"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news | On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:50:53 -0700, Edward Green wrote:
|
|
| Sorcerer wrote: ...
|
| Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
| fool to waste more time on you.
|
| Obscenity is not the only metric that can be used against Sorcerer. I'm
| not even sure it's the most effective.
|
| But he does have a mildly interesting take on the question of what the
| average speed of an object (say, a turtle) is as it traverses a path from,
| say, Atlanta to Boston, then back to Atlanta.
|
| I can't say it's *accurate* or *useful* -- just interesting. :-P
|
| Regrettably for Einstein it's not helpful that he used a German word that
| could be translated as either "velocity" or "speed".



It is clear and in agreement with experience that further assume the English
translation of "Geschwindigkeit" is "velocity" in Einstein's paper.
Otherwise c+v and c-v have no meaning and the term "velocity" is used
throughout in the modern translations.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/eq22.A.GIF
It is also clear and in agreement with experience that you are ****ing
slow on the uptake, you dumb ****, which is not mildly interesting,
but sheer stupidity.
[rest snipped]
Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:50:53 -0700, Edward Green wrote:


Sorcerer wrote: ...

Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
fool to waste more time on you.

Obscenity is not the only metric that can be used against Sorcerer. I'm
not even sure it's the most effective.

Thanks for the laugh! Perhaps there is an superfluidity of effective
methods.

snip discussion on distinction between velocity and speed

That was his point?

[*] the aforementioned individual is not totally unhappy as Acme credited
his account and then shipped his next order at half price; he is, after
all, one of their most reliable customers. Pity he hasn't caught that
Geococcyx even yet.

I've been reading an autistic woman's book on animal behavior, and she
says that coyotes will sometimes kill 10 lambs and eat 1, because its
easy and, presumably, fun, to kill the lambs, and the rancher has a
large supply.

This behavior will of course reduce the time until the rancher
exterminates the coyotes, so maybe the're not all that clever after
all. Or merely self-destructive.

"Edward Green" wrote in message
oups.com...
| The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
|
| On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:50:53 -0700, Edward Green wrote:
|
|
| Sorcerer wrote: ...
|
| Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
| fool to waste more time on you.
|
| Obscenity is not the only metric that can be used against Sorcerer. I'm
| not even sure it's the most effective.
|
| Thanks for the laugh! Perhaps there is an superfluidity of effective
| methods.
|
| snip discussion on distinction between velocity and speed

Talk about people instead physics. What a ****wit you are. Have
a good laugh, you dumb ****.
Androcles.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:15:21 -0700, Edward Green wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:50:53 -0700, Edward Green wrote:


Sorcerer wrote: ...

Second thought, looking over your obscenity laced tirades, I'd be a
fool to waste more time on you.

Obscenity is not the only metric that can be used against Sorcerer. I'm
not even sure it's the most effective.

Thanks for the laugh! Perhaps there is an superfluidity of effective
methods.

snip discussion on distinction between velocity and speed

That was his point?

I think so, at one point.


[*] the aforementioned individual is not totally unhappy as Acme credited
his account and then shipped his next order at half price; he is, after
all, one of their most reliable customers. Pity he hasn't caught that
Geococcyx even yet.

I've been reading an autistic woman's book on animal behavior, and she
says that coyotes will sometimes kill 10 lambs and eat 1, because its
easy and, presumably, fun, to kill the lambs, and the rancher has a
large supply.

Hm. Strange that this particular instance, whose exploits are catalogued
(if one can use the term) in such nature films (ditto) as "Zoom and
Bored", "Road Runner A-Go-Go", and "The Tin Coyote", never occurred to
him, although that might be in part because lambs are in short supply in
the high Badlands desert area. (Of course, then there's another series of
"nature films" which shows a plentitude of sheep. Oddly, he doesn't
succeed there, either.)


This behavior will of course reduce the time until the rancher
exterminates the coyotes, so maybe the're not all that clever after
all. Or merely self-destructive.

Indeed.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Continuous mathematics .

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../00/engtot.pdf
"The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half
century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the
British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a
special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning
of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the
issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still
complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law
as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even
today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract
new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and
Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician
Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of
thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory,
even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p.
6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the
madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the
second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition
; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this
commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted
their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years
have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times
has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot
understand."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing
remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
[and of] the rest of modern physics."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0511...7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/Upd...sp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi..._crossroa.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...steins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

wrote:
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
It's moronic to reply to someone only to imply they're stupid,
crossposting to five groups.

Is your claim self-referential?

Not in any direct sense; it doesn't refer to any claims. It does apply
to my own post, though.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus