Re: E = 1/2mv^2


PD wrote:
tomgee wrote:
PD wrote:
tomgee spluttered:
PD wrote:
tomgee foamed:
PD wrote:

[pointless dodging snipped]

SNIP

Um, no. You can only see whatever light illuminates. You can see the
source and the objects illuminated by the light, like a welder sees the
flame illuminated by the light, but you cannot see light itself. You
cannot see the em waves and the photons, you can only see through light
and not through the dark.

Ah, I see. So our retinas are tuned to respond to flashlights, not to
the light from flashlights. Right.

No, you don't see. You still don't get it. Our retinas do not respond
to light.
Our eyes respond to the intensity of light. Our retinas receive the em
waves
and the photon particles that is touching them at any given moment.
Our
optic nerves carry the data imprinted on the retinas by the light to
our brains
which then interpret the data.

More babble, Tom. You say our retinas "receive the em waves and the
photon particles that is touching them". EM waves and photon particles
are light. Substitute the synonym, and reread: "receive the light that
is touching them". And then you say "Our retinas do not respond to
light."

Yes. Your opinion is that our retinas have the capacity to respond to
light shone unto them, yet everyone but you knows our retinas do not
respond to light, they simply act as screens onto which the data in a
light wave is impressed. Our retinas do not respond to light; they
just
absorb the light data for our brains to interpret.

Look up "light" in Encarta. Oh, never mind, here it is:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579230/Light.html.
Oh never mind, here are the first few words from the Encarta article:
"Light, form of energy visible to the human eye ..."

Now, what were you saying about light not being visible?

Great! You have found another instance where Encarta is wrong. I
have found others, as I have previously said in showing that I do not
see Encarta as anymore of an authority as anything else since it has
made errors when it ventures out on its own. Now that you have
found Encarta online, you no longer have qualms about using it as
your authority, eh? You have yet to renounce all the bad stuff you
said about it before you began to use it yourself. We're waiting....

And then what were you saying about fields not being an object? Oh yes,
you said:
"Object: 1. something visible or tangible: something that can be seen

or touched ..."

Now, do you want to continue making up nonsense just for the sake of
"debate", even if you look progressively stupider in the process?

Hint, Tom, since you're so interested in debate: A good debater knows
that when he's standing in a hole, he should stop digging.

You should take that advice soon before you reach China. You keep
arguing nonsense derived from your misunderstandings of physics terms.

I cannot believe you think retinas respond to light, nor that you
believe we
can see the em waves and the photons instead of seeing only their
effects, nor that you believe fields are objects and have no finite
bounds.

And when a supernova thousands of light-years away explodes and we see
the flash from that explosion thousands of years later, we're seeing
the supernova and not the light, even though the supermova is long dead
and gone. Right.

Turn on the light, TomGee, you're groping.

No. You're drowning. You don't even know how we see things.

SNIP

My point is that GR describes gravitation in an alternate way, but it
stays within the observed effects in saying that one cannot tell in
certain situations when one is being accelerated. I guesss that's not
enough to convince you even though it comes from the Great One.

And my point is that you don't understand the equivalence principle
well enough to state it properly. Try looking it up again in Encarta
and have another shot at it.

Unsupported opinion.

Yup. I'm not submitting it as an argument. I'm submitting it as
evidentiary fact. You just provided the evidence yourself.

Nope. You submitted it as an argument and when I knocked it down you
try now to say it is not unsupported opinion but a fact. Talk is
cheap, but
it is worthless as unsupported opinion. But that's all you know to do,
so
you continue committing those errors against the rules of debate. Then

you have the gall to try to make us think you have a clue about debate!


SNIP

Alright, poor example. Pigeons use the earth's magnetic field as a
guidance system for migration. They certainly sense it.

So you admit you're a pigeon instead of a real physicist? Or are you
guessing that they sense it and not its effects on their bodies?

And is sensation not an effect on the body?

Yes, but it's still an effect of the field and not th field itself.

Aha. And in the same way, you don't feel a doorknob itself when you try
to escape from the ward, you feel the effects of the doorknob on your
body.

Turn on the light, TomGee, you're groping.

Idiot. You equate a field with a doorknob. How stupid is that, PD?

For the purposes of calling them both "Object 1. something visible or
tangible: something that can be seen or touched ..." I think it's
pretty clear it's not that stupid.

No, it isn't. And that's your purpose alright, but it's wrong to say
they
are both objects under that same definition. You don't hold the power
to say that just because you want so badly for that to be true.

You have yet to point out why a doorknob satisfies this definition in a
way that an electromagnetic field does not.

