AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Phil. on 5 Aug 2007 18:51 On Aug 5, 5:05 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > ><snip> > >> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one > >> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own > >> question, why should I be bothered to care? > > >Likewise. > > I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. > > Jon You're right Jon, I came to the conclusion some time ago that claudius is a 'bot', never asks any real questions, keeps recycling the same terse one-liners that have virtually no connection to the subject under discussion. Certainly has no knowledge of science of any kind as far as I can see.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 20:23 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:51:19 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> wrote: >On Aug 5, 5:05 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> ><snip> >> >> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one >> >> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own >> >> question, why should I be bothered to care? >> >> >Likewise. >> >> I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. >> >> Jon > >You're right Jon, I came to the conclusion some time ago that claudius >is a 'bot', never asks any real questions, keeps recycling the same >terse one-liners that have virtually no connection to the subject >under discussion. Certainly has no knowledge of science of any kind >as far as I can see. I've tended to focus only on reading commentary by folks I already know have at least a general capacity to interpret some science. Evne in this main group I read this from, sci.environment, this means just a few folks. Not a lot. Sometimes, I decide to "dip in" a little deeper, because if I just focus on the few names I already know I won't get to add some good folks to my list as they arrive. It was one of those times when I began to see Kent's idiocy showing up. Since I just happened to know a little something about the subject (one of those rare times, you know), I decided to chip in for a moment. Of course, this attracted someone I already know is worthless on the subject of science, denk, and who has thoroughly earned by lack of reading him. However, since I opened the door so to speak I figured I should respond as long as the subject remained opened by me. Math isn't everything, of course. But without it in physical sciences, you are pretty much up a creek without a paddle. Part of this is because physics involves mathematical relations between postulated abstract quantities and the ability to rigorously derive other needed relationships. As one example of this, classical mechanics postulates a Lagrange action principle and then derives the equations of motion. If one cannot tell what is going on here or cannot otherwise wield these fluently, then they are going to be rather useless in terms of their ability to say much on the subject. Part of it is that folks also need to know quickly what the dominant factors are and how to obtain useful numerical values of some of the quantities, without getting mired in ancillary details that aren't important to the problem at hand. Plus, practical skills for solving relevant equations are essential. But also, since comparatively very few equations can actually be solved exactly, one must also know how to derive asymptotic or approximate solutions. (For example, how to approximate ln(A+B), where B << A, and how to estimate how many steps in the approximation to take for the desired effect.) Computational skills are vital. (Not everything is quantitative -- knowing that a supersymmetric multiplet is an elements of a noncommutative algebra rather than a number-valued function can be important, for example.) And then, to be able to actually interpret approximate descriptions in the context of physical experiments, one must be able to actually remember and hold in their heads how the known physical phenomena are importantly related to the obtained numerical values. One must be to recall (better yet, construct) the relevant mathematical structures that describe experiments, with sufficient accuracy. (Deducing general theory to particular cases.) The bottom line is that building mathematical models of physical processes isn't trivial and it takes a rather deep understanding and a broad range of skills. Anyone daring to comment on these things must be able to, at a minimum, master the above. And even that doesn't always get you there. What truly surprises me is that there isn't a single one of these clowns who can actually do any significant math for themselves or any of the rest I mentioned. They are completely unable to decide anything for themselves. They have NO POSSIBLE MEANS of arriving at an independent opinion. So why should I bother reading them?? I generally don't. But I do also take responsibility for myself when I open a door. In this case, I did. So until I got done with what I had to say, I tried to respond. That door is closing for them and I will return to NOT reading them, again. Until the next time I decide to say something, I suppose. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 23:07 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:02:25 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: ><snip> >A quantity can not be negative. ><snip> Yes, it can. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 23:52 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:02:25 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: ><snip of snivelling drivel> >You [...] will not listen to proper mathematics [...] ><snip> If you even had the merest shred of ability to understand, let alone actually present, any mathematics I might have wanted to listen for a moment. Sadly, you are quite simply unable to present sound mathematics. Jon
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 6 Aug 2007 01:18
<claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote > I must have missed it. Explain it again. Why? What would be the point? You weren't smart enough to understand it, or even recognize it the first time around. There is no point in explaining how a sanitary sewer system works to someone like yourself who is still in diapers. |