Knowledge is power!

[Sithdarth]

I'm referring to a "theory of gravity" as the general explanations that have been postulated from relativity and/or quantum mechanics.

Then you're talking about quantum gravity which isn't even near the theory stage yet. Its not even together enough to be a hypothesis. Its pretty much straight conjecture. Once again there is now "theory of gravity".

Even if we don't know the fine details we still postulate that gravity is instrinsic property of matter and curving of space time and then you got all the other stuff like postulated gravitons and things.

We don't postulate that gravity is an intrinsic property of matter. Currently, we postulate that spontaneous symmetry breaking from the Mexican hat potential of the Higg's field gives everything mass. From that we take it as fiat that this mass curves a field we call spacetime in a predictable way. Those two bits give you gravity there is no intrinsic gravity. Gravitons are once again just conjecture at this point stemming from the fact that gravity seems to work well as a field and every other field has force carriers so gravity should too.

This is not really my field but it doesn't matter because even the fact that matter attracts other matter is a theory and not a law.

Ah not true at all. The fact that a force (not attraction nowhere does gravity explicitly state attraction only that comes out of the math and the math does allow for repulsive gravity) exists between any two massive objects is a straight up observation as long as you stay clear of explaining the force. So the just saying I have observed this force between things and this math tells me its strength is a law. It goes into grayish territory when you start saying its Universal then you're postulating it applies to things you haven't observed. But for everything Newton could observe his law was indeed a law.

Most of the maths of say general relativity could be classed as laws but they are often interpreted in a framework of explaining gravity (through space time curving or whatever else they decide) which is a theory.

That's because all theories in physics are either built from old laws or built to explain old laws. Since you are into the history of science I assume you are aware of the general steps physics has taken. For the less informed we started with straight observation and mathematical description in the form of laws. Then we built complex theories on top of those laws to explain them.

The point was people were talking about whether gravity was a theory or a law and the problem is the word "gravity" can be both.

Once again the basic existence of gravity is an observed fact. Further, generally speaking you can pick out what aspect of gravity people mean from context. That and just gravity itself is neither theory nor law but a concept. You can't say gravity is a theory or gravity is a law those statements make no sense. You can say the existence of gravity is a law or the gravity is caused by curved spacetime is a theory. Those make sense but concepts are neither theory nor law. Its like saying mitochondria is a law or DNA is a theory. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

There is the law of "gravitation" which is a law but when we talk about gravity we generally talk about the attraction of objects together which is a theory.

The existence of the attraction and the size of the attraction is a law. The reason for the attraction and the reason for the size of the attraction is a theory. The theory happens to contain the law which is a good thing because physics should be consistent. Its like how the Matrix formulation of Quantum Mechanics is nothing but a set of mathematical laws that work but Schrodinger's wave equation is theory.

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity as something that brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

That emphasized phrase is important. For example, look what happens when I remove it:

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

BAM law. Its a very subtle distinction and of course the new sentence is in error because a law is stated not a theory. It makes not predictions it just states something exists.

This statement:

...we generally talk about the attraction of objects together which is a theory.

Is nearly identical to this sentence:

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

Both of which are completely different from this one:

My "theory of gravity" is the idea of gravity as something that brings objects together, you can squabble about the details all you want- it doesn't matter.

But if you want, I'll pick one. "Theory of gravity" is now the fact that a property of matter is the ability to instrinsically attract other objects according to the laws of gravitation, which was a theory that was held for considerably periods of time. There we go.

That as stated is still a law because its nothing but observation. If you want it to be a theory you need this wording:

But if you want, I'll pick one. "Theory of gravity" is now the fact that a property of matter is the ability to instrinsically generate a field that attracts other objects according to the laws of gravitation, which was a theory that was held for considerably periods of time. There we go.

But it still has no relevance at all to what I'm talking about. The very concept of "gravity" is a theoretical construct.

To rehash my points gravity is a concept and is neither a theory nor a law. The existence of gravity and the equations that describes its magnitude and direction is a law. Otherwise its stupid to have equations without the force. The existence of gravity as a field is a theory. The existence of spacetime as a field and gravity as a warping of that field is a better theory. You don't have to theorize that gravity is there you can see it is there. You do have to theorize its a field or that its warped spacetime because you can't directly observe those things.

All the law of gravitations (and later equations) describe is how two objects move towards each other. If you have anything beyond that you are looking at a theory, a concept of gravity.

Exactly and an intrinsic part of two things moving together is the existence of a force. Those things are inseparable. Its only when you start postulating about a source for that force that you get into theory. Oh and that last bit seems to equate concepts and theories which are nowhere near the same thing.

This is not really my field

This is almost exactly my field and I wish to inform you that somewhere along the lines you got some very strange notions about Physics.

