| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"phoenix" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2005 12:51:01 AM |
| Object: |
What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
Assuming SR is correct. There is something very
strange about "light".
What really is light??
Light imposes limits on space-time, setting an absolute
limit for the velocity of any object and distorting the
dimensional relations of objects that approach that
velocity. But what does light have to do with how fast
something goes? If light is a thing in space-time, how
can it affect the length, the mass, and the passage of
time of other things in space-time? And why should
the equivalence of mass and energy have anything to
do with the speed, much less the square of the speed,
of light?
P.
.
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
08 Mar 2005 06:56:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503062304520.1707-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FvQWd.40370$Ze3.37865@attbi_s51...
Fusioneer wrote:
In fact, photons are exactly gravitational
charge packets.
Cagle is blowing it out his ***** here.
Gavitation is account for by the curvature of spacetime.
What is spacetime curved in relation to?
You are thinking of extrinsic curvature, curvature with respect to the
ambient space around a manifold. Sam is talking about intrinsic
curvature, a geometric property independent of whether or the manifold
is embedded into a higher dimensional space. For example, a cylinder has
extrinsic curvature, but if you were to draw a triangle on the
surface of it the internal angles would add up to 180 degrees,
which proves that it has zero *intrinsic* curvature. Try the same thing
on a sphere, and you'll find the the angles do not add up to 180 degrees
exactly, but for a small triangle it will be close. This is because a
sphere has intrinsic curvature.
Curvature:
"An intrinsic property of a space independent of the coordinate system used
to describe it."
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't change if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right on Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be independent of the
coordinate system used to describe it.
No doubt there are "intrinsic properties" in things,
that are not accessible to the observer,
who is "describing" the "intrinsic properties",
Remember the example I gave of drawing a triangle and measuring its
angles? That was a direct measure of the curvature. You can most
certainly measure curvature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
08 Mar 2005 04:30:01 PM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
[snip]
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
08 Mar 2005 05:57:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations are
well received.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
09 Mar 2005 02:50:57 PM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
09 Mar 2005 10:56:29 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0nnjg$8hg$8@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
It is interesting to see that "Franz Heymann"
thinks that it is to "Creighton Hogg's" benefit
to recondition himself so that his
past conditioning is more effective.
Sorta like Pavlov's dog's
ringing their own bells,
when salivation extinction set in.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
10 Mar 2005 12:59:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0nnjg$8hg$8@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
It is interesting to see that "Franz Heymann"
thinks that it is to "Creighton Hogg's" benefit
to recondition himself so that his
past conditioning is more effective.
There is nothing about conditioning involved. As I said in another
response to you, which at the time of my writing this you have not
responded to, my point is that teaching or tutoring involves deeper
thinking about the subject than a cursory learning would. I have been
attempting to correct your misconceptions about differential geometry and
what coordinate independence means, and in doing so I have had to think of
better analogies for explaining these things without relying upon the
special vocabulary of topology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
14 Mar 2005 06:04:02 AM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503100055150.21729-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0nnjg$8hg$8@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
It is interesting to see that "Franz Heymann"
thinks that it is to "Creighton Hogg's" benefit
to recondition himself so that his
past conditioning is more effective.
There is nothing about conditioning involved. As I said in another
response to you, which at the time of my writing this you have not
responded to, my point is that teaching or tutoring involves deeper
thinking about the subject than a cursory learning would. I have been
attempting to correct your misconceptions about differential geometry and
what coordinate independence means, and in doing so I have had to think of
better analogies for explaining these things without relying upon the
special vocabulary of topology.
You can start off,
by posting my
"misconceptions about differential geometry and what coordinate
independence"
and commenting on them.
So far, all I have seen, are childish, personal, cheap shots.
Post my "misconceptions" using MY "vocabulary" ( No editing),
and use whatever "vocabulary" you want to
comment on my "misconceptions".
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
14 Mar 2005 07:46:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503100055150.21729-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0nnjg$8hg$8@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
It is interesting to see that "Franz Heymann"
thinks that it is to "Creighton Hogg's" benefit
to recondition himself so that his
past conditioning is more effective.
There is nothing about conditioning involved. As I said in another
response to you, which at the time of my writing this you have not
responded to, my point is that teaching or tutoring involves deeper
thinking about the subject than a cursory learning would. I have been
attempting to correct your misconceptions about differential geometry and
what coordinate independence means, and in doing so I have had to think of
better analogies for explaining these things without relying upon the
special vocabulary of topology.
You can start off,
by posting my
"misconceptions about differential geometry and what coordinate
independence"
and commenting on them.
So far, all I have seen, are childish, personal, cheap shots.
Post my "misconceptions" using MY "vocabulary" ( No editing),
and use whatever "vocabulary" you want to
comment on my "misconceptions".
You never answered the post where I did point these things out. That
seems dishonest. Also, I have been far more respectful of you than you
have ever been of me. My only crime is telling you you're wrong. You are
attacking the messenger and not the message.
This is the post I'm referring to:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/769a06367cccc7ea
Please respond calmly and rationally to my points without resorting to
sweeping generalities or using the exact same post to respond to multiple
people no matter what they have said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 07:35:24 AM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503140736420.25206-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503100055150.21729-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0nnjg$8hg$8@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing
the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter
is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of
experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the
explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
It is interesting to see that "Franz Heymann"
thinks that it is to "Creighton Hogg's" benefit
to recondition himself so that his
past conditioning is more effective.
There is nothing about conditioning involved. As I said in another
response to you, which at the time of my writing this you have not
responded to, my point is that teaching or tutoring involves deeper
thinking about the subject than a cursory learning would. I have been
attempting to correct your misconceptions about differential geometry
and
what coordinate independence means, and in doing so I have had to think
of
better analogies for explaining these things without relying upon the
special vocabulary of topology.
You can start off,
by posting my
"misconceptions about differential geometry and what coordinate
independence"
and commenting on them.
So far, all I have seen, are childish, personal, cheap shots.
Post my "misconceptions" using MY "vocabulary" ( No editing),
and use whatever "vocabulary" you want to
comment on my "misconceptions".
You never answered the post where I did point these things out. That
seems dishonest. Also, I have been far more respectful of you than you
have ever been of me. My only crime is telling you you're wrong. You are
attacking the messenger and not the message.
This is the post I'm referring to:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/769a06367cccc7ea
Please respond calmly and rationally to my points without resorting to
sweeping generalities or using the exact same post to respond to multiple
people no matter what they have said.
The following post by Creighton Hogg
is the one that lead to the present dichotomy.
=============================
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
From: Creighton Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:57:02 -0600
Local: Tues, Mar 8 2005 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)??
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations are
well received.
==========================
As I wrote:
"So far, all I have seen, are childish, personal, cheap shots."
and I think this can be seen from the posts.
And as I wrote:
" Post my "misconceptions" using MY "vocabulary" ( No editing),
and use whatever "vocabulary" you want to
comment on my "misconceptions"."
And I am still waiting for "Creighton Hogg"
to do this, and to comment directly on my "misconceptions",
rather than try to "snow the troops" with a lecture.
As can be seen,
the gestalt of the thread is this:
1. Franz Heymann attacked the messenger, rather than address the message.
2. Creighton Hogg joined in the fray with his cheap shot statement:
"..whether or not the explanations are well received."
3. As Creighton Hogg's response
seemed to me to be a typical "attack pack" dog pack reaction,
rather than an honest effort to engage in rational, intelligent, unbiased
debate,
I asked Creighton Hogg what motivated his post.
Now it may be that Creighton Hogg is an honest, moral
seeker of wisdom and truth, rather than someone bound
by emotions to the sci.physics "attack pack".
Over time, the posts give the true picture.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 03:36:07 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qr2dF65vpcaU12@individual.net...
[snip all the crap]
Why don't you visit your taxidetmist and put yourself on the market as
a teddy bear?
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 10:43:38 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann:
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qr2dF65vpcaU12@individual.net...
[snip all the crap]
Why don't you visit your taxidetmist and put yourself on the market as
a teddy bear?
Since selling a stuffed troll as a teddy bear would be unethical,
he'll probably consider it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
17 Mar 2005 07:38:29 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3i8te.reo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Franz Heymann:
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qr2dF65vpcaU12@individual.net...
[snip all the crap]
Why don't you visit your taxidetmist and put yourself on the market as
a teddy bear?
Since selling a stuffed troll as a teddy bear would be unethical,
he'll probably consider it.
