Re: My definition of force!!!

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: 15 Mar 2005 10:27:47 -0800

TomGee wrote:
> Bjoern,
> I did read some of them and I responded to the silliness of referring
> posters to websites which contain a plethora of facts and opinions
> useless usually to straight-thinkers like me. For those seeking to
be
> educated, they end up confused all the more. Those who cannot
express
> themselves properly or those who have no reasonable rebuttal to OP
> claims, or those who cannot have any original thoughts, are those
poor
> souls who refer others to websites. You don't have any favorite
sites
> to refer others to so you refer us to Wormy's sites! How uncouth!
How
> gross!
> TomGee

This is baiting and you know it.

You hold the attitude that everyone should explain everything in
narrative to you, without reference to outside sources. Indeed, the
reason you want this is that you are having trouble following the
material in the outside sources. You dismiss the outside sources as
containing a plethora of facts and opinions. The only outside source
you will consider (and which, in your mind and in contrast to all other
sources and references, is unimpeachable) is Microsoft Encarta, which
you obtained at a discount. The reason you like Encarta is that none of
its explanations are longer than a paragraph or contain more than one
algebraic expression. You would like all such explanations to be in
this form, easily digestible and/or debatable.

Unfortunately, Tom, this is not going to happen for you. Outside
references are long for a reason -- it takes a bit to explain things
properly. Moreover, to demonstrate the correctness and applicability of
the thoughts therein, some calculations are required. The authors of
those references spend a good chunk of their lives recording and
checking and rewriting those explanations, and all published references
of that form are highly reviewed and externally checked, as well. (Note
Wikipedia is NOT checked, by design. Note that the level of checking
and *who* checks the articles is also different for Encarta than it is
for physics references.)

There is no short-circuit for learning this stuff, Tom. If you want to
get to Z, you'll have do M, P, S, and W first. If M is too loaded with
incomprensible detail or the math is too hard, then you'll have to
start earlier, with K or E or even A. If you find it daunting that
you'd have to learn all of A-Y to get to Z, then my only advice is keep
your eyes on the prize and labor through it. If you find A or B or C
boring, even though you need them before understanding D, then you are
not cut out to be a physicist, plain and simple.

PD