From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 17:38 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:72cti2912j48l1b64i0lgonubk0o27hr55(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>> Simple mental experiments show that m1*m2 works in that form, at least >>> in the non-relativistic case. >> >>Hunh??? Tell me about these simple mental experiments. And tell me why >>m1*m2 is any better than m1^1.00000000038 * m2^0.99999999947. Who says it has to be symmetric? These are, after all, just empirical laws that explain observed data. Symmetry is an outgrowth of the fact that those two exponents are the same--there's nothing fundamental that says that any two bodies of the same mass will exert the same pull on each other...that's just what the data tell us. What if the data are wrong--what if, to a higher degree of precision Even if I grant symmetry, why is m1*m2 any better than m1^1.0000000038 * m2^1.0000000038? > You might start with symmetry, then move on to the harder stuff. > >>They both >>explain the data that could be observed in Newton's time (and close to the >>limit of observation even today). And yet you tell me that we shouldn't >>accept m1*m2 because it's simpler. Then why should we? > > Because it's right. Prove it. You're using circular logic, assuming that the formulation that Newton gave is right, to prove that it's the right formulation. It's just law that explains empirical data, and is not subject to mathematical rigor. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 17:39 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:oacti2ho4t060ql6v38v57vjmkkh0n05ir(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:09:07 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>> >>> Obtuse? I'm not the one who swore there was no "2" in Newton's law of >>> gravitation, as you did in the part you snipped. My answer remains, 2 >>> is fundamentally correct, and Newton did not determine it >>> experimentally. >> >>2 is still not a precise number. To this day we can not say it is exactly >>2 >>with an infinite amount of zeros after the decimal place. > > Yeah, I suppose the area of a square might be L^1.99999998, since we > can't measure it any closer. And the volume of a sphere could well be > 1.33333339 * pi * r^3.00000006 No, those are mathematical constructs. Newton's law is just a model designed to explain experimental data. There is a huge difference. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 17:45 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> I mean, I can't recall a single post where you've had anything good > >> to say about America or Americans, can you? > > > >There's precious little left worth saying good about. > > --- > Try. There must be _something_ you like about us or this great big > beautiful country we live in, no? I'm sure it has many redeeming features. Graham
From: John Larkin on 12 Oct 2006 17:54 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:22:18 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >When I work with people who take the "be paranoid" line (as an aside: These >are nearly always Americans) they more often than not create additional >problems which then have to be engineered or managed out of the security >solution. > This is an electronic design group. Some serious fraction of electronic designs don't work first-pass, and spinning a design takes heaps of time and money. Larger hardware-software system have a goodly chance of failing absolutely: they are *never* made to work, at billions of dollars a pop, sometimes. Large doses of paranoia are the only rational way to approach electronics design. A few days spent agonizing over what might be wrong can save a design spin or three. Most of my PCBs are sellable at rev A, the first etch, because I am paranoid and know that the guy who designed them is a sloppy bungler. John
From: Daniel Mandic on 12 Oct 2006 17:58
John Fields wrote: > It's OK to write "Hitler" and "Nazi" now. Don't worry, no one's > going to come knocking on your door and drag you away. Well, in > your country they might, but they won't here. As for the rest of > it, do you mean OT as in "Off Topic"? If you do, then I'll remind > you that you haven't made a single on topic post since you've > been here. The name of the newsgroup is sci.electronics.design. On topic post? I have only replied... Yes? The responded were OT, too? No, I meant Na.. stuff does not fit to the Thread. > > Lets get to 2006. MMVI. > > --- > 0x7d6? 799? Best Regards, Daniel Mandic |