ClayFerguson

10 ms·

1.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Just to keep score: You called me a troll, because I called someone an a-hole, for calling me a liar. That's what just happened. What a totally PC Snowflake Soap-Opera. Of course that's based on the assumption that the 'Sock
2.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Most people consider the 4 fundamental forces to be 'part of' the Standard Model, even if the field equations are not complete. But like I said, i did understand what you meant by 'silent on gravity' after your first cla
3.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
You can google the phrase "Standard Model" or look it up in any physics book you want, and there will always be a table labeled "Standard Model" that shows all the particles, which relate to the 4 fundamental forces (car
4.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Nice dissertation on 2+2=4. I've known relativity for 30years. The point i was making (as i'm sure you genuinely DO actually know, despite pretending once again to need to correct me), is that even physics professors in the middl
5.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
So much of what you said is hilariously wrong. Probably the most acute example is your claim "Standard Model is mute on gravity". Are you kidding me? Page one of any book of the Standard Model discusses the 4 fundamental forces. G
6.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Oh, I can prove it with evidence. The only thing that can change the direction of motion of a particle is a force. Photons have zero mass and zero charge, therefore no force (including gravity) can act on light (strong and weak interactions
7.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
I do understand why you think what you do. Most physics articles (and even the Wikipedia page on Gravitational Lensing) are explaining it wrong. They are saying that the light bent. That's not what's really happening. The light do
8.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
read the rest of my comments. I clarify why "dark stuff" is all the same.
9.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Your statement that there's "an expanding space-time that has a constant energy-density", gets to the nub of it for sure, but in reality no one knows if any of the fundamental field strengths are indeed constant. To me the ne
10.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
I also use the words "space" and "time" independently as if they were separate things, when I know full well every last detail about SR/GR (being an engineer myself). So yes, only in the context of discussing "
11.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
The light is traveling in a straight line ALWAYS, but merely appears (to us) to bend, because the space it's traveling thru (in a straight line) is itself bent. The space itself is bent. The light goes straight. That's the dis
12.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
If man had discovered Gravitational Lensing BEFORE Einstein had formulated General Relativity we would have given some name to the effect, and perhaps even considered it a characteristic relationship between stars and light. The relationshi
13.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
I should have been clear that I'm not making a distinction between energy and matter. I'm referring to the postulated "dark" forms of both. Both of them are pure speculation, and is nothing but the equivalent of taking w
14.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
No one knows why space is expanding. The dark energy is just the 'label' they give to whatever is causing it to expand. Both dark matter and dark energy are postulated to be whatever shape of puzzle piece fits into the puzzle slot
15.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
There is no evidence that dark matter even exists other than the fact that our universe is not expanding at the rate we think it should, based on our current theory of gravity and how much mass we can account for based on the radiation cur
16.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Yeah, you are taking that sentence too literally. What I mean is we don't need a new language created every week. Java is already perfectly fine, and IF somebody finds something Java can't do, they shouldn't start from scrat
17.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
I haven't seen the codebase of MySQL, but it's open source and not "owned" by Oracle. The only reason anyone should want to start over is if that codebase itself was crappy code. I bet it isn't. Implementations of a
18.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
The point is that MongoDB writes/reads directly to File system. It could have been (and still could be retro-fitted) to ride on top of an RDBMS for all it's actual IO, and create a hybrid. I'm aware of all the orthogonal poin
19.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
I don't know Postgres, and I just consider MySQL to be the leading best-in-class open source DB engine available. I realize that's debatable. But personally my mind is made up on that. I think relational-type queries are so common
20.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
These 'from the ground up' totally all-new-code approaches to DBs are just a scary proposition. Think of the thousands of man-years of effort that went into building MySQL, testing its codebase, and perfecting it's robustness
21.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
I don't know anything about ReactNative. Nor did I claim I did. I am simply stating that React itself is a dead-end technology. I would think no one would want to use ReactNative unless they buy into the prospect of React itself having
22.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
TypeScript won the language game already on the browser. Is the only language on the browser that matters any more. For those of you who disagree, trust me, it won't be long before you change your mind. Aside from backing that up with
23.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
React Native uses React. React is still in the core of it.
24.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
To me it's shocking that there's nothing for editing XML that equates to an editable tree GUI interface where nodes and properties can be rendered onto something resembling a document but yet browsable (by expanding and collapsing
25.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
The dirty little secret about React is that it tries to 'reinvent' the DOM tree, and Web Components will be out soon making it all obsolete. Why not just move to Web Components NOW, and not have to rewrite your view logic in 3 or
26.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
My main point was this: Before creating a NEW language, a person or organization should have a firm reason that no existing language will fit their needs. I think creating new languages has become a bit of a hobby for a lot of developers, a
27.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Well if you jump from language to language, you'll never build a strong resume. Keep that in mind. I'm nearly 50yrs old now and have stayed on course with either C++ or Java, and never needed or wanted any of the "Flavor of t
28.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
The absolute LAST thing the world needed in 2016 was another programming language. Google did with Dart precisely what Microsoft tried to do when they (MSFT) created a proprietary JavaScript back in 1997(ish). Big tech companies just have a
29.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
Right, and if it was called what it is: "Online Polyester Underwear" their sales would be precisely zero units so far.
30.
by ClayFerguson 10y ago
It speaks volumes about human psychology. The fact that sometimes all it takes is a catchy name to build a company from nothing that has not one single innovation. Just look at one of the most hilarious examples: "meundies.com" It

More ›