Free fall
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Phi in nature
Next: Motion
From: donstockbauer on 16 Sep 2005 21:52 I know and I'm not god. It's doubletalk and all the responses to it give him great fun. He couldn't do it so well if he didn't actually know what's going on. The man's an artist and this forum has been his canvas for years. Bob *********** Now who would do that? Reply sensibly one time, sarcastically the next, yet harbor underlying knowledge which allows him to pull it all off? Maybe someone who's given up on any sensible dialectic here and just wants to point out how the noncooperation of a few ruin it for all, the same thing which could still bring Humanity down at this late stage despite all the progress we've made. Have a nice day.
From: Herman Trivilino on 17 Sep 2005 10:16 "odin" <ragnarok(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > What I am curious about is that Don1 thinks the textbooks are wrong on > this stuff. Yet his equation seems to be different and inconsistent every > time he posts a message about it. You are using different criteria for establishing "wrong". To a physicist, in this context, "wrong" means "doesn't match what's observed". To Don, "wrong" means "doesn't satisfy my expectation of the the way it ought to be". We argue with Don, pointing out that his formulae and his meanings aren't consistent with what's observed. He doesn't know what that means so he ignores it, and continues on, claiming that we are wrong because the stuff we tell him doesn't match his notion of the way things ought to be. > God only knows how vi became v/i for no good reason in this thread. It doesn't mater to him because vi and v/i have the same meaning to him. > And God only knows what parenthesis actually mean in his own twisted > version of elementary algebra. He's not doing algebra, he's expressing his notion of the way things ought to be. > God only knows why he eschews calculus, vectors, quantum physics, > relativity, etc. They aren't the way things ought to be. > But in any case, I wonder how he explains that everyone from Ford to NASA > uses the appropriate equations as they are described in the textbooks, and > they all design devices that actually work. He dosn't see a connection between his worldview of the way things ought to be and the worldview of a physicist who is modelling the way things actually are. > Sometimes he is a throwback to Newton's time, but loaded with errors. > Sometimes he is a throwback to ancient Greek times. His math never gets > beyond the level of a failing grade seven student. He never gets into the > 19th century let alone the last one or this one. It took Western civilization centuries to sort out the notion that Nature doesn't necessarily behave the way humans think it ought to behave, and that one must actually observe Nature if one is to produce a successful model of the way Nature actually behaves. > Well, if these equations that have been in constant use for over 300 years > are wrong, then what the hell does Don1 think is going on? He thinks that physicists have a worldview that is wrong, according to his notion of what it means to be wrong. It makes no difference that equations are a successful model. That fact has no value whatever in his worldview. > Well, I think I know... Don1 does not believe in what he says. He has a > keen interest in annoying others and bringing humiliation on himself. For > whatever reasons. Of course, that is just my operating theory. He could > also just simply be an idiot. All of what you've said in the abopve paragraph is probably true. True, but not relevant. I've said this before. Don may sound like an idiot, and he may look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really IS an idiot. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: mmeron on 18 Sep 2005 15:36
In article <1126966735_3339(a)spool6-east.superfeed.net>, "Herman Trivilino" <physhead(a)kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> writes: >"odin" <ragnarok(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > >> What I am curious about is that Don1 thinks the textbooks are wrong on >> this stuff. Yet his equation seems to be different and inconsistent every >> time he posts a message about it. > >You are using different criteria for establishing "wrong". To a physicist, >in this context, "wrong" means "doesn't match what's observed". > >To Don, "wrong" means "doesn't satisfy my expectation of the the way it >ought to be". > And this, in a nutshell, sums up the disconnect between scientists and cranks, as evidenced on this ng. We may use the same words but we don't speak the same language. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |