Why knocking is so important.

[Losty]

Knock knock.

Who's there?

[FatAndFaithless]

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Madame.

[Losty]

Who's there?

Madame.

Madame who?

[FatAndFaithless]

Madame.

Madame who?

Madame foot is stuck in the door, open up!

[Losty]

Ahahaha

[Anomalocaris]

Nah, and again ignoring your inane phrasing, I didn't miss it, I just explained why this is incorrect - and I see no need to repeat myself.

I'm confident that you'll figure it out Drich.

'Insane phrasing' does two things. First it makes people think about what is being communicated rather than seeing a common phrase and simply going with a 'granted taken' meaning.

Second it works as a filter. It catches those skimming my work for faults so they can object to what ever I say and do, and allows who wish to speak to content an oppertunity to do so with fresh eyes.

It said inane, drich, not insane. How can you be so perfectly inane and still not know inane means?

[Drich]

'Insane phrasing' does two things. First it makes people think about what is being communicated rather than seeing a common phrase and simply going with a 'granted taken' meaning.

Second it works as a filter. It catches those skimming my work for faults so they can object to what ever I say and do, and allows who wish to speak to content an oppertunity to do so with fresh eyes.

It said inane, drich, not insane. How can you be so perfectly inane and still not know inane means?

PERFECT example of a grammar filter.. Although this one was not intended, the result was the same none the less.

[pocaracas]

ok, guys... for accuracy's sake, I actually think Drich may be right.

Air resistance is typically considered proportional to air speed and cross section of the flying body in the direction proportional to the motion... the faster you go, the more air particles you bounce against; the larger you are, the more particles bounce against you (that's how parachutes work).
Air speed is also proportional to the acceleration that is exerted on the body.

Given enough time for the body to drop, it will reach a high enough speed so that the two constants of proportionality match. This results in zero acceleration from then on, or a constant velocity, usually called "terminal velocity".

So, in real world terms, a free-falling body actually feels an acceleration lower than one 'g', due to drag, eventually dropping to zero-g.

On top of this, the air density follows a maxwellian distribution, meaning it falls exponentially with altitude from its sea level value. This means that, the lower you are, the lower your terminal velocity will be, because you will have more air particles bouncing against your body. So, in some imperceptible way, you actually fall slower.

So, after all this sort of physics explanations on gravity and air drag... was this what Drich was talking about?

[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.

An object experiences a variety of acceleration components. Acceleration of gravity is just one. Acceleration, or deceleration as result a of drag force is another. Sunlight causing radiation pressure imposes a third acceleration component, if the object is magnetic then the forces of magnetism would cause a forth.

The point is the magnitude and direction of acceleration imposed by gravity (acceleration of gravity) is totally independent of each of these factors, just as each of these factors are independent of any of the others. So acceleration of gravity should not be talked about in a lumpy aggregation of different accelerations. It can be and should be talked about independently.

[Angrboda]

There's a difference here Drich. My faith in what science says about gravity can be confirmed by rational research, testing, and inspection. What you are asking us to have faith in is the truth of words in a two thousand year old book which we can't verify.

Which is also true about may of the theories and laws of science. Of those who hold to science as their God, how many are truly smart enough/have the resources to test all that they believe?

There are two answers here. First, enough have the resources to test the official figures and do so such that we can look to them with greater confidence in them than we can with most religious claims. Second, that it's possible in principle to do so with science is again something that can't be said for the religious claims you are making. So in two independent ways the pronouncements of science provide better justification for having confidence in them than your religious claim. The less justification and confidence, the greater the degree of faith required to hold something as true and believe it.

The two kinds of faith aren't in any way comparable. The rest is just window dressing.

when striped down to it's core, faith is faith.

No, that's exactly what is at issue. You don't get to just declare one whole side of the debate wrong on your say so. Faith is not faith, as argued above; faith comes in varying degrees and kinds, of which faith in religious claims tends to be the most extreme, as explained above. It takes much greater faith, based on less justification, to believe your religious claims. Faith is NOT faith.

To which none of this really even matters because everything I said had to do with the illustration of the faith needed to believe what ever set of numbers and or interpertation of said number needed. The fact that neither chuck or R2 did not or could not provide supporting documentation to their side of the arguement supports my illustration of the faith they had in what they believed...


They were supporting my purposed arguement the whole time, one of them figured it out, and dropped out of the arguement while your hero is still chasing his tail.

Yes, I realize that this was one of your "gotcha" traps that you are so proud of. Only problem is, they don't actually work. Your claims about them simply have you come across as a pretentious idiot. Seeing that I wasn't party to the original discussion, I won't expound upon it any further other than to say that even now, it's clear you don't understand the terms in question as well as you think you do, so in the end the "gotcha" is on you for looking like an ass and failing to persuade anybody.