ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

I think it's quite safe to say philosophy has never contributed anything whatsoever to any kind of math, science, or engineering. Philosophy is all about helping mankind understand how to think about thought itself. Also I wouldn't call psychology a science either. Until mankind has a clue what consciousness actually is, there will be an impenetrable firewall between philosophy and all sciences.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Ruby is every bit as dead as Visual Basic.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

It's trivially easy and unimportant to purposefully create two sets of data that hash into the same hash value. The value of any hashing function is only from the statistical efficiencies arising from the fact that RANDOM data will have astronomically low probability of collision. Purposefully creating collisions is merely a nonsensical time-wasting pursuit. But hey, it got you noticed on HackerNews. Mission accomplished.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Yeah, I think it's actually trivial to purposefully create two sets of data that hash into the same hash value. If this weren't the case then it would be the equivalent of data compression. If you are TRYING to cause a hash collision and successfully do that's trivial. Not even worthy of emailing your mom about. This entire post is not worthy of any attention.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Here's an example article just published that shows plenty of people use Standard Model in a way that assumes gravity to be part of what's encompassed by that term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/science/hubble-constant-u...

Standard model is conventionally used in modern times to mean "the current understanding of physics"

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

PuTTY has been a sort of industry standard for decades and they're still afraid to put a "Version 1.0" label on it!? Can that be right? I guess Google is still in the "beta" version of their little "Search Engine Thingy" too perhaps. Maybe somebody should invent negative or even "imaginary numbers" for versions, and then it would suffice for this shyness about integers. I don't know. We need Steve Jobs to come back and tell is what to do.

(I'm waiting for the ass-holes who will take exception with term "decades". Come on guys. let me have it. Don't i deserve a good HackerNews smacking?)

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

@dang, Quit pretending to be an admin of this site. You're an ordinary SockPuppet burner-account and have absolutely no affiliation with HackerNews.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Like most 'debates' on HN, the entire thing boils down to whose definition of a word is correct. If I had stated something incorrect about actual physics, you'd have pointed it out. You never did, because I never did.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Don't we all wish HackerNews had that capability! I certainly wish I had the ability to at least mute people. Yourself for example. I'd mute you if I could, because you're only here to stir up trouble. So funny how HackerNews has about as much functionality as notepad.exe, and yet people flock here.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Just to keep score: You called me a troll, because I called someone an a-hole, for calling me a liar. That's what just happened. What a totally PC Snowflake Soap-Opera. Of course that's based on the assumption that the 'Sock Puppet' burner accounts aren't BOTH YOURS to begin with. hahahahaha. omfg that would be hilarious. In case it doesn't even matter, i'm using my REAL identity.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

WiredTiger is a great way to correct from the original 'wrong turn' mongo took when they decided not to build on an existing (RDBMS). WiredTiger may be vastly superior to the MySQL codebase, afaik, but i would tend to doubt it. And you know the code overlap would be at least 80%, in terms of what's going on, which proves my original thesis, which is they should have built on top of RDBMS to start with.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Most people consider the 4 fundamental forces to be 'part of' the Standard Model, even if the field equations are not complete. But like I said, i did understand what you meant by 'silent on gravity' after your first clarification.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

So now you want to even debate what qualifies as a debate. Clever way to bow out.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

You can google the phrase "Standard Model" or look it up in any physics book you want, and there will always be a table labeled "Standard Model" that shows all the particles, which relate to the 4 fundamental forces (carriers), charges, spins, masses, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with this chart. The graviton is on that chart and is specifically describing gravity based on each mass value of each particle (hardly "silence" there). I mean literally every particle type has a mass value (even when zero) right? Is that silence? The general laymans meaning of "Standard Model" means everything in physics that is referenced on that chart (including gravity), and that's how I meant it.

However, what YOU apparently mean by "silent on gravity" is referencing the fact that the Standard Model is incomplete for gravity, because General Relativity is not yet accounted for. I should've realized you might be referring to the lack of any unified field theory, but I didn't. If you had said "doesn't fully explain" rather than "is silent on", it would've sounded perfectly fine to me.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

...and this from a guy who thinks the wave-function of light is describing a path of motion.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

If you're calling light interactions with other particles (like mirrors, lenses, or even edges of things) your 'bending' then that is a complete 'context switch' you have made, and is not the kind of light bending we are discussing. I've been talking about light freely traveling thru open space passing thru any force field you can imaging. Period. Full stop. It never bends. The space bends.

BTW, none of those 'waves in space' (you mentioned) ever involve an actual anything changing its direction of propagation thru space. That is a 'classical view' of it that is completely wrong. The wave-equations of quantum mechanics are indeed sinusoidal, but there is nothing that traverses a sinusoidal path. It's merely an oscillating 'potential'. It tells you where you are likely to find a particle at any given time, in terms of the probability of that location, but even if you do look and FIND the particle there, it doesn't mean the space from its last position was actually 'traveled thru'. So trying to use duality of light as an example of light changing direction is wrong from about 10 different ways I could explain it.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Nice dissertation on 2+2=4. I've known relativity for 30years. The point i was making (as i'm sure you genuinely DO actually know, despite pretending once again to need to correct me), is that even physics professors in the middle of physics lectures will say "space" or "time", depending on context. Learn the fact that English and all languages have syntactical nuances. Oh,and thanks for the warning that you are a Troll, but I don't mind. I'm biting the hook. Nothing thrills me more than debating physics. Thus the 30yrs.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Your first point of contention is invalid, because there ARE two distinct and DIFFERENT interpretations of what "dark stuff" is really telling us:

Either 1) there are genuinely a whole class of particles that remain completely invisible to us except for their influence on the entire universe mass/energy balance, and yet still fit the current model of SR/GR

--OR-- 2) the current model of space-time (GR/SR) is fundamentally broken (as if relativity, and even spacetime is 'emergent', from something more fundamental), and there is genuinely NO SUCH THING as dark energy or dark matter.

All leading physicists agree those are the two scenarios that are very likely. You may be familiar with Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" which he called his greatest blunder. It's along those lines of reasoning that I go for door #2 above.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

So much of what you said is hilariously wrong. Probably the most acute example is your claim "Standard Model is mute on gravity". Are you kidding me? Page one of any book of the Standard Model discusses the 4 fundamental forces. Guess what one of them is: GRAVITY.

ClayFerguson

9 yıl öncediscuss

Oh, I can prove it with evidence. The only thing that can change the direction of motion of a particle is a force. Photons have zero mass and zero charge, therefore no force (including gravity) can act on light (strong and weak interactions are not applicable here). Therefore light will always travel in a straight line. When light appears to 'bend' it is not because the light itself changed direction in its reference frame, but because the space the light is traveling thru in is warped. Any physics professor will understand precisely what i'm saying, and all agree. Someone who has only read a few articles online will not. I've understood this since 1986. I'm very old and wise you little child.

comments