Why knocking is so important.

[pocaracas]

He, like you, was talking about net acceleration of an object, not the acceleration of gravity. He doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of what gravity does, and so lumps effects of gravitational force together with effects of other forces and treats them as an amorphous whole.

I did try to use correct wording on that detail, but I may not have made it evident enough.
And I can't remember if Drich was only talking about gravity's acceleration or some other... but, now that I write this... gravity came up as some sort of faith that Drich wishes to impose on us, right?

Well, to Drich's version of faith we have in science, I can tell you that Every year, thousands, if not millions, of university students are rehashing many of the pre-20th century experiments that yielded all the results we take for granted, today.... like Newton's gravitational constant; diffraction of light, radioactive decay, electron-positron annihilation (I know this one is from the 20th century), etc.
Heck, I did all of these.
So there you go, Drich, I don't take it on faith! I did the experiments and saw the results show up.

[Anomalocaris]

He, like you, was talking about net acceleration of an object, not the acceleration of gravity. He doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of what gravity does, and so lumps effects of gravitational force together with effects of other forces and treats them as an amorphous whole.

I did try to use correct wording on that detail, but I may not have made it evident enough.
And I can't remember if Drich was only talking about gravity's acceleration or some other... but, now that I write this... gravity came up as some sort of faith that Drich wishes to impose on us, right?

Well, to Drich's version of faith we have in science, I can tell you that Every year, thousands, if not millions, of university students are rehashing many of the pre-20th century experiments that yielded all the results we take for granted, today.... like Newton's gravitational constant; diffraction of light, radioactive decay, electron-positron annihilation (I know this one is from the 20th century), etc.
Heck, I did all of these.
So there you go, Drich, I don't take it on faith! I did the experiments and saw the results show up.

If one considers the acceleration of a falling object and would like to drag air resistance into it, then the shape and density of the object matters a hell of a lot more than ambient temperature. Look at a parachute vs a lead ball.

So the fact drip went on and on about effect of ambient temperature on air density, without once noticing the much more dominating effects of shape and density, shows he has zero native understanding of either the original problem of acceleration of gravity, or the spurious problem of drag he introduced to muddy the water.

When one tries to change the topic or inject unrelated factors to avoid exposing one's ignorance, one should use something one knows well. One should disguise stench with perfume. But drippy seem to not perceive the wisdom in that. He is apparently dumb enough to thinks he would stink less if he threw more shit.

[pocaracas]

So the fact drip went on and on about effect of ambient temperature on air density, without once noticing the much more dominating effects of shape and density, shows he has zero native understanding of either the original problem of acceleration of gravity, or the spurious problem of drag he introduced to muddy the water.

When one tries to change the topic or inject unrelated factors to avoid exposing one's ignorance, one should use something one knows well. One should disguise stench with perfume. But drippy seem to not perceive the wisdom in that. He is apparently dumb enough to thinks he would stink less if he threw more shit.

Sadly, some people think they know a lot about a given subject, when they actually know very little.... and even sadder are those who use that little they know and dress it up as if it was a lot. It's a strategy that works on a lot of the population, I'll grant him that. But not here.

Once, my aunt (one of those who thinks they know it all) was saying something bad about microwave ovens... something about them having very small waves which penetrate everything and cause havoc.... then I just said "but, but light waves are much smaller and no one complains." Light wavelengths are in the order of hundreds of nanometers, while microwave ovens use... errr.... micrometer waves, duh, oh... 1 micrometer = 10^-6 m; one nanometer = 10^-9.
And I'm not sure which wavelength kitchen microwave ovens use, but they should be in the single digit GHz range, so, hundreds of micrometers... close to mm. Let me google that for me:

Consumer ovens usually use 2.45 gigahertz (GHz)—a wavelength of 12.2 centimetres (4.80 in)

Darn, I was right on the GHz, but a bit off on the mm...12 cm... well, it did have to be larger than the metallic mesh you see on the oven's door's window.

Ultra-violet and X-rays, on the other hand, are indeed much shorter than visible light waves and do penetrate...

But we were talking about my aunt, she just replied "oh, shut up!" and couldn't finish her horror Microwave tale possibly induced by some gas company wishing to put fear into the consumer's heart, so that they won't pick up on those vile cancer-making machines.

[Tonus]

gravity came up as some sort of faith that Drich wishes to impose on us, right?

In the sense of accepting someone else's word on a subject, in this case regarding gravity. In that sense we take a lot of things on faith. It reminds me of that video where someone asks Richard Dawkins why he, in effect, has faith in science. "Because it works" is his matter-of-fact reply. More than just that, it works in a repeatable and reliable fashion. My 'faith in science' is rewarded every time I turn on an electronic device. Or get into my car and drive somewhere. Or board a plane and take a flight. Or check my watch. Or any number of things that we take advantage of every day without ever having to understand the underlying concepts.

Faith in religion, on the other hand, is nowhere near as repeatable or reliable. The results are varied, from nothing at all to miraculous healing of deadly diseases or being saved from near-impossible odds. Without the ability to independently verify any of those accounts, even religious people snipe at one another. One man's "miracle from the hand of god himself" is another man's "satan transformed into an angel of light to deceive." And since one has as much evidence for his claim as does the other, we are left with a version of faith that works as poorly or as well as you pretend that it does.

But it wouldn't make the lights come on when you flip that switch.

[pocaracas]

But it wouldn't make the lights come on when you flip that switch.

You just didn't ask for the light to come up hard enough, or long enough, or with the right mindset.

In time, you'd find that turning the lights on would only hurt your eyes, so god has provided that they be left off, for your own good.
You asked, he replied.
If you fail to understand the reply, then you must think more about the subject.
There is always a reply, if you ask sincerely.
[/Drich-like reply]

[The Grand Nudger]

"Because it works" is his matter-of-fact reply. More than just that, it works in a repeatable and reliable fashion. My 'faith in science' is rewarded every time I turn on an electronic device. Or get into my car and drive somewhere. Or board a plane and take a flight. Or check my watch. Or any number of things that we take advantage of every day without ever having to understand the underlying concepts.

I doubt that it requires much faith at all when you experience it working. An inference could be drawn to religion here -

Faith in religion, on the other hand, is nowhere near as repeatable or reliable. The results are varied, from nothing at all to miraculous healing of deadly diseases or being saved from near-impossible odds. Without the ability to independently verify any of those accounts, even religious people snipe at one another.

Yep, science works regardless, faith might only work for the faithful - at which point how much faith is required? I say "might" - because it;s difficult to establish that it actually -is- working...even (and perhaps especially) amongst the faithful.

-For Drich-
Hmn, something very different seems to be happening between these two sets - wonder why that is? The whole point of such a use of the concept is baffling to me. "You're doing the same thing" - Establishing that one's self and ones process is identical to another's whilst simultaneously arguing or implying that they are incorrect? I'm not sure you'd even need a partner in a debate like that, sounds like a solo show. Every criticism of their "faith" holds equally true as a criticism of your own. You'd almost have to zip it to avoid scuttling your own ship.