Sounds like sloshing, smelly, rat infested Bilge water to me.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
17 Mar 2005 07:53:31 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d1a8s7$ia0$5@titan.btinternet.com...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qr2dF65vpcaU12@individual.net...
[snip all the crap]
Why don't you visit your taxidetmist and put yourself on the market as
a teddy bear?
What is this supposed to be?
A bon mots?
BTW, what's a "taxidetmist"?
Is that someone who drives people to a "dentist" <?>
for money?
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
17 Mar 2005 09:13:42 AM |
|
|
In message <39tgesF64vureU1@individual.net>, Tom Potter
<tdp@earthlink.net> writes
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d1a8s7$ia0$5@titan.btinternet.com...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qr2dF65vpcaU12@individual.net...
[snip all the crap]
Why don't you visit your taxidetmist and put yourself on the market as
a teddy bear?
What is this supposed to be?
A bon mots?
BTW, what's a "taxidetmist"?
Spelling flames, Potter? Is that really the best you can do?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 10:10:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503140736420.25206-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503100055150.21729-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0nnjg$8hg$8@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing
the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter
is,
by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of
experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the
explanations
are
well received.
My apologies. That's a worthy cause.
It is interesting to see that "Franz Heymann"
thinks that it is to "Creighton Hogg's" benefit
to recondition himself so that his
past conditioning is more effective.
There is nothing about conditioning involved. As I said in another
response to you, which at the time of my writing this you have not
responded to, my point is that teaching or tutoring involves deeper
thinking about the subject than a cursory learning would. I have been
attempting to correct your misconceptions about differential geometry
and
what coordinate independence means, and in doing so I have had to think
of
better analogies for explaining these things without relying upon the
special vocabulary of topology.
You can start off,
by posting my
"misconceptions about differential geometry and what coordinate
independence"
and commenting on them.
So far, all I have seen, are childish, personal, cheap shots.
Post my "misconceptions" using MY "vocabulary" ( No editing),
and use whatever "vocabulary" you want to
comment on my "misconceptions".
You never answered the post where I did point these things out. That
seems dishonest. Also, I have been far more respectful of you than you
have ever been of me. My only crime is telling you you're wrong. You are
attacking the messenger and not the message.
This is the post I'm referring to:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/769a06367cccc7ea
Please respond calmly and rationally to my points without resorting to
sweeping generalities or using the exact same post to respond to multiple
people no matter what they have said.
The following post by Creighton Hogg
is the one that lead to the present dichotomy.
=============================
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
From: Creighton Hogg <wch...@hep.wisc.edu> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:57:02 -0600
Local: Tues, Mar 8 2005 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)??
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations are
well received.
==========================
As I wrote:
"So far, all I have seen, are childish, personal, cheap shots."
and I think this can be seen from the posts.
And as I wrote:
" Post my "misconceptions" using MY "vocabulary" ( No editing),
and use whatever "vocabulary" you want to
comment on my "misconceptions"."
And I am still waiting for "Creighton Hogg"
to do this, and to comment directly on my "misconceptions",
rather than try to "snow the troops" with a lecture.
And I've asked you to respond, for the second time, to my post here
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/769a06367cccc7ea
Where I did just that. It should still be in your newsreader, unless it
gets rid of messages within a week or two. If you don't have it, then
just say so and I'll repost it myself.
As can be seen,
the gestalt of the thread is this:
1. Franz Heymann attacked the messenger, rather than address the message.
2. Creighton Hogg joined in the fray with his cheap shot statement:
"..whether or not the explanations are well received."
That was not a cheap shot. Franz said that you weren't going to listen to
me. I said that didn't matter, because I would still benefit from trying
to teach it even if you didn't listen. This is NOT a statement that you
wouldn't listen to me, it was saying I didn't know and didn't care because
I was going to try anyway.
3. As Creighton Hogg's response
seemed to me to be a typical "attack pack" dog pack reaction,
rather than an honest effort to engage in rational, intelligent, unbiased
debate,
And I hope this misunderstanding has been resolved.
I asked Creighton Hogg what motivated his post.
Now it may be that Creighton Hogg is an honest, moral
seeker of wisdom and truth, rather than someone bound
by emotions to the sci.physics "attack pack".
I do indeed try to keep control of myself on these newsgroups, and in fact
I only post about half of the messages I type up because I deem the
others as crossing the line into angry and insulting.
