| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Raymond Yohros" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2006 12:19:52 AM |
| Object: |
Sound and Science |
Experimenting with sound and ultrasound could
bring science to another level. the doppler shift
is proof that a relationship exists between light and sound.
after all, they are all waves and a direct product of matenergy.
because light travels at the speed limit constant it
escapes from our more tangible reality into the vacuum of space.
sound is alot closer to our range of understanding opening
up extensive experimental posibilities that could not only
confirm theory but also help making new predictions
xsample
the mistery of the sonoluminescence effect
does not have a clear explanation
also, faster than sound enviroments can be created to observe
certain behaviours while the superlumina effect is an
experimental fantasy.
Understanding nature at this lower levels can give us the
basic set of ideas to relate to other physical frames of observation.
Sound can also help revive the nature of the string wich has been
for so long in the fields of dreams and that could be
part of our scientific reality.
it can also be an incredible tool for effective communication in
understanding matenergy and gravitation making a whole new lenguage
for bringing scientist and students closer together.
regards
raymond
Son Of Sound
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound and Science |
23 Oct 2006 07:45:28 PM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161580792.165283.268710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Experimenting with sound and ultrasound could
bring science to another level. the doppler shift
is proof that a relationship exists between light and sound.
after all, they are all waves and a direct product of matenergy.
because light travels at the speed limit constant it
escapes from our more tangible reality into the vacuum of space.
'our more tangible reality';?????. Post to a philosophy forum they may know
what you mean.
Rest snipped
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound and Science |
24 Oct 2006 10:29:59 PM |
|
|
Bill Hobba wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161580792.165283.268710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Experimenting with sound and ultrasound could
bring science to another level. the doppler shift
is proof that a relationship exists between light and sound.
after all, they are all waves and a direct product of matenergy.
because light travels at the speed limit constant it
escapes from our more tangible reality into the vacuum of space.
'our more tangible reality';?????. Post to a philosophy forum they may know
what you mean.
is not the speed of the boat but the motion of the ocean
sound is a better reference frame for understanding waves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound and Science |
23 Oct 2006 05:30:00 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161580792.165283.268710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Experimenting with sound and ultrasound could
| bring science to another level. the doppler shift
| is proof that a relationship exists between light and sound.
| after all, they are all waves
Light is not a wave. It hasn't been a wave since the 1890's
when Michelson dumped the aether. Light is a magnetic
field playing leapfrog with an electric field, the transfer of
energy from one place to another.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "KC5OIZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound and Science |
23 Oct 2006 12:06:37 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161580792.165283.268710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Experimenting with sound and ultrasound could
| bring science to another level. the doppler shift
| is proof that a relationship exists between light and sound.
| after all, they are all waves
Light is not a wave. It hasn't been a wave since the 1890's
Light may not be a wave, but it does have a wave nature.
when Michelson dumped the aether. Light is a magnetic
field playing leapfrog with an electric field, the transfer of
energy from one place to another.
Only in the math; the leapfrog idea comes from Maxwell's equations
which are used to describe electromagnetic _waves_. The magnetic field
itself is a mathmatical construct describing something more complex
going on: a lorentz contraction of moving charges thus making them
appear more or less dense depending on the reference frame.
Try any EM problem, you'll find that the magnetic force on a moving
charge is always towards or away from the direction of the other moving
charges.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sound and Science |
23 Oct 2006 12:43:59 PM |
|
|
"KC5OIZ" <gary.boerger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161623195.946319.43280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
| > news:1161580792.165283.268710@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| > | Experimenting with sound and ultrasound could
| > | bring science to another level. the doppler shift
| > | is proof that a relationship exists between light and sound.
| > | after all, they are all waves
| >
| >
| > Light is not a wave. It hasn't been a wave since the 1890's
|
| Light may not be a wave, but it does have a wave nature.
A bullet has helix behaviour.
http://www.spudtech.com/images/products/sch80rifled.jpg
Do people say a bullet is a helix?
| > when Michelson dumped the aether. Light is a magnetic
| > field playing leapfrog with an electric field, the transfer of
| > energy from one place to another.
|
| Only in the math; the leapfrog idea comes from Maxwell's equations
| which are used to describe electromagnetic _waves_.
Your honour, my client only fired a helix, it wasn't a bullet. I ask
that the charges be dismissed.
| The magnetic field
| itself is a mathmatical construct
Tell that to the magnets on my fridge door.
You've got your arse where your head should be, magnetic fields
are real and Maxwell's equations are mathematical contructs. That's
why I call people like you "shitheads".
Androcles.
describing something more complex
| going on: a lorentz contraction of moving charges thus making them
| appear more or less dense depending on the reference frame.
|
| Try any EM problem, you'll find that the magnetic force on a moving
| charge is always towards or away from the direction of the other moving
| charges.
|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 02:01:51 AM |
|
|
KC5OIZ wrote:
Only in the math; the leapfrog idea comes from Maxwell's equations
which are used to describe electromagnetic _waves_. The magnetic field
itself is a mathmatical construct describing something more complex
going on: a lorentz contraction of moving charges thus making them
appear more or less dense depending on the reference frame.
That description would seem a little strained, say, 1 light year out
from the source, where the magnetic field is still putting in its
periodic appearance, while the moving charges of the source would seem
to be a forgotten thing of the past.
The magnetic field may be a necessary consequence of the electric field
and relativity, and the "contracted charge" argument may be a
consistency check, but it looks like the magnetic field is part of a
description of a local phenomenon which propagates without any further
reference to distant charges and how they might appear to observers.
That said -- I'd love to understand a simple argument _why_ the
magnetic field is a consequence of the electric field and SR, without
reference to "how distributions of charges look to a relatively moving
observer". How do we start? Perhaps in a lab frame with a pure E
field, we take a charged particle moving in that frame. Assuming dP/dt
is given correctly by coulomb's law in the lab frame, we now
investigate the implied force law in the particle rest frame, and (?)
discover we might like to add another field component? We find (?)
that to correctly reproduce the proper acceleration of _all_ possible
particle velocities in the lab frame this way, that (this is really
hoping for a lot), and assuming a linear force law, that the form of
the resultant force (Lorentz force law) and the transformation law for
the "extra" field component are both uniquely specified?
Now perhaps we investigate the consequences of our newly discovered
"transformation law", and newly discovered "B field" (which so far
looks like a squinting at the E field from frames other than its "rest
frame"), and notice that the mathematics allows regions of "real" B
field, meaning in which it cannot be transformed away to pure E in any
frame. At this point perhaps we have to regard this as an unintended
option in the theory -- like negative mass, or magnetic monopoles.
Except we now discover that this possibility exactly describes some
physical situations -- like the field near a permanent magnet. B has
taken on a life of its own.
Now we get all euphoric, and wonder if Maxwell's equations might be
"derivable" based on similar arguments, or if they have independent
physical content from "well, there is a force law associated with 'E',
and there is relativity". Presumably there is more content -- since
the differential operations involved consider the variation of E and B
from point to point.
We also wonder what happens if we apply precisely the same logic to
Newtonian gravity. Assume we have an effective force "mg" in some frame
over some region which is otherwise sufficiently described by Minkowski
space, and dance the same dance: we would immediately require an
analogue of B -- " g' ", and an analogue of the Lorentz force law. How
about Maxwell's equations? We're not sure what additional conditions
this implied in the electromagnetic case, but it's a decent guess.
But maybe the wax melts at this point.
Try any EM problem, you'll find that the magnetic force on a moving
charge is always towards or away from the direction of the other moving
charges.
Let's see... take two long current parallel current carrying wires.
The resulting magnetic force either tends to attract or repel the
wires. That seems to work.
Now consider a narrow current carrying coil, a point on the axis and
outside the coil, and a charge moving in a plane perpendicular to the
axis. B lies in the axis, B x v again lies in the plane, putting the
force perpendicular to the line of sight to the other moving charges.
That doesn't seem to work. Unless we are going to say the moving
charge is attracted to one side of the coil, repelled from the other,
and the axial components just cancel, leaving just the sideways force?
I guess that would work out ... it has to, if we are able to analyze
the force in terms of little current elements of the coil. Hmm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 04:03:51 AM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163145711.356111.28430@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| KC5OIZ wrote:
|
| > Only in the math; the leapfrog idea comes from Maxwell's equations
| > which are used to describe electromagnetic _waves_. The magnetic field
| > itself is a mathmatical construct describing something more complex
| > going on: a lorentz contraction of moving charges thus making them
| > appear more or less dense depending on the reference frame.
|
| That description would seem a little strained, say, 1 light year out
| from the source, where the magnetic field is still putting in its
| periodic appearance, while the moving charges of the source would seem
| to be a forgotten thing of the past.
|
| The magnetic field may be a necessary consequence of the electric field
| and relativity, and the "contracted charge" argument may be a
| consistency check, but it looks like the magnetic field is part of a
| description of a local phenomenon which propagates without any further
| reference to distant charges and how they might appear to observers.
|
| That said -- I'd love to understand a simple argument _why_ the
| magnetic field is a consequence of the electric field and SR, without
| reference to "how distributions of charges look to a relatively moving
| observer". How do we start? Perhaps in a lab frame with a pure E
| field, we take a charged particle moving in that frame. Assuming dP/dt
| is given correctly by coulomb's law in the lab frame, we now
| investigate the implied force law in the particle rest frame, and (?)
| discover we might like to add another field component? We find (?)
| that to correctly reproduce the proper acceleration of _all_ possible
| particle velocities in the lab frame this way, that (this is really
| hoping for a lot), and assuming a linear force law, that the form of
| the resultant force (Lorentz force law) and the transformation law for
| the "extra" field component are both uniquely specified?
|
| Now perhaps we investigate the consequences of our newly discovered
| "transformation law", and newly discovered "B field" (which so far
| looks like a squinting at the E field from frames other than its "rest
| frame"), and notice that the mathematics allows regions of "real" B
| field, meaning in which it cannot be transformed away to pure E in any
| frame. At this point perhaps we have to regard this as an unintended
| option in the theory -- like negative mass, or magnetic monopoles.
| Except we now discover that this possibility exactly describes some
| physical situations -- like the field near a permanent magnet. B has
| taken on a life of its own.
|
| Now we get all euphoric, and wonder if Maxwell's equations might be
| "derivable" based on similar arguments, or if they have independent
| physical content from "well, there is a force law associated with 'E',
| and there is relativity". Presumably there is more content -- since
| the differential operations involved consider the variation of E and B
| from point to point.
|
| We also wonder what happens if we apply precisely the same logic to
| Newtonian gravity. Assume we have an effective force "mg" in some frame
| over some region which is otherwise sufficiently described by Minkowski
| space, and dance the same dance: we would immediately require an
| analogue of B -- " g' ", and an analogue of the Lorentz force law. How
| about Maxwell's equations? We're not sure what additional conditions
| this implied in the electromagnetic case, but it's a decent guess.
|
| But maybe the wax melts at this point.
|
| > Try any EM problem, you'll find that the magnetic force on a moving
| > charge is always towards or away from the direction of the other moving
| > charges.
|
| Let's see... take two long current parallel current carrying wires.
| The resulting magnetic force either tends to attract or repel the
| wires. That seems to work.
|
| Now consider a narrow current carrying coil, a point on the axis and
| outside the coil, and a charge moving in a plane perpendicular to the
| axis. B lies in the axis, B x v again lies in the plane, putting the
| force perpendicular to the line of sight to the other moving charges.
| That doesn't seem to work. Unless we are going to say the moving
| charge is attracted to one side of the coil, repelled from the other,
| and the axial components just cancel, leaving just the sideways force?
|
| I guess that would work out ... it has to, if we are able to analyze
| the force in terms of little current elements of the coil. Hmm.
Dispensing with moving charges for the moment, consider a more basic
experiment with a simple bar magnet1. Align the bar with the x-axis,
North pole at the origin.
_______
S____N_| ==============O-\/\/\/\/\x2======x-axis.
Now place a degaussed iron ball on a spring at x.
Ensure the spring is weak, make it rubber.
_______
S____N_| =======O-\_/\_/\_/\_/\x1==========x-axis.
The spring is extended less from x2 more than it is from x1.
Now we have a simple way of measuring the "strength" of
the field along the x-axis.
Now replace the ball with another bar magnet2.
_______
S____N_| ==============[N---S]\/\/\/\/\/\x2==x-axis.
We have measurable repulsion.
Attach a wooden pole to the magnet1 to keep x1 and x2 a fixed
distance from the origin.
Move the bar magnet1 at a constant velocity along the x-axis.
The field moves with it. That's the "Principle of Relativity".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Accelerate the bar magnet1 along the x-axis.
The field at x has to accelerate also. The field between the pole
of the bar magnet1 and x is compressed. It repels the pole of the magnet1.
Take away the spring and the magnet2.
Accelerate again. CLUNK, the ball hits magnet1 and sticks.
Replace ball with magnet2. Accelerate. No clunk.
Bar magnets have more inertia than iron balls.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo A. Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 05:28:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
Dispensing with moving charges for the moment, consider a more basic
experiment with a simple bar magnet1. Align the bar with the x-axis,
North pole at the origin.
_______
S____N_| ==============O-\/\/\/\/\x2======x-axis.
Now place a degaussed iron ball on a spring at x.
Ensure the spring is weak, make it rubber.
_______
S____N_| =======O-\_/\_/\_/\_/\x1==========x-axis.
The spring is extended less from x2 more than it is from x1.
Now we have a simple way of measuring the "strength" of
the field along the x-axis.
What you have is a simple way of measuring the field _gradient_
(approximately - since the ball is not infinitesimally small, higher order
multipole moments induced in the ball will interact with higher order
derivatives of the field), not the magnitude of the B or H field, which is
what most people would mean by the " "strength" of the field".
What is the force exerted on such an iron ball by a uniform magnetic
field?
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 05:40:13 AM |
|
|
"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0611102123500.1456@serene.st...
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > Dispensing with moving charges for the moment, consider a more basic
| > experiment with a simple bar magnet1. Align the bar with the x-axis,
| > North pole at the origin.
| > _______
| > S____N_| ==============O-\/\/\/\/\x2======x-axis.
| >
| > Now place a degaussed iron ball on a spring at x.
| > Ensure the spring is weak, make it rubber.
| >
| > _______
| > S____N_| =======O-\_/\_/\_/\_/\x1==========x-axis.
| >
| > The spring is extended less from x2 more than it is from x1.
| >
| > Now we have a simple way of measuring the "strength" of
| > the field along the x-axis.
|
| What you
Did you snip something to say, troll?
I must have missed it.
What was it again?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 02:12:50 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0611102123500.1456@serene.st...
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > Dispensing with moving charges for the moment, consider a more basic
| > experiment with a simple bar magnet1. Align the bar with the x-axis,
| > North pole at the origin.
| > _______
| > S____N_| ==============O-\/\/\/\/\x2======x-axis.
| >
| > Now place a degaussed iron ball on a spring at x.
| > Ensure the spring is weak, make it rubber.
| >
| > _______
| > S____N_| =======O-\_/\_/\_/\_/\x1==========x-axis.
| >
| > The spring is extended less from x2 more than it is from x1.
| >
| > Now we have a simple way of measuring the "strength" of
| > the field along the x-axis.
|
| What you
Did you snip something to say, troll?
I must have missed it.
What was it again?
Magnetic monopoles are unknown. Dipoles are the lowest order magnetic
moment observed. A magnetic field induces a dipole (or dipole field)
in a lump of iron.
The net force on a dipole from a uniform field is zero (there may be a
torque). Dipoles experience a net force associated with the spatial
derivative of the field.
That said, I'm unsure what the implied force law is for magnetic
monopoles. Do we have an exact analogue of the Lorentz force law, with
roles of E and B reversed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 02:51:03 PM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163189570.665987.177770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
| > news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0611102123500.1456@serene.st...
| > | On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > | > Dispensing with moving charges for the moment, consider a more
basic
| > | > experiment with a simple bar magnet1. Align the bar with the x-axis,
| > | > North pole at the origin.
| > | > _______
| > | > S____N_| ==============O-\/\/\/\/\x2======x-axis.
| > | >
| > | > Now place a degaussed iron ball on a spring at x.
| > | > Ensure the spring is weak, make it rubber.
| > | >
| > | > _______
| > | > S____N_| =======O-\_/\_/\_/\_/\x1==========x-axis.
| > | >
| > | > The spring is extended less from x2 more than it is from x1.
| > | >
| > | > Now we have a simple way of measuring the "strength" of
| > | > the field along the x-axis.
| > |
| > | What you
| >
| >
| > Did you snip something to say, troll?
| > I must have missed it.
| > What was it again?
|
| Magnetic monopoles are unknown.
Don't jump in on a snipped post, Green.
Answer my reply to you, not my reply to the snipping Ozzie *****
Nieminen.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
10 Nov 2006 06:33:20 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote: ...
Please refrain from cursing at people. Use the academic method,
covering veiled accusations of incompetence beneath formal politeness:
it's even more annoying to the recipient, but considered less offensive
to the majority of the usage panel.
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163145711.356111.28430@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dispensing with moving charges for the moment, consider a more basic
experiment with a simple bar magnet1. Align the bar with the x-axis,
North pole at the origin.
_______
S____N_| ==============O-\/\/\/\/\x2======x-axis.
Now place a degaussed iron ball on a spring at x.
Ensure the spring is weak, make it rubber.
_______
S____N_| =======O-\_/\_/\_/\_/\x1==========x-axis.
The spring is extended less from x2 more than it is from x1.
Now we have a simple way of measuring the "strength" of
the field along the x-axis.
Provided "strength" in quotes means gradient, as mentioned.
Now replace the ball with another bar magnet2.
_______
S____N_| ==============[N---S]\/\/\/\/\/\x2==x-axis.
We have measurable repulsion.
Attach a wooden pole to the magnet1 to keep x1 and x2 a fixed
distance from the origin.
Move the bar magnet1 at a constant velocity along the x-axis.
The field moves with it. That's the "Principle of Relativity".
It's interesting to consider whether "fields move". On the one hand we
say that in a given frame, the field merely has a certain value as a
function of space and time, but no notion of "velocity". On the other
hand, if you look at a static field in a relatively moving frame, you
might certainly get the idea that the field is "moving". It must work
out that the time variation of the field at each spatial point is just
given by Maxwell's equations in the vicinity, but given that the field
is static in some frame, this view seems like a convenient fiction --
nothing is really changing.
Ah, the wonders of relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Accelerate the bar magnet1 along the x-axis.
The field at x has to accelerate also. The field between the pole
of the bar magnet1 and x is compressed.
There is certainly something in the idea that acceleration will
compress field lines.
It repels the pole of the magnet1.
Take away the spring and the magnet2.
Accelerate again. CLUNK, the ball hits magnet1 and sticks.
Replace ball with magnet2. Accelerate. No clunk.
Bar magnets have more inertia than iron balls.
I don't follow you.
I must make a confession: I was only kidding about relativity. I
actually think it's logically consistent, and apparently consistent
with observation. I have some reservations about the inevitability of
Lorentz invariance, and I don't think that attempts to explain it as a
consequence of something very like an aether are as philosophically
lame as some tyros affect to believe. These attempts _could_ be naive
in spirit, but they could also be sophisticated. It could be that
Lorentz invariance is simply a much better phsyical approximation than
Gallilean invariance, but will ultimately break when peered at the
correct way. Or, it could be that Lorentz (or I should say,
technically, Poincare) invariance is really absolute -- in which case I
still don't think it's necessarily naive to look for a deeper
explanation of it in terms of other concepts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
11 Nov 2006 12:41:58 AM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163205200.654991.204310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote: ...
|
| Please refrain from cursing at people.
No, I didn't write that at all. Green wrote that.
I really do object to others attempting to steal my thunder by snipping
and then failing to apply the correct attribution. What I sometimes
do is snip and ignore them in return.
Snipping is fucking rude at best and plagiarism at worst, I curse
snippers.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
11 Nov 2006 03:45:15 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163205200.654991.204310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote: ...
|
| Please refrain from cursing at people.
No, I didn't write that at all. Green wrote that.
No. You wrote the "..." . I neglected to set it off in brackets on a
separate line, but in context, I though it was clear that I was
replying to your cursing at people -- which I did not wish to dignify
by repetition. I am sorry for any any implication that you, perhaps,
were urging restraint in cursing, and any distress it may have caused
you.
Now, what about the substance of my suggestion? I tell you the
academic way is better, or actually more pernicious (if that is
better), and will elevate you to polite society.
I really do object to others attempting to steal my thunder by snipping
and then failing to apply the correct attribution. What I sometimes
do is snip and ignore them in return.
Snipping is fucking rude at best and plagiarism at worst, I curse
snippers.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
11 Nov 2006 06:10:06 PM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163281514.869790.299450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
| > news:1163205200.654991.204310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sorcerer wrote: ...
| > |
| > | Please refrain from cursing at people.
| >
| > No, I didn't write that at all. Green wrote that.
|
| No.
Look carefully. It says (and I quote):
{Quote}
Sorcerer wrote: ...
Please refrain from cursing at people.
{Unquote}
That is a fuckin' LIE!
There is not one byte, not one character that I wrote. YOU wrote ALL of it.
Don't "No" me, idiot.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
11 Nov 2006 08:17:14 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163281514.869790.299450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
| > news:1163205200.654991.204310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sorcerer wrote: ...
| > |
| > | Please refrain from cursing at people.
| >
| > No, I didn't write that at all. Green wrote that.
|
| No.
Look carefully. It says (and I quote):
{Quote}
Sorcerer wrote: ...
Please refrain from cursing at people.
{Unquote}
That is a fuckin' LIE!
No. It's an "ellipsis", as Greg Hansen mentioned.
From the part you snipped out of context from the first post offensive
unto your eyes, one _might_ form the impression that I was also
attributing the following sentence to you ("Please refrain from cursing
at people"), which I realize is a sentiment abhorrent to you. One
familiar with Usenet would find this unfortunate impression dispelled
by the appearance of wedges (">") in the next paragraph, which are
commonly used to offset quotes.
From the part you snipped out of context from my reply to your reply to
your reply to the first post offensive to your eyes, one might again
form the same impression as before. Reading the next sentence however
(which, as I say, you snipped), one would have that impression
corrected.
There is some irony in this selective snipping. You wrote:
Snipping is fucking rude at best and plagiarism at worst, I curse snippers.
<snip>
Don't "No" me, idiot.
I may not "No" you, while you give yourself permission to curse ad
libitum? Who established this relationship? It seems as if I have
been guilty of bear baiting. Sorry about that. As Woody Allen said
"You always think you're the one she's going to act differently for".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 01:49:09 AM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163297834.568087.119860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
| > news:1163281514.869790.299450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > | > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1163205200.654991.204310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote: ...
| > | > |
| > | > | Please refrain from cursing at people.
| > | >
| > | > No, I didn't write that at all. Green wrote that.
| > |
| > | No.
| >
| > Look carefully. It says (and I quote):
| > {Quote}
| > Sorcerer wrote: ...
| >
| > Please refrain from cursing at people.
| > {Unquote}
| >
| > That is a fuckin' LIE!
|
| No.
I did not write an ellipsis, and the indents clearly show what?
Your answer here _______________________________
Digging your hole deeper only gets you an insult, there
being little other recourse. This is a physics forum, not a finishing
school for polite young ladies coming out as debutantes. If you can't
stand the heat, get the ***** out of the kitchen.
Go on, say "No" again, *****. You promised to quit once
I've insulted you, dumbfuck.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 01:48:17 AM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163297834.568087.119860@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
| > news:1163281514.869790.299450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| > | > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1163205200.654991.204310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote: ...
| > | > |
| > | > | Please refrain from cursing at people.
| > | >
| > | > No, I didn't write that at all. Green wrote that.
| > |
| > | No.
| >
| > Look carefully. It says (and I quote):
| > {Quote}
| > Sorcerer wrote: ...
| >
| > Please refrain from cursing at people.
| > {Unquote}
| >
| > That is a fuckin' LIE!
|
| No.
I did not write an ellipsis, and the indents clearly show what?
Your answer here _______________________________
Digging your hole deeper only gets you an insult, dumbfuck, there
being little other recourse. This is a physics forum, not a finishing
school for polite young ladies coming out as debutantes. If you can't
stand the heat, get the ***** out of my kitchen.
Go on, say "No" again, *****.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 07:50:52 AM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
No. It's an "ellipsis", as Greg Hansen mentioned.
From the part you snipped out of context from the first post offensive
unto your eyes, one _might_ form the impression that I was also
Damn. It's some kind of law. Once you start micro-analyzing
quotations, extra carets will slip in to mess up quotations.
From the part you snipped out of context from my reply to your reply to
your reply to the first post offensive to your eyes, one might again
Good grief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 08:05:52 AM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
No. It's an "ellipsis", as Greg Hansen mentioned.
From the part you snipped out of context from the first post offensive
unto your eyes, one _might_ form the impression that I was also
Damn. It's some kind of law. Once you start micro-analyzing
quotations, extra carets will slip in to mess up quotations.
From the part you snipped out of context from my reply to your reply to
your reply to the first post offensive to your eyes, one might again
Good grief.
The pseudorandom sequences in nested
quote marks are their greatest contribution to the group
that some posters make.
Do try to be a bit more careful about what you snip.
I was using one of Androcle's posts as a PN source and
someone snipped it. Now I don't have a key and have to
repeat a whole days work. :o)
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 01:42:20 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163340352.570583.223060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Edward Green wrote:
| > Edward Green wrote:
| >
| > > No. It's an "ellipsis", as Greg Hansen mentioned.
| > >
| > > >From the part you snipped out of context from the first post
offensive
| > > unto your eyes, one _might_ form the impression that I was also
| >
| > Damn. It's some kind of law. Once you start micro-analyzing
| > quotations, extra carets will slip in to mess up quotations.
| >
| > > >From the part you snipped out of context from my reply to your reply
to
| > > your reply to the first post offensive to your eyes, one might again
| >
| > Good grief.
|
| The pseudorandom sequences in nested
| quote marks are their greatest contribution to the group
| that some posters make.
| Do try to be a bit more careful about what you snip.
|
| I was using one of Androcle's posts as a PN source and
| someone snipped it. Now I don't have a key and have to
| repeat a whole days work. :o)
|
| Sue...
I would be so much simpler if everyone snipped their own
words only, on the honours system.
This crap about netiquette is pure nonsense, people snip to
make their own point and ignore what the other has to say,
and that is downright RUDE.
I use profanity to be rude in return, and the poor little prima
donnas like Green feign offence to their delicate sensibilities,
the ignorant bastards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 05:18:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:42:20 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
I would be so much simpler if everyone snipped their own
words only, on the honours system.
I snip everything that I don't reply to. If someone wants the full
context they can read back.
This crap about netiquette is pure nonsense, people snip to
make their own point and ignore what the other has to say,
and that is downright RUDE.
<Shrug> As far as being rude goes, you are one of the rudest.
I use profanity to be rude in return, and the poor little prima
donnas like Green feign offence to their delicate sensibilities,
the ignorant bastards.
You use profanity, full stop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 11:13:17 PM |
|
|
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rqafl21b0g21e64jf1qr0kodom6qim4e36@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:42:20 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
|
| >I would be so much simpler if everyone snipped their own
| >words only, on the honours system.
|
| I snip everything that I don't reply to.
So do I, where you are concerned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
13 Nov 2006 03:37:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:13:17 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote:
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rqafl21b0g21e64jf1qr0kodom6qim4e36@4ax.com...
| I snip everything that I don't reply to.
So do I, where you are concerned.
Good. You're learning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
13 Nov 2006 04:28:03 AM |
|
|
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o6fgl21kvo2jfiiokbqvqc5saqgrsm35a8@4ax.com...
Did you say something? I must have snipped it, you illogical hypocrite
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 07:39:08 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
I would be so much simpler if everyone snipped their own
words only, on the honours system.
Posts would become excessively long.
This crap about netiquette is pure nonsense,
Except, of course, when it applies to your private set of netiquette
rules, which apply to you, and, according to you, prohibit anybody from
snipping your words, and prohibit the use of the word "no" in reply to
his lordship, while, as I said, you curse people out ad libitum.
people snip to
make their own point and ignore what the other has to say,
and that is downright RUDE.
There is something in what you say; people habitually ignore what the
other person has to say, real dialogue is as rare as a two dollar bill.
But I don't think you could make people pay attention even if you
forced them to quote all to reply to any part: there would just be that
much more filler.
Of course the irony in this is that you completely ignored what I had
to say to you, instead affecting rage, diverting the issue, because of
some imagined slight involving quotes: you affect to think I put some
unoffending words in your mouth, which, like W.C. Fields, you sputter
and spit out, and demand more gin.
I use profanity to be rude in return, and the poor little prima
donnas like Green feign offence to their delicate sensibilities,
the ignorant bastards.
No, Androcles; I don't feign offense, I am offended when you curse at
people I am communicating with, since if I am communicating with you
also, that is fairly rude to me. They might think I condone your
behavior.
You really are in your own world, and suffering a significant number of
mental deviations from the mean. Obviously you find some satisfaction
in "dialogues" where your side consists of irrational profanity and
profound irrationality: it doesn't matter what the B side is, so long
as somebody replies to you. You want an audience ... hmm... as do we
all. It's just that your performance is monotonous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 11:14:45 PM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1163381948.607912.44120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > I would be so much simpler if everyone snipped their own
| > words only, on the honours system.
|
| Posts would become excessively long.
I'll do it your way, then.
Solved, it is now exceedingly short!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 11:04:51 PM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
Sorcerer wrote:
I would be so much simpler if everyone snipped their own
words only, on the honours system.
Posts would become excessively long.
This crap about netiquette is pure nonsense,
Except, of course, when it applies to your private set of netiquette
rules, which apply to you, and, according to you, prohibit anybody from
snipping your words, and prohibit the use of the word "no" in reply to
his lordship, while, as I said, you curse people out ad libitum.
[...]
Lookie.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7285c74631c1929e?dmode=source
The guy is a massive hypocrite, Edward. This newsgroup has made him
insane, so he is going to rant at everyone until he gets a stroke.
Seriously, this newsgroup did make him insane. Look at how he acted
around a year ago, and look how he acts now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
12 Nov 2006 09:09:20 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
The pseudorandom sequences in nested
quote marks are their greatest contribution to the group
that some posters make.
Do try to be a bit more careful about what you snip.
I was using one of Androcle's posts as a PN source and
someone snipped it. Now I don't have a key and have to
repeat a whole days work. :o)
ROTFLMAO, and etc. ;-)
Pseudo-english symbol strings may however have an autocorrelation
function not identically zero, so your cryptological strength may be
weakened.
Just remember, no matter how ambiguous the results of the Turing test,
there is another meat computer on the other end of the line, with
thoughts and feelings... well, feelings.
"Brains ... the computer that also makes a tasty omelette".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Deriving the B field from Relativity -- Was: Sound and Science |
11 Nov 2006 09:26:29 PM |
|
|
On 2006-11-12 02:17:14 +0000, "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> said:
I may not "No" you, while you give yourself permission to curse ad
libitum? Who established this relationship? It seems as if I have
been guilty of bear baiting. Sorry about that. As Woody Allen said
"You always think you're the one she's going to act differently for".
With bear baiting, you're attacking a living breathing thinking
creature. No one yet has conclusively proved brown-Sauceror has done
thinking yet.
--
The biggest enemy of science is pseudo science. Oh, and Jeff Relf too...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
