Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second
From: Nth Complexity (spam_at_this-dot-instead.no-spam.invalid)
Date: 07/05/04
- Next message: Fletch F. Fletch: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- Previous message: Nth Complexity: "Re: Light slowing down"
- In reply to: Donald G. Shead: "How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Jul 2004 17:28:06 -0500
> Donald G. Sheadwrote:
"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<K42dndlFKLrc_XTdRVn-uA@comcast.com>...
> "Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
> news:0rbhe019puo36vodr5hij6p4b2it8uossc@4ax.com...
>
> *flush*
>
> There is no cause for the confusion, other than a very silly choice
by
> physicists using the English language for a jargon word for the
force
> due to gravity.
>
> Naive, possibly, but 'silly', hardly. The extent of 'silliness' in
physics
> is limited to such things as selecting names for novel concepts that
will
> prevent confusion with previously established concepts. The names
of the
> quark properties (charm, strangeness) and as-yet-undiscovered
elements (such
> as 'Unununium') come to mind.
>
> The human imagination far outpaces any single language's (or
individual's)
> vocabulary in rate of growth, so we are left with no alternative but
to
> 'recycle' the words we know in different contexts, with
context-specific
> definitions. The word 'mercurial', for example, holds distinct
meanings in
> chemistry, astronomy, and psychology. The word 'set' has (according
to at
> least one authority) 464 different definitions.
>
> This is a language specific problem, shared by
> English with some other languages such as French, but not by other
> languages such as Norwegian.
>
> The only languages I know of that do not apply words differently in
> different contexts are all dead: Sumerian, Vinca, Mayan, you get the
idea.
> That is because the new contexts have arisen since people stopped
using the
> languages.
>
> I believe you are misunderstanding your 'other languages such as
Norwegian.'
> No language in which 'There is no cause for the confusion' is
capable of
> supporting the favorite form of humor among growing intellects - the
pun.
>
> We who use the word "weight" in its normal meaning in commerce own
> this word.
>
> *NOBODY* 'owns' a word. Even Bill Gates can't own the word
'windows'
> (unless he is willing to take responsibility for washing mine!)
>
> We have a prior claim to it by hundreds of years over the
> physicists who recently borrowed it and often use it with another
> meaning.
>
> Can you possibly become any more arrogant? If 'prior claim' meant
anything,
> we should
> all be blue-green algae.
>
> We use it consistently with the same meaning; there is no
> real imprecision in that usage--even if some people such as
yourself
> are too dumb to understand that, and even if many other people
simply
> don't care about the precise meaning or how it might differ from
other
> usage of the same words.
>
> The lack of imprecision you claim for the commercial use of
'weight'
> notwithstanding, you are painting yourself into a corner here: on
one hand
> you say 'We use it consistently with the same meaning' and later *in
the
> same sentence* you say 'many other people simply don't care about
the
> precise meaning or how it might differ from other usage of the same
words'.
>
> Either you are in a small group of linguistic perfectionists (a
doomed
> species, I might add), or you have no qualms about contradicting
yourself
> (in which case you have a career opportunity in republican
politics).
>
> You bore me, Gene.
>
> *plonk*
>
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
>
Darn it all Tom, if you can flame Gene like _that_, you must be
intelligent enough to tell us the real difference between weight and
mass! How about coming out with it; or are you one of those people
who
don't care as long as you have an excuse to highly and mightily
denigrate the rest of us?[/quote:c04b9c6f67]
I think this is not needed to discuss a fundamental constant to
produce the Fermi constant. On the light-like geodesic, no gauge
fixing can work for the closure operator. Linguistically, this adds
to Boolean logic some of the 3d entity inside it (per Berkenstein
& Hawking), but in a 3d event horizon not quite the same patch
frequencies can arise, and one can construct explicit examples
illustrating each possibility, and explain how these vary.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
- Next message: Fletch F. Fletch: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- Previous message: Nth Complexity: "Re: Light slowing down"
- In reply to: Donald G. Shead: "How far does an object fall during the first half second after it's released?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