Over time, the posts give the true picture.
Indeed, but this thread never should have been about my moral character.
Please do respond to the post I pointed you to earlier.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
09 Mar 2005 05:49:35 AM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the explanations are
well received.
As can be seen Franz Heymann's explanation:
"In other words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes."
pretty much agrees with my position
that calling space curved,
and then calling Cartesian coordinates "your coordinate axes",
is circular, and complicates a simple situation.
Note that Franz Heymann and the others
that I have confronted with this situation,
agree that space is curved with respect to
"some coordinate system",
and that the simplist "and most useful coordinate system",
is Cartesian coordinates.
The real mystery is,
why did "Creighton Hogg" make his post?
Hopefully "Creighton Hogg" will explain why he made his post as
"trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else helps it
make more sense to <him>.
I dare say that "Creighton Hogg" will benefit from comprehending
why he makes posts like this, and become a better, wiser, happier
person from the "sense" he makes of it.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
10 Mar 2005 02:19:41 AM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39866jF5qspdbU1@individual.net...
"Creighton Hogg" "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in
message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing
the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter
is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of
experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the
explanations are
well received.
As can be seen Franz Heymann's explanation:
"In other words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or
any
manifold, you can face any direction draw lines on the ground and
call that
your
coordinate axes."
Potty, if you can't even count attribution marks, why do you think you
are ofenough intellect to reply to posts in this thread?
pretty much agrees with my position
that calling space curved,
and then calling Cartesian coordinates "your coordinate axes",
is circular, and complicates a simple situation.
Note that Franz Heymann and the others
that I have confronted with this situation,
agree that space is curved with respect to
"some coordinate system",
No. You have missed the point entirely.
That is quite par for the course.
Space has the *same* curvature *in any coordinate system*
and that the simplist "and most useful coordinate system",
is Cartesian coordinates.
Not necessarily,
Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look silly, to
say the least of it.
The real mystery is,
why did "Creighton Hogg" make his post?
So that, too, like everything else, escaped you.
Par for the course.
Hopefully "Creighton Hogg" will explain why he made his post as
"trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to <him>.
I dare say that "Creighton Hogg" will benefit from comprehending
why he makes posts like this, and become a better, wiser, happier
person from the "sense" he makes of it.
Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this thread
so far.
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
14 Mar 2005 06:03:47 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0ovus$1rs$3@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39866jF5qspdbU1@individual.net...
"Creighton Hogg" "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in
message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503081755140.17610-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0503080651330.5706-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Tom Potter wrote:
[snip]
Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?
Independent of the *coordinate* system used to describe it. In
other
words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or any
manifold, you
can face any direction draw lines on the ground and call that
your
coordinate axes. The properties of the manifold itself don't
change
if
you draw different coordinate axes. It's just like giving
directions.
Whether you describe a place as being "first turn on the right
on
Main
St." or "Two blocks south of Court House", you're describing
the
location
of the same place, right? That's what it means to be
independent of
the
coordinate system used to describe it.
Creighton, I have a feeling that you don't realise that Potter
is, by
his own confession, an itinerant hardware salesman. I would add
that
if you look at that website of his which he used to flaunt, you
will
also relise that his knowledge of physics is not quite up to the
level
of a first yeat university student.
What you are trying to explaon to him is therefore much too
erudite
for him.
Just watch his replies and you'll see what I mean.
Eh, in alot of ways it's for my benefit. At my level of
experience,
trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to me, regardless of whether or not the
explanations are
well received.
As can be seen Franz Heymann's explanation:
"In other words, if you're standing on the surface of a sphere or
any
manifold, you can face any direction draw lines on the ground and
call that
your
coordinate axes."
Potty, if you can't even count attribution marks, why do you think you
are ofenough intellect to reply to posts in this thread?
pretty much agrees with my position
that calling space curved,
and then calling Cartesian coordinates "your coordinate axes",
is circular, and complicates a simple situation.
Note that Franz Heymann and the others
that I have confronted with this situation,
agree that space is curved with respect to
"some coordinate system",
No. You have missed the point entirely.
That is quite par for the course.
Space has the *same* curvature *in any coordinate system*
and that the simplist "and most useful coordinate system",
is Cartesian coordinates.
