ground, up away from it.
A sturdy conception!
Stick with it by all means! It will serve you well in everyday life.
It isn't the end of the story, however in terms of current scientific
understanding.
>With that in mind, who the fuck cares about spin-2 gravitons.
Um physicists.
And IMHO they are offering me a better, more powerful, more useful more
representative model of "gravity" than you are. YMMV.
Though AFAIK they haven't actually experimentally confirmed the
existence of the graviton yet, have they?
zip,
--
Kevin Calder
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