Edit: Forgot to mention quantum gravity is the more general theory of gravity making both Relativity and QM the subordinate theories.

This edit was totally typed on my new BlackBerry Storm 2 using Wifi.

[Marc v4.0]

...and Sithdarth is the End Boss

[Professor Smarmiarty]

In ref to Sith I went through point by point of your post but I was saying the same things over and over again so I'll just do it this way:

The law is that of gravitation. Overwhelmingly in my experiences, the term "gravity" is used to explain the existence of this law whereas the invocation of the law is termed "gravitation". The dialogue of "gravity" is the dialogue of a theory because it is concerned with the interaction of a law on the universe. It has been conceptualised as this because it is deals with objects outside the mathematical realm.
I think that you are using "gravity" to describe both the laws and the theories behind it which is completely different to how I have been exposed to the term, where we seperate it. I should also point out I am not up with current discussions on this so my terms may be outdated but we use "gravity" pretty much solely to describe the nature of the force and "gravitation" to describe its existence which I thought I made clear.
You are using the terms differentely and while we do this we are going to have no common ground. If you are using "gravity" to cover everything then I fully agree with you it is not a theory or a law. That is not how I was using it, though, and that is not how I have been taught to use it.

I will accept your terms are probably more up to date and correct though as I'm totally not a physicist and my physics knowledge cames from about 1920.

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Ok...

1) Conservatives don't ignore the viability of charities. I was skipping that argument for the sake of brevity. Conservatives believe that private enterprise and charities are a viable way to fill the need given a sufficient lack of government intervention and increased donations from a populace that no longer has to pay high taxes to fund government charity programs. You can call that willful ignorance if you want, so long as you don't mind Conservatives calling the belief that the United States Government could ever successfully run a universal health care program similarly willfully ignorant.

While private charity has never been shown to be adaquate anywhere, universal health care has been shown to work. I'm calling it willfully ignorant because it is ignoring history. Though in the vast majority of the populace it is not their fault. I'm really smearing the conservative leaders, those who are well-educated and in high social strata.

And I'm not saying it is! So please, don't go into a debate on the merits of government run health care. That's not what this is about. And actually, I don't really think I'm a Conservative any more. I actually do want government health care, I do disagree with Conservative philosophies is a lot of ways. But my friends and family are Conservatives. I grew up among Conservatives. I identify with them. And they're smart, caring, hard working, savvy people. Not naive, ignorant, arrogant pricks. The naivete and ignorance about Conservatives displayed by all of all your comments is what I'm trying to get at here.

I don't intend to insult conservatives because it is a result of the world they live in. You can argue it is the only viable standpoint of the current world which is the sad truth of the modern world.

2) How exactly do Conservatives pay less proportionally in taxes? That seems like a wonky stat. And how are taxes paid relevant? If true, then ok, Liberals also give to charities, but more through the government, which is the institution they believe should be used to help the poor and the sick. Yay. Both sides are living their philosophies. My point wasn't the Liberals suck, but that Conservatives don't.

Well they pay less because as a group they are richer- and contain the vast majority of the super-rich. Under US tax systems the rich pay far less in taxes by proportion to their wealth than anybody else. But yeah my point about taxes was that liberals are generally already contributing a fair share of their income through the government and in the way they believe is right.
And I don't disagree that conservatives and liberals are both good people, I was just trying to show that they are about the same.
It's just that the conservative ideology is out and out evil. People follow it because of the society they are raised in, because of what they were taught and they can be good people but to be honest I don't care if I upset their feelings. It may not be their fault what they belief but the belief system is simply too harmful to this world that I will criticise it wherever I can because if I can get people to rethink their beliefs I will be happy. The reason it is entrenched as a valid political ideology is because people accept it, they don't speak out.

3) Bleeding Heart Liberal is an appropriate term, sure. But the idea that Conservatives, because they aren't Liberals, are cold, callus, and arrogant is a horribly naive misconception.

It pretty much a fundamental tenet of being left-wing that people are products of their society so you're really misconcieving how the lefties view conservatism. The individual people in it may not be cold, callus and arrogant but the philosophy as a whole is cold, callus and arrogant. Conservative thinkers may try to justify it other ways, and unfortunately many people are convinced by this, but at its heart it does exactly what it was designed to do- fuck the majority so those few in power can consolidate their wealtha nd power.

[Sithdarth]

The law is that of gravitation. Overwhelmingly in my experiences, the term "gravity" is used to explain the existence of this law whereas the invocation of the law is termed "gravitation". The dialogue of "gravity" is the dialogue of a theory because it is concerned with the interaction of a law on the universe. It has been conceptualised as this because it is deals with objects outside the mathematical realm.
I think that you are using "gravity" to describe both the laws and the theories behind it which is completely different to how I have been exposed to the term, where we seperate it. I should also point out I am not up with current discussions on this so my terms may be outdated but we use "gravity" pretty much solely to describe the nature of the force and "gravitation" to describe its existence which I thought I made clear.
You are using the terms differentely and while we do this we are going to have no common ground. If you are using "gravity" to cover everything then I fully agree with you it is not a theory or a law. That is not how I was using it, though, and that is not how I have been taught to use it.

I see the root of the problem now I think. You're calling something that is just a noun a theory and I don't know where you picked that up but its totally insane. The only time you can say a noun is a theory is if its a proper noun and the name of a specific theory. Gravity is, has been, and will always be just a noun. Saying gravity is a theory is like running up to someone and saying "Did you know arm is a theory". It makes absolutely no sense. You need more words because just gravity or just arm is too ambiguous. If you where to say "It is a theory that you can feel real pain from a severed arm" that would make sense. Likewise saying "It is a theory that gravity exists as a field" makes sense while "Gravity is a theory" sounds ridiculous. That and you do seem to have a rather odd sense of the terminology in general. The language of Physics is generally as precise as the mathematics so if you don't use it right you end up with nonsense.

[Ryanderman]

Ok...

1) Conservatives don't ignore the viability of charities. I was skipping that argument for the sake of brevity. Conservatives believe that private enterprise and charities are a viable way to fill the need given a sufficient lack of government intervention and increased donations from a populace that no longer has to pay high taxes to fund government charity programs. You can call that willful ignorance if you want, so long as you don't mind Conservatives calling the belief that the United States Government could ever successfully run a universal health care program similarly willfully ignorant.

And I'm not saying it is! So please, don't go into a debate on the merits of government run health care. That's not what this is about. And actually, I don't really think I'm a Conservative any more. I actually do want government health care, I do disagree with Conservative philosophies is a lot of ways. But my friends and family are Conservatives. I grew up among Conservatives. I identify with them. And they're smart, caring, hard working, savvy people. Not naive, ignorant, arrogant pricks. The naivete and ignorance about Conservatives displayed by all of all your comments is what I'm trying to get at here.

2) How exactly do Conservatives pay less proportionally in taxes? That seems like a wonky stat. And how are taxes paid relevant? If true, then ok, Liberals also give to charities, but more through the government, which is the institution they believe should be used to help the poor and the sick. Yay. Both sides are living their philosophies. My point wasn't the Liberals suck, but that Conservatives don't.

3) Bleeding Heart Liberal is an appropriate term, sure. But the idea that Conservatives, because they aren't Liberals, are cold, callus, and arrogant is a horribly naive misconception.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My language is the language of historians talking about science. As long as I don't talk to physicists I don't get in trouble! I can see why you got annoyed though.
Our terms are different because our needs are different. We don't talk about theories as clearly defined packets of ideas, we talk about theories as constantly changing things- more ideaspace than real ideas.

[Azisien]

My theory is that if we can get Sith and Smarty to agree on something substantial we would generate a cascade of Higgs bosons.

[Funka Genocide]

my theory is that if we ever get them drunk in the same bar that...

we'll all be bored out our minds.

[Archbio]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

3) Bleeding Heart Liberal is an appropriate term, sure. But the idea that Conservatives, because they aren't Liberals, are cold, callus, and arrogant is a horribly naive misconception.

My point was that "bleeding heart" is an example of something that wouldn't see use to the degree that it does (or that it wouldn't exist at all) if the view you present of the "conservative" relationship to poverty and such was accurate: if "conservative" opposition to any redistribution of wealth and social net was just something that comes out of a specific pragmatic concern for the place of government (which is ludicrous in itself in context but that's something else.)

The "ideology of wealth" that permeates the United States and runs counter to the idea of the state of the discourse on these matters in the United States is driven on the "Conservative side" by pure philosophical principles (just because they're are sometimes presented as presentable rethoric) doesn't need further demonstrating. Welfare didn't make itself a dirty word.

Originally Posted by SMB

My language is the language of historians talking about science.

You should specify that it's the language of people who hold that history is just whatever bullshit stories that they managed to spin, as you've represented historians as doing before.

[Funka Genocide]

I find it hard to justify this reticence towards socialist public welfare programs is based solely on defending the populace from government excess.

I understand that we had that whole thing with communism a few years back, but government can never be a striation of whites and blacks precisely columnised into easily digestible wrongs and rights.

It's far more logical to assume this laissez-faire attitude is motivated mainly by the concept of centralizing power in the hands of an elite sub-stratum (man lot of geoligical metaphors in this post) of the population. Which is then sold to the powerless on the back of such quaint and wholesome concepts as "socialism is evil" and "Jesus hates fags."