Not necessarily,
Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look silly, to
say the least of it.
The real mystery is,
why did "Creighton Hogg" make his post?
So that, too, like everything else, escaped you.
Par for the course.
Hopefully "Creighton Hogg" will explain why he made his post as
"trying to figure out how to explain these things to someone else
helps it
make more sense to <him>.
I dare say that "Creighton Hogg" will benefit from comprehending
why he makes posts like this, and become a better, wiser, happier
person from the "sense" he makes of it.
Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this thread
so far.
As can be seen,
as usual, "Franz Heymann" uses his boilerplate attack on the messenger,
rather than address the message in a rational, intelligent way.
He did make ONE comment that fits the dichotomy in play:
He posted:
"Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look silly, to
say the least of it."
It seems to me
that "Cartesian coordinates"
are the coordinates of choice,
of the people that build bridges and structures
"on the surface of the earth",
and the people who move about the
"on the surface of the earth".
To my knowledge,
all of the numerical control systems that I have seen,
employ "Cartesian coordinates" to model and construct
globes and complex topographical objects.
But to get back to my original question:
"Please explain how a property can be described
"independent of the system used to describe it"?"
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
15 Mar 2005 09:21:48 AM |
|
|
Tom CrackPotter:
Franz Heymann:
Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this thread
so far.
As can be seen, as usual, "Franz Heymann" uses his boilerplate attack
on the messenger, rather than address the message in a rational,
intelligent way.
His reply was rational and intelligent, unless you were hoping to
accuse him of evading by taking you seriously.
He did make ONE comment that fits the dichotomy in play:
He posted:
"Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look silly, to
say the least of it."
It seems to me that "Cartesian coordinates" are the coordinates of
choice, of the people that build bridges and structures "on the
surface of the earth", and the people who move about the "on the
surface of the earth".
That is why it seems to everyone else that you don't know what
you are talking about. What are the cartesian coordinates for
new york city? How about sydney, autrailia? What is the shortest
path across the earth's surface (in cartesian coordinates)?
To my knowledge, all of the numerical control systems that I have seen,
employ "Cartesian coordinates" to model and construct globes and
complex topographical objects.
Oh, really? You must have overlooked all of those five-axis machines
with tilting rotary tables that are indexed in rotational increments.
But to get back to my original question: "Please explain how a
property can be described "independent of the system used to
describe it"?"
Simple. An electron is an electron because we define the properties
of an electron to distinguish an electron from things which we don't
call electrons. Mental masturbation and philosophical knuckle-rapping
only misses the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 07:05:33 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3e5hs.reo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Tom CrackPotter:
Franz Heymann:
Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this thread
so far.
As can be seen, as usual, "Franz Heymann" uses his boilerplate attack
on the messenger, rather than address the message in a rational,
intelligent way.
His reply was rational and intelligent, unless you were hoping to
accuse him of evading by taking you seriously.
He did make ONE comment that fits the dichotomy in play:
He posted:
"Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look silly, to
say the least of it."
It seems to me that "Cartesian coordinates" are the coordinates of
choice, of the people that build bridges and structures "on the
surface of the earth", and the people who move about the "on the
surface of the earth".
That is why it seems to everyone else that you don't know what
you are talking about. What are the cartesian coordinates for
new york city? How about sydney, autrailia? What is the shortest
path across the earth's surface (in cartesian coordinates)?
To my knowledge, all of the numerical control systems that I have seen,
employ "Cartesian coordinates" to model and construct globes and
complex topographical objects.
Oh, really? You must have overlooked all of those five-axis machines
with tilting rotary tables that are indexed in rotational increments.
But to get back to my original question: "Please explain how a
property can be described "independent of the system used to
describe it"?"
Simple. An electron is an electron because we define the properties
of an electron to distinguish an electron from things which we don't
call electrons. Mental masturbation and philosophical knuckle-rapping
only misses the point.
It is interesting to see that "Bilge"
thinks that it is possible to describe "intrinsic" properties of an electron
without reference to external interacting properties.
It seems to me that thinking like this is:
"Mental masturbation and philosophical knuckle-rapping."
It is also interesting to observe that "Bilge" said that Heymann comment
below
"was rational and intelligent:".
Heymann's comment:
==============
"Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this thread so
far"
==============
It seems to me that "rational and intelligent"
suggests addressing the issue, rather than attacking the messenger.
