Re: Bush goes Nuclear!
From: Tom Potter (tdp_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Previous message: Redneck Physicist: "Question for you Ph.D'd folks out there"
- In reply to: Double-A: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:24:17 +0800
"Double-A" <double-a@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.0407262300.158c6fee@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<2mk1l9Fnhtm9U14@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Double-A" <double-a@hush.com> wrote in message
> > news:79094630.0407250555.2f3b824f@posting.google.com...
> > > "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<2mh10lFmqubbU9@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Double-A" <double-a@hush.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:79094630.0407231659.194453d7@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<2mcqkuFlp3k4U12@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > > "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7bTW6spoF+$AFwEQ@baesystems.com...
> > > > > > > In message <2ma0ajFkgn2dU1@uni-berlin.de>, Tom Potter
> > > > > > > <tdp@earthlink.net> writes
> > > > > > > >-"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >news:2m7icvFd7ushU12@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> news:PBW7sN1$5T$AFwTu@baesystems.com...
> > > > > > > >> > In message <2m4rgqFi6ib4U2@uni-berlin.de>, Tom Potter
> > > > > > > >> > <tdp@earthlink.net> writes
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> > >news:CiJIU+AAoN$AFwQo@baesystems.com...
> > > > > > > >> > >> In message <2m29h3Fhqqi4U8@uni-berlin.de>, Tom Potter
> > > > > > > >> > >> <tdp@earthlink.net> writes
> > > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >> >"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> > >> >news:X2eNhPEax4+AFwrn@baesystems.com...
> > > > > > > >> > >> >> In message <2lt0pnFgf3viU2@uni-berlin.de>, Tom
Potter
> > > > > > > >> > >> >> <tdp@earthlink.net> writes
> >
> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >What do you recommend?
> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >> >> You could start by correcting all the errors in
your
> > "tutorial".
> > > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >> >I'll be more than happy to correct any errors
> > > > > > > >> > >> >that you can point out, and prove are errors.
> > > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >> I already have. You acknowledged the error, then
failed to
> > > > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >> correction.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >As I recall, "Richard Herring" found NO specific errors
in
> > the
> > tutorial.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Then your recollection is incorrect.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> It may well be that your "recollection is incorrect."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [unacknowledged snip restored]
> > > > > > > >>>Did you buy those scare quotes by the bushel?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If you think you are "correct"
> > > > > > > >> post your old post, and let's see what it said.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >- http://tinyurl.com/3wqob
> > > > > > > >-
> > > > > > > >-Note the subject line. Read the rest of the thread.
> > > > > > > >-
> > > > > > > >Don't play games, equivocate, or run and hide,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ROFL. PKB.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >just repost your old post,
> > > > > > > >and let's see what it said.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3wqob is a link to my old post, in context,
and
> > your
> > > > > > > lying response to it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you unable to follow the link to it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Are you afraid to debate the content of your post?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think you understand. I'm simply not _interested_ in
> > "debating"
> > > > > > > anything with you, if that's what you call your puerile word
> > games.
> > > > > > > You're not just a troll but a boring troll.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You asked for evidence; I have presented evidence. End of
story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All I have seen is your assertion that you "presented evidence".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you cannot post your evidence,
> > > > > > and be prepared to defend your assertion,
> > > > > > I can only assume that you are a liar,
> > > > > > and have no "evidence", or else,
> > > > > > you are not too confident in the evidence
> > > > > > you claim to have.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did read the evidence posted by Herring.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was wondrous to see you, Potter, admitting that his definition
was
> > > > > better than yours.
> > > >
> > > > If
> > > > "It was wondrous to see <me>
> > > > admitting that his definition was better than <mine>"
> > > >
> > > > why don't you post the actual exchange,
> > > > so that other folks can experience this "wondrous" thing?
> > > >
> > > > That way, rational, intelligent folks can determine
> > > > for themselves what the facts are.
> > >
> > >
> > > Because the rational, intelligent folks know how to go look at the
> > > reference directly in its original context, just as I did.
> >
> > Considering that Double-A thinks that this issue
> > should be revisited, I am looking forward to
> > him joining the issue, and posting the previous exchange
> > as a starting point from which to start.
> >
> > Cutting and running,
> > is not joining the issue.
>
>
>
> You got it:
>
> ""Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:G3h01YGzHOu+EwyR@baesystems.com...
> > Potter's Field
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/fields.html
> >
> > "A field is a region under the influence of some physical agency such as
> > magnetism and gravity. A field is represented by a set of curves
> > referred to as "lines of force" or "lines of flux". Each line represents
> > a particular force level, and the direction and magnitude of the field
> > lines are functions of the physical agency being considered."
> >
> > Scalar fields are not represented by lines of force.
> >
> > Lines of force represent the direction of a vector field, not its "force
> > level", whatever that might be; the density of lines is proportional to
> > the magnitude of the field.
> >
> > Scalar field:
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ScalarField.html
> >
> > Vector field:
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorField.html
> >
> > Extra points for applying the biblical allusion.
>
> Thanks for the good definition.
>
> I will substitute some variation of
> "proportional to the magnitude of the field"
> for "a particular force level".
>
> Your definition is much better than mine.
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp"
Part of my discussion of "Fields" follows:
----------
A field is a region under the influence of some physical agency such as
magnetism and gravity. A field is represented by a set of curves referred to
as "lines of force" or "lines of flux". Each line represents a particular
force level, and the direction and magnitude of the field lines are
functions of the physical agency being considered.
In 1269 Petrus Peregrinus de Maricourt experimented with magnetism and wrote
"Letter on the Magnet". He used a thin iron rectangle to plot the field
lines of a spherically shaped piece of magnetite (Lodestone), and was the
first to associate a field with a force.
Michael Faraday(1791-1851) , inspired by the results of his experiments with
electrical currents, magnets, iron filings, and polarized light, introduced
the concept of fields. In his 1831 notes he wrote, "By magnetic curves I
mean lines of magnetic forces which would be depicted by iron filings."
Field Theory is about properties, other than pure space, existing about, and
affecting, objects. Faraday perceived that energy was not localized in the
particles but rather in the space surrounding them. This, as acknowledged by
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) who formalized Faraday's ideas into his
famous equations, was the birth of field theory. Maxwell perceived that
individual cycles of energy (Photons) could detach from a system by a
displacement current and be propagated in the form of an alternating
electro-magnetic wave.
Before Faraday, reality had been perceived as consisting of objects varying
in time and space. Faraday introduced fields as a kind of mediating element
between objects that possessed charge and magnetism and space. As magnetic
and electric lines were invisible and curved, he perceived that there must
be something more to space than just linear emptiness. Before Faraday,
interactions were envisioned as particles interacting in a straight line as
in the graphic below:
--------------
Although I tried to be polite and humor "Richard Herring",
I must emphasize that
"lines of force" mean
**lines of force" **,
not lines of direction.
-- Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
- Next message: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]"
- Previous message: Redneck Physicist: "Question for you Ph.D'd folks out there"
- In reply to: Double-A: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Bush goes Nuclear!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