I have done that, but I have no hope that you will ever be able to
understand it.

SNIP

I'm sorry, you just repeated the statement without showing how you got
from your premise ("motion is only meaningful wrt other bodies") to
your conclusion ("his shortened formula, E=mc^2, was valid only in a
case of two or more objects at constant velocity wrt each other").
Repeating the conclusion is not an argument.

Why do I think you're not sorry at all? That is my argument, was the
same from the first time and remains the same still. Sorry you lack
the capacity of brainpower to understand it as an argument, but that's
not my fault. No one could be so dense, not even you, therefore, I
think you are again arguing as an attempt to distract us from the
topic.

Aha. Roses are red, violets are blue. Therefore TomGee has no wits
whatsover. That is my argument, and it remains still. If you do not
have the wits to follow how the conclusion arises from the premise,
that's not my fault.

I see that you followed my argument.

SNIP

That's what debate is all about.

SNIP

I don't give a damn about winning an argument with you, TomGee. Winning
arguments is not what physics is about. If you just want to engage in
arguments and win them, take it to alt.philosophy or rec.debate or
rec.exercise.pointless.

Why do I think you're lying about that?

I don't have the foggiest idea why you think I'm lying about it.
Winning arguments is not what physics is about. If you think it is,
then that explains a lot about your approach to things here.

Is it because you give your
opinions sans any support for them? Is it because you constantly
attempt to distract us from the topic? Is it because you learned not
how to think for yourself, but how to follow your leaders over the
cliffs if necessary? All your posts show your great desire to win over
what I have written as my ideas and as my model. I sent you 70 pages
of great ideas and you're still stuck on page one. "Methinks thou dost
indeed protest too much!"

But here we're talking about physics, and all that really matters is
whether what you say is right or wrong. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and
I'll point it out.

Yes, Master. Igor is sawwy for being so brash and uppity.

I owe you no education on what's right -- you can
look that up yourself.

No thanks, I already escaped the idiocy of your teachers and I do not
want you to teach me any of your pure crapola that you post here. I
reject ignorance and you are the epitome of it with your perfect
conformity to the trend. I have looked up my education myself and
discovered you are one of the pseudo-scientist emperors who are ruining
physics with your sick fantasies.

And what do you think proper physics should be, Tom? Let's start there.
How do you think physics should be done?

And have you thought about your answer to this question, Tom? This one
actually has to do with physics, so it might be worth talking about.

Distraction tactics noted.

I owe you no convincing argument -- an idiot is
not easily convinced of anything.

True, I have not convinced you of anything, and you have made not made
any valid arguments to date. I do not see posting here as a debate
between you and me, but more as an open debate wherein anyone can
participate.

All I intend to do with you is to
point out to the other readers when you're being an empty-headed
blowhard who doesn't know the first thing about physics and who doesn't
have the faintest interest in doing what it takes to learn it.

Well, be sure to let us know when you think you've done that, as we've
been waiing for that a long time now, but it is you who is a classic
victim of Establishment brainwashing overindoctrination, as almost
everyone of you posts reveals.

SNIP

Are the products of the collision all at CV with respect to each other,
according to you?

No, but you are not measuring their individual energies, either.

Why, yes, yes, I am. That's what a particle detector does.

No, a particle detector detects particles. It does not measure
energies. The humans and their tools do that. You are horribly
confused about particle research.

Aha. A particle detector is a tool. And yes, Tom, out spits a number
that is the particle's energy, right out of the tool.
As for being confused about particle research, have you done any?
Where? On which experiments? Working with whom?

Idiot.

Ah, *superb* debate strategy.
You simply must try that out on rec.debate.nya-nya-nya or
sci.pointless.so's-yer-mother.

I simply pointed out that you were talking nonsense again. It has
nothing
to do with debate strategy. What part of "idiot" did you not grasp?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: E = 1/2mv^2
    ... Hint, Tom, since you're so interested in debate: ... Turn on the light, TomGee, you're groping. ... arguments is not what physics is about. ... Why, yes, yes, I am. That's what a particle detector does. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physicists = with the glaivin and the hoiting and the yelling.
    ... of skepticism, regardless of which side of the debate they come ... been trained in the physics that underlies the debate. ... If it is indeed physics, ... modeling (and economics as "science") is on even less firm ground than ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics, ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... suggesting that we are simply a biological mechanism that has evolved." ... that we know all of the relevant laws of physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... but that's the next phase of the debate. ... >> represent physics as we knew it before the atomic clock, ... Did this construct establish that motion, together with distance, could be used to ... can call that third axis *time*, or whether or not we should more properly call it motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)