Hopefully "Bilge" and "Franz Heymann"
will learn that all properties must be referenced to
some standard property, and that interactions are symmetrical.
I suggest that if that read Maxwell's works,
where he introduces Dimensional Analysis,
they may come to comprehend this.
"Bilge" does make a good point when he points out that
it might be better to express the coordinates of places on the
Earth's surface, like New York, in Cartesian coordinates,
in order to more easily track changes caused by earthquakes and such.
This is easily done by enclosing the Earth in a Cartesian box,
but not so simple when you use a rubber coordinate system.
Thanks for bringing this up "Bilge"!
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 03:36:07 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qp96F675tsqU1@individual.net...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3e5hs.reo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Tom CrackPotter:
Franz Heymann:
Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so
clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this
thread
so far.
As can be seen, as usual, "Franz Heymann" uses his boilerplate
attack
on the messenger, rather than address the message in a rational,
intelligent way.
His reply was rational and intelligent, unless you were hoping
to
accuse him of evading by taking you seriously.
He did make ONE comment that fits the dichotomy in play:
He posted:
"Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look
silly, to
say the least of it."
It seems to me that "Cartesian coordinates" are the coordinates
of
choice, of the people that build bridges and structures "on the
surface of the earth", and the people who move about the "on the
surface of the earth".
That is why it seems to everyone else that you don't know what
you are talking about. What are the cartesian coordinates for
new york city? How about sydney, autrailia? What is the shortest
path across the earth's surface (in cartesian coordinates)?
To my knowledge, all of the numerical control systems that I have
seen,
employ "Cartesian coordinates" to model and construct globes and
complex topographical objects.
Oh, really? You must have overlooked all of those five-axis
machines
with tilting rotary tables that are indexed in rotational
increments.
But to get back to my original question: "Please explain how a
property can be described "independent of the system used to
describe it"?"
Simple. An electron is an electron because we define the
properties
of an electron to distinguish an electron from things which we
don't
call electrons. Mental masturbation and philosophical
knuckle-rapping
only misses the point.
It is interesting to see that "Bilge"
thinks that it is possible to describe "intrinsic" properties of an
electron
without reference to external interacting properties.
It seems to me that thinking like this is:
"Mental masturbation and philosophical knuckle-rapping."
It is also interesting to observe that "Bilge" said that Heymann
comment
below
"was rational and intelligent:".
Heymann's comment:
==============
"Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly
that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this
thread so
far"
==============
It seems to me that "rational and intelligent"
suggests addressing the issue, rather than attacking the messenger.
Hopefully "Bilge" and "Franz Heymann"
will learn that all properties must be referenced to
some standard property, and that interactions are symmetrical.
I suggest that if that read Maxwell's works,
where he introduces Dimensional Analysis,
they may come to comprehend this.
"Bilge" does make a good point when he points out that
it might be better to express the coordinates of places on the
Earth's surface, like New York, in Cartesian coordinates,
in order to more easily track changes caused by earthquakes and
such.
This is easily done by enclosing the Earth in a Cartesian box,
but not so simple when you use a rubber coordinate system.
Thanks for bringing this up "Bilge"!
I have seen some nonsense in my long life, but this last couple of
paragraphs of Potty is the queen of them all.
Congratulations, Potty.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
17 Mar 2005 07:53:06 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d1a8s6$ia0$4@titan.btinternet.com...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39qp96F675tsqU1@individual.net...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3e5hs.reo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Tom CrackPotter:
Franz Heymann:
Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so
clearly that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this
thread
so far.
As can be seen, as usual, "Franz Heymann" uses his boilerplate
attack
on the messenger, rather than address the message in a rational,
intelligent way.
His reply was rational and intelligent, unless you were hoping
to
accuse him of evading by taking you seriously.
He did make ONE comment that fits the dichotomy in play:
He posted:
"Cartesian coordinates on the surface of the earth would look
silly, to
say the least of it."
It seems to me that "Cartesian coordinates" are the coordinates
of
choice, of the people that build bridges and structures "on the
surface of the earth", and the people who move about the "on the
surface of the earth".
That is why it seems to everyone else that you don't know what
you are talking about. What are the cartesian coordinates for
new york city? How about sydney, autrailia? What is the shortest
path across the earth's surface (in cartesian coordinates)?
To my knowledge, all of the numerical control systems that I have
seen,
employ "Cartesian coordinates" to model and construct globes and
complex topographical objects.
Oh, really? You must have overlooked all of those five-axis
machines
with tilting rotary tables that are indexed in rotational
increments.
But to get back to my original question: "Please explain how a
property can be described "independent of the system used to
describe it"?"
Simple. An electron is an electron because we define the
properties
of an electron to distinguish an electron from things which we
don't
call electrons. Mental masturbation and philosophical
knuckle-rapping
only misses the point.
It is interesting to see that "Bilge"
thinks that it is possible to describe "intrinsic" properties of an
electron
without reference to external interacting properties.
It seems to me that thinking like this is:
"Mental masturbation and philosophical knuckle-rapping."
It is also interesting to observe that "Bilge" said that Heymann
comment
below
"was rational and intelligent:".
Heymann's comment:
==============
"Potty, don't display your inbuilt stupidity by showing so clearly
that
you did not recognise Creighton's post as the best item in this
thread so
far"
==============
It seems to me that "rational and intelligent"
suggests addressing the issue, rather than attacking the messenger.
Hopefully "Bilge" and "Franz Heymann"
will learn that all properties must be referenced to
some standard property, and that interactions are symmetrical.
I suggest that if that read Maxwell's works,
where he introduces Dimensional Analysis,
they may come to comprehend this.
"Bilge" does make a good point when he points out that
it might be better to express the coordinates of places on the
Earth's surface, like New York, in Cartesian coordinates,
in order to more easily track changes caused by earthquakes and
such.
This is easily done by enclosing the Earth in a Cartesian box,
but not so simple when you use a rubber coordinate system.
Thanks for bringing this up "Bilge"!
I have seen some nonsense in my long life, but this last couple of
paragraphs of Potty is the queen of them all.
Congratulations, Potty.
I am disappointed to see that Franz could not comprehend my post,
but if he engages in a rational, intelligent dichotomy on the subject,
I will be more than happy to educate him.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
16 Mar 2005 03:55:00 PM |
|
|
In article <39qp96F675tsqU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3e5hs.reo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Tom CrackPotter:
Franz Heymann:
It seems to me that "rational and intelligent"
suggests addressing the issue, rather than attacking the messenger.
Attempt to claim the moral high ground...
Hopefully "Bilge" and "Franz Heymann"
will learn that all properties must be referenced to
some standard property, and that interactions are symmetrical.
....and then immediately attack the participants...
I suggest that if that read Maxwell's works,
where he introduces Dimensional Analysis,
they may come to comprehend this.
"Bilge" does make a good point when he points out that
it might be better to express the coordinates of places on the
Earth's surface, like New York, in Cartesian coordinates,
in order to more easily track changes caused by earthquakes and such.
....and attribute suggestions to Bilge that Tom knows very well Bilge
didn't make.
Is this the behavior of a rational, intelligent, moral person?
--
"There's nary an animal alive that can outrun a greased Scotsman!" --
Groundskeeper Willy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
17 Mar 2005 07:49:17 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d1a9vk$8vt$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <39qp96F675tsqU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3e5hs.reo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Tom CrackPotter:
Franz Heymann:
It seems to me that "rational and intelligent"
suggests addressing the issue, rather than attacking the messenger.
Attempt to claim the moral high ground...
Hopefully "Bilge" and "Franz Heymann"
will learn that all properties must be referenced to
some standard property, and that interactions are symmetrical.
...and then immediately attack the participants...
I suggest that if that read Maxwell's works,
where he introduces Dimensional Analysis,
they may come to comprehend this.
"Bilge" does make a good point when he points out that
it might be better to express the coordinates of places on the
Earth's surface, like New York, in Cartesian coordinates,
in order to more easily track changes caused by earthquakes and such.
...and attribute suggestions to Bilge that Tom knows very well Bilge
didn't make.
Is this the behavior of a rational, intelligent, moral person?
Why don't you leave the thread intact,
and let's see exactly what Bilge said,
not what he meant, nor what you hoped he meant?
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)?? |
17 Mar 2005 09:12:49 AM |
|
|
In article <39tg70F66050qU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d1a9vk$8vt$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <39qp9 | | | | | | | | | | | |
