View Topic

Thank you all for your heartfelt messages

I don't remember: has Wintreath experimented with electoral reform before?

I'm not sure what you mean by electoral reform...we experimented with a mock election using the alternative vote once, and I think some ideas for changing voting came up during the Storting reform mess.

Ah yes, I was thinking of the alternative vote mock election.  From what I remember you guys discussing it, it was rather unpopular?

Some people objected to having to rank the candidates, if I remember correctly.

Some people objected to having to rank the candidates, if I remember correctly.

This, it caused great discomfort to a portion of the voters, resulting in one of the lower voter turnouts. If I recall, I abstained from the election as well.

I would be a fan of changing to the alternative vote...it would do away with the numerous runoffs that we seem to have with Underhusen elections.

Some people objected to having to rank the candidates, if I remember correctly.

How about trying out approval voting?

I would be a fan of changing to the alternative vote...it would do away with the numerous runoffs that we seem to have with Underhusen elections.

Ah, so the issue is mostly about the runoffs. Approval voting wouldn't solve that. Never mind, then.

Some people objected to having to rank the candidates, if I remember correctly.

How about trying out approval voting?

I would be a fan of changing to the alternative vote...it would do away with the numerous runoffs that we seem to have with Underhusen elections.

Ah, so the issue is mostly about the runoffs. Approval voting wouldn't solve that. Never mind, then.

I've been thinking of creating a proposal (ugh, I know) that would essentially allow for a different number of Skrifa each term based on approval voting, though a non-single-winner version. So instead of voters only getting the number of votes to fill the number of seats, each would vote to approve of each candidate (or just allow more votes), then each candidate that passes a certain threshold becomes Skrifa for that term. As there'd be more Skrifa, it'd allow more people to be directly involved with the UH/government while still keeping regular elections, though it doesn't really solve anything to do with activity, hence why I haven't written it up. Suppose it'd solve the runoff problem, though.

Hey @HannahB, I've recently heard someone say that gravity is an unproven theory. Now I'm no physicist (aren't you though?) but I still laughed pretty hard because it sounds well...just plain stupid, lol. First the person in question said that because it's a theory it is not true (although it is commonly believed to be.) Of course in science the word "theory" is "an explanation of how and why something happens." So it sounds like he's saying "It's a fact of life but it's wrong."

After that he changed his mind and said quantum gravity disproves gravity as described by Einstein & Newton. You know, what they teach in grade school. However as I understand it, quantum gravity is purely theoretical (as in it hasn't been remotely proven) at this point in time, correct? Then he said the equation used to determine gravitational force was incorrect though he completely avoided saying how. And if it were incorrect I imagine that would have been pointed out ages ago. >_>

After that he said black holes (which of course exist due to gravity) and the higgs field (which has nothing to do with gravity) disprove gravity. He's still going on about black holes somehow disproving gravity. Now he's put up some equation I don't recognize "F1=/=F2=/=Ma*Mg/r^2". It doesn't look familiar to me (or google for that matter...) so I thought you might recognize it. At this point though I feel like he's just throwing out theories and concepts hoping one will somehow convince me. As it stands he doesn't believe gravity exists but he won't say what (if anything) he believes is keeping us from floating out of our own atmosphere.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the matter?

I know you didn't ask me, but i'm just going to drop this apple real quick..

Yep, gravity is real.

Honestly, this person who you're talking to sounds like they are full of shit :p.
Quantum gravity isn't even a useful theory yet, we haven't been able to figure out how to use it to make any predictions, so we can't test it. So, it might be just a load of bs at this point. Relativity, on the other hand, gives immensely precise predictions.. to the point that we might as well just say it's right as far as gravity is concerned.

Also not Hannah, but

Hey @HannahB, I've recently heard someone say that gravity is an unproven theory. Now I'm no physicist (aren't you though?) but I still laughed pretty hard because it sounds well...just plain stupid, lol. First the person in question said that because it's a theory it is not true (although it is commonly believed to be.) Of course in science the word "theory" is "an explanation of how and why something happens." So it sounds like he's saying "It's a fact of life but it's wrong."

After that he changed his mind and said quantum gravity disproves gravity as described by Einstein & Newton. You know, what they teach in grade school. However as I understand it, quantum gravity is purely theoretical (as in it hasn't been remotely proven) at this point in time, correct?

Looks like he's just grasping at straws so he doesn't have to concede defeat.

In any case, a more accurate/general model does not invalidate an older one. Some good philosophical reading on that:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/on/reductionism/

Then he said the equation used to determine gravitational force was incorrect though he completely avoided saying how. And if it were incorrect I imagine that would have been pointed out ages ago. >_>

This is correct, though it's because of Relativity. He's confusing multiple things here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation#Problematic_aspects

After that he said black holes (which of course exist due to gravity) and the higgs field (which has nothing to do with gravity) disprove gravity. He's still going on about black holes somehow disproving gravity.

On Higgs field and gravity: the idea that they're related is a common misconception. As you said, they aren't. See this blog post by LHC theoretical physicist:
https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

Now he's put up some equation I don't recognize "F1=/=F2=/=Ma*Mg/r^2". It doesn't look familiar to me (or google for that matter...) so I thought you might recognize it. At this point though I feel like he's just throwing out theories and concepts hoping one will somehow convince me. As it stands he doesn't believe gravity exists but he won't say what (if anything) he believes is keeping us from floating out of our own atmosphere.

I think he's trying to say that forces do not actually obey the inverse square law? That's true (see above wiki link), but it doesn't disprove gravity in any way.

This person seems to think that a newer model of gravity somehow invalidates gravity itself, because it shows that the older models are "wrong." IMO that's the completely wrong way to approach science. They simply work on different levels (same link as above), and a more accurate theory does not invalidate the usefulness of earlier ones, and certainly does not invalidate the concepts themselves.

He's also under the assumption that since light is massless and they're still drawn into black holes that this disproves gravity until how it happens is explained. But that is explained because even though photons have no mass, they are still affected by gravity. That's how we can see black holes - by the way they distort the light going near them. The reason nothing can escape a black hole is because within the event horizon, space is curved to the point where all directions are actually pointing inside. So I'm waiting for him to either give up or present another false explanation.

But there is no gravity and I can prove it! Tides go in, tides come out, you cant explain that!

Bread goes in, toast comes out! No explanation!

And thus, gravity is a myth!

That pretty much sums up his approach to this, lol.

He's also under the assumption that since light is massless and they're still drawn into black holes that this disproves gravity until how it happens is explained. But that is explained because even though photons have no mass, they are still affected by gravity. That's how we can see black holes - by the way they distort the light going near them. The reason nothing can escape a black hole is because within the event horizon, space is curved to the point where all directions are actually pointing inside. So I'm waiting for him to either give up or present another false explanation.

In relativity gravity curves spacetime, the curvature is generated by mass, but things don't need to have mass to be affected by it. We're all rolling around on the same fabric.. as it were.

That pretty much sums up his approach to this, lol.

At least he's not espousing the Time Cube.