Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 19:15

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8580a441-d06e-47c4-87b5-7063c93a2b50(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Mar, 16:28, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 11:33 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation:
>>
>> > > > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler
>>
>> > > > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25.
>> > > > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now"
>> > > > price of $5 to $10.
>>
>> > > [...]
>>
>> > > IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but
>> > > doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math.
>>
>> > Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand
>> > in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading
>> > lists!
>>
>> Ah, so you're looking for a reference that is GUARANTEED by universal
>> acclamation to satisfy your learning needs?
>
> No, I'm simply justifying my failure to "work through this reading
> list"/"go back to education"/"learn some maths",

There is no 'justification' for failure.

> when it my
> apprehension at the outset that embarking on these courses of action
> would not have resolved my questions, but would simply have wasted my
> time and money.

Ahh .. so it is because you have problems with comprehension and
understanding that you don't bother to read and learn, and then are
surprised when you come her and have the same problems?

> And hence, when I say I want to discuss things instead
> of just going off and reading a book, it's not because I'm being
> awkward or just want to sound off cranky ideas to an audience, but
> because I genuinely apprehend that the interactive discussion is
> necessary for the questions at hand.

It helps is you try to read and understand the subject BEFORE you discuss it
(or in your case make unfounded criticism of it from ignorance). And helps
if you learn the appropriate tools and the language required.

Just don't go attributing YOUR failure to do so onto others.


From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 19:29
On 1 Mar, 19:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And I did not call you an idiot.
>
> > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged.
>
> At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short
> time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an
> elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand
> about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked
> several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like
> any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on
> that.

Indeed. You are by far the most reasonable poster I've spoken to here
Paul. Whatever our differences, we are able to conduct a fairly
reasonable discussion.



> Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you
> said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common
> game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can
> mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur
> can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading
> statement.

It's not that I'm looking to catch out experts. We all make mistakes,
and often (probably too often!) I find it necessary to climb down when
I realise I've shot from the hip.



> Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the
> experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that
> better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right,"
> and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more
> accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really
> to gloat over.

As I say, I was gloating over the fact that I've been subjected to the
forces of hell by the hubristic riff-raff here, who are now
backtracking as it slowly emerges that I know a great deal more than
in their previous estimations, and that they know a great deal less
than in their previous estimations.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 19:44

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:560598b9-c94c-4976-a646-81d89e8630ff(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Mar, 19:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > And I did not call you an idiot.
>>
>> > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged.
>>
>> At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short
>> time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an
>> elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand
>> about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked
>> several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like
>> any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on
>> that.
>
> Indeed. You are by far the most reasonable poster I've spoken to here
> Paul. Whatever our differences, we are able to conduct a fairly
> reasonable discussion.
>
>
>
>> Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you
>> said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common
>> game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can
>> mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur
>> can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading
>> statement.
>
> It's not that I'm looking to catch out experts. We all make mistakes,
> and often (probably too often!) I find it necessary to climb down when
> I realise I've shot from the hip.
>
>
>
>> Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the
>> experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that
>> better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right,"
>> and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more
>> accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really
>> to gloat over.
>
> As I say, I was gloating over the fact that I've been subjected to the
> forces of hell by the hubristic riff-raff here, who are now
> backtracking as it slowly emerges that I know a great deal more than
> in their previous estimations, and that they know a great deal less
> than in their previous estimations.

Not the case at all. You have an over-inflated sense of your own
importance. And are still very confused about SR. You also do not appear
interested in doing anything about that ignorance.

From: mpalenik on 1 Mar 2010 19:52
On Mar 1, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:560598b9-c94c-4976-a646-81d89e8630ff(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Mar, 19:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > And I did not call you an idiot.
>
> >> > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged.
>
> >> At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short
> >> time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an
> >> elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand
> >> about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked
> >> several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like
> >> any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on
> >> that.
>
> > Indeed. You are by far the most reasonable poster I've spoken to here
> > Paul. Whatever our differences, we are able to conduct a fairly
> > reasonable discussion.
>
> >> Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you
> >> said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common
> >> game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can
> >> mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur
> >> can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading
> >> statement.
>
> > It's not that I'm looking to catch out experts. We all make mistakes,
> > and often (probably too often!) I find it necessary to climb down when
> > I realise I've shot from the hip.
>
> >> Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the
> >> experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that
> >> better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right,"
> >> and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more
> >> accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really
> >> to gloat over.
>
> > As I say, I was gloating over the fact that I've been subjected to the
> > forces of hell by the hubristic riff-raff here, who are now
> > backtracking as it slowly emerges that I know a great deal more than
> > in their previous estimations, and that they know a great deal less
> > than in their previous estimations.
>
> Not the case at all.  You have an over-inflated sense of your own
> importance.  And are still very confused about SR.  You also do not appear
> interested in doing anything about that ignorance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

+1
From: paparios on 1 Mar 2010 20:25
On 1 mar, 21:00, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 Mar, 16:28, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:33 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation:
>
> > > > > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler
>
> > > > > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25.
> > > > > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now"
> > > > > price of $5 to $10.
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > IMO that book stinks for explaining SR.  It presents the math but
> > > > doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math.
>
> > > Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand
> > > in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading
> > > lists!
>
> > Ah, so you're looking for a reference that is GUARANTEED by universal
> > acclamation to satisfy your learning needs?
>
> No, I'm simply justifying my failure to "work through this reading
> list"/"go back to education"/"learn some maths", when it my
> apprehension at the outset that embarking on these courses of action
> would not have resolved my questions, but would simply have wasted my
> time and money. And hence, when I say I want to discuss things instead
> of just going off and reading a book, it's not because I'm being
> awkward or just want to sound off cranky ideas to an audience, but
> because I genuinely apprehend that the interactive discussion is
> necessary for the questions at hand.

What gave you the idea that using a text only discussion group would
help you to understand SR???
Nothing is better that having a face-to-face discussion with a SR
teacher. There in front of a blackboard and with the appropiate
material, you and your child or barmaid would for sure learn SR in
half an hour or less.

Miguel Rios
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights