I could have written a similar lengthy response but it is no use. nfq starts with the premise that we are all wrong and goes from there.
Yeah, I figured as much. I only partially write such things to convince people; I find the revelations into others' psychology more consistently rewarding. And I would argue that talking past him in the interest of hammering home his wrongness is even less useful... :(
nfq wrote:
how did he figure out that energy is exactly mc2? wild guess?
If you actually want to know, then let me know and I will be happy to explain. If you're just being sardonic and rhetorical, then I won't bother.
nfq wrote:
just because the math is correct in a theory doesn't mean that the theory is correct. in other words, just because clocks are affected by different physical circumstances doesn't mean that time is affected. clocks are not time.
Well, what is "time" to you? To me, time is the progression of events which constitute interaction and change, and when clocks run faster or slower, it is because physical processes are running faster or slower, which seems to me to be the only useful definition of time. If you have another which does not correlate to clock mechanics, feel free to expound upon it.
nfq wrote:
to understand the universe, all you need is a brain. the ancient greeks understood the universe better than scientists do today, and they didn't use expensive experimentation.
Do explain this statement. In which way did they understand the universe that present scientists do not?
Gravity doesn't exist because it's actually just a form of electromagnetism. All objects are magnets because energy currents run through them.
OK, the interpretation of science is one of my pet topics, and as it's getting an insufficient treatment here (understandably so) I will come out from lurker mode.
The problem with everything you're saying is that all it is is pretty ideas, and you cannot divorce physical ideas from their mathematical construction, because mathematics has been demonstrated to a high degree of precision to be the language of the universe.
Let's look at this statement - "i never said that emc2 is wrong. even a 5 year old could have come up with that equation though. it just says that mass has lots of energy. big deal."
You lack a sufficient appreciation for the implications of equations. Physicists don't just throw together equations because they sound good; they construct them to make very specific and verifiable predictions about how the world works. In this particular instance, it doesn't just say "mass has lots of energy", it says "this particular amount of mass is worth almost exactly 14.595 joules of energy". You can then verify that prediction through experimenting with a process that involves the conversion of mass to energy - for example, chemical reactions that form or break bonds, with an attendant gain or loss in mass that corresponds to the change in energy level.
You can contest the validity of such experiments all day (and many have), but when all's said and done the proof is in the pudding. If modern physical theory was more than slightly incorrect in its predictions, then much of the technology you rely on simply would not work. Computer chips in particular are inextricably wedded to our understanding of low-level physical interactions, and GPS devices give inaccurate location readings if they're not calibrated for the effects of general relativity.
That's not to say there isn't room for error and that our present physical understanding is 100% without flaw, because it isn't. But the crucial recognition is that where flaw is to be found, as with Einstein's overturning of Newton, it is way past the decimal point. Because the existing system works so well and has been vetted to such a high degree, any new system has to be almost exactly the same in its predictions to be reflective of reality as we see it function.
In short, the people who have spent many more centuries than you working this stuff out are not morons. If there's mistake to be found, it won't be done sitting around and making up a new concept off the top of your head, it'll be done with decades of educated research and (very expensive) experimentation.
Whoa, hi there friend. Looks like you pulled a fast one on us about Ghost; not that it matters. Could've come back as xebra2 and simply not acted asinine.
Anyway. Of course there's always a tradeoff between statistic integrity and inclusivity; I would prefer a small minority of inaccurate statistics than eliminate the vast majority of honest players because they couldn't provide 100% incontrovertible proof. The lead runners on the scoreboards are people with known integrity, and that is of significance. A few cheaters in the average levels, while deplorable, is not terrible enough to justify denying everyone else the opportunity to compete.
I find it interesting that you think there is significantly more cheating in the old games, in which we are less able to counter-check, than in the newer ones, which presumably would have younger (and hence more immature and possibly aethical) players and thus more cheating. I also find it interesting that you apparently would hold that most purported cheaters would take the time to divulge a system of times they don't know exists before submitting their first time. You also fail to realize (intentionally?) that most people submit more than one time, so the odds ofcatching cheaters are pretty near one. But whatever.
For those who don't know, I'm the TSC admin. We're down because we exceeded the bounds of our old server, and I'm negotiating getting a dedicated one with some people I do contract work for, since I don't have cash out the wazoo to spend on one outright. We'll be back in some form by the end of the month, ideally sooner.