Potter's tutorial: critiques
Randy Poe
tutorial writer, he is presumably interested in education.
In sci.physics he has requested honest criticism of where
he has failed to correctly convey information.
At present, the discussion is on the "Physical Property Chart"
from which I have focused first on the relation
energy*time = angular momentum
I ask Potter to imagine a hypothetical student learning from
this tutorial, what lesson is he/she supposed to take away
from that relation? Where is it applicable? Can the student
use it in angular momentum problems, for instance relating
the energy and angular momentum of a pendulum?
To date, Potter refuses to answer, leaving our poor hypothetical
student out in the cold. Thus, Potter seems interested neither
in education nor in honest criticism.
So once more, to Tom Potter: Can you give an illustration of
a situation where this correctly describes the relationship
between energy and angular momentum? Can you describe what
a student should be able to do, armed with this information?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:585ab5d8.0304...@posting.google.com...
Here's another one of his heroic acts: He disguised Kepler's third
law, and then fabricated some numbers to come up with a little
table proving some silly point:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=%g217.17973$YS5.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=yzE47.10965$Xy1.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Sneaky but rather amusing :-)
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:U5cqa.61752$t_2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
telenet-ops.be
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=yzE47.10965$Xy1.2403700@afrodite.
What's your problem Dirk?
Are you having your period?
Rather than bushwhack like a coward,
why don't you come out like a real man,
and post the point in issue, and then
make your case in an HONEST, MORAL, rational, intelligent way?
Regarding Randy Poe's post,
I answered this post,
and pointed out that Randy was mistaken
about the dimensions of angular momentum.
Randy admitted as much., and tried to shift the
focus by asking me why I focused on trying to
give folks an overview of physics, starting from a couple of basics
principles, and using these principles to develop a
unique Physical Properties Chart, that shows the
relationships between the physical properties, much as
the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
Any critic can say, why didn't you say such and such.
If anyone thinks they have a better approach,
I suggest that they put their effort where their mouth is.
As a individual with a long history of teaching at many levels,
I think my approach is best, and anyone can make their
own judgment, by simply downloading and running the tutorial.
Be honest, and set a good example for your son, Dirk.
"As the trig is bent, so grows the tree."
--
Tom Potter http://www.tompotter.ws
Tom Potter
Didn't we go over this before?
My physics tutorial starts from two simple principles,
time periods, and time intervals, and then goes on to
in nine simple, graphics-oriented steps,
develops a unique Physical Properties Chart,
that shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
A tenth step graphically demonstrates the analogies between
charge and mass.
The tutorial is intended to provide a wide readership,
with a clear overview of the physical properties,
and give them a picture of the historical development
of the properties, how cave man through modern man,
discovered properties like, time, capacitance, voltage, mass, etc.
The tutorial is NOT intended to address ANYONE'S
favorite topic, nor to address any property or law in detail.
It is like a road map of America. It provides
an overview, but if you want to know more about
Kokomo, Indiana, you'll have to stop and explore on your own.
But don't take my word for it,
and if you are an intelligent, rational, open-minded thinker,
don't take the word of a habitual critic for it.
Download the tutorial and find out for yourself.
Randy Poe
> > Potter has a "physics tutorial" at www.tompotter.ws. As a
> > tutorial writer, he is presumably interested in education.
> > In sci.physics he has requested honest criticism of where
> > he has failed to correctly convey information.
> >
> > At present, the discussion is on the "Physical Property Chart"
> > from which I have focused first on the relation
> >
> > energy*time = angular momentum
> >
> > I ask Potter to imagine a hypothetical student learning from
> > this tutorial, what lesson is he/she supposed to take away
> > from that relation? Where is it applicable? Can the student
> > use it in angular momentum problems, for instance relating
> > the energy and angular momentum of a pendulum?
> >
> > To date, Potter refuses to answer, leaving our poor hypothetical
> > student out in the cold. Thus, Potter seems interested neither
> > in education nor in honest criticism.
> >
> > So once more, to Tom Potter: Can you give an illustration of
> > a situation where this correctly describes the relationship
> > between energy and angular momentum? Can you describe what
> > a student should be able to do, armed with this information?
> >
>
> law, and then fabricated some numbers to come up with a little
> table proving some silly point:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=%g217.17973$YS5.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=yzE47.10965$Xy1.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
> Sneaky but rather amusing :-)
I see from the above that Potter has never seen the elementary
center-of-mass formulation of the two-body problem. He thinks
all celestial mechanics is done with small masses orbiting
infinite masses. In fact, he thinks he has made a new discovery
in physics by noting that a twirling baton rotates around its
center of mass.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:585ab5d8.0304...@posting.google.com...
> > Potter has a "physics tutorial" at www.tompotter.ws. As a
> > tutorial writer, he is presumably interested in education.
> > In sci.physics he has requested honest criticism of where
> > he has failed to correctly convey information.
> >
> > At present, the discussion is on the "Physical Property Chart"
> > from which I have focused first on the relation
> >
> > energy*time = angular momentum
> >
> > I ask Potter to imagine a hypothetical student learning from
> > this tutorial, what lesson is he/she supposed to take away
> > from that relation? Where is it applicable? Can the student
> > use it in angular momentum problems, for instance relating
> > the energy and angular momentum of a pendulum?
> >
> > To date, Potter refuses to answer, leaving our poor hypothetical
> > student out in the cold. Thus, Potter seems interested neither
> > in education nor in honest criticism.
> >
> > So once more, to Tom Potter: Can you give an illustration of
> > a situation where this correctly describes the relationship
> > between energy and angular momentum? Can you describe what
> > a student should be able to do, armed with this information?
> >
> > - Randy
>
> Didn't we go over this before?
Nope, we didn't. I brought up this point in the "fields"
thread and your response was a snide "What is this, a high
school project? I don't do homework."
> My physics tutorial starts from two simple principles,
> time periods, and time intervals, and then goes on to
> in nine simple, graphics-oriented steps,
> develops a unique Physical Properties Chart,
The "Physical Properties Chart" is what I am questioning.
You make statements about what relationships are to be
read from it. The above is one.
You have made the unsupported statement that
energy*time = angular momentum
is "correct". Now, either you truly believe that or not.
I am asking you once again to justify your statement that
it is correct. Tell me something, ANYTHING, for which this
is the correct relationship among energy, time, and angular
momentum.
> that shows the relationships between the physical properties,
What is in question is in what sense this is a relationship
between these particular physical properties.
Forget your grand scheme for the moment. Let's start with
these few properties. So far, all we've got is you saying,
in opposition to the entire rest of physics, that this
particular relationship exists.
Prove it.
> much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
>
> A tenth step graphically demonstrates the analogies between
> charge and mass.
>
> The tutorial is intended to provide a wide readership,
> with a clear overview of the physical properties,
> and give them a picture of the historical development
> of the properties, how cave man through modern man,
> discovered properties like, time, capacitance, voltage, mass, etc.
>
> The tutorial is NOT intended to address ANYONE'S
> favorite topic, nor to address any property or law in detail.
> It is like a road map of America. It provides
> an overview, but if you want to know more about
> Kokomo, Indiana, you'll have to stop and explore on your own.
>
> But don't take my word for it,
> and if you are an intelligent, rational, open-minded thinker,
> don't take the word of a habitual critic for it.
> Download the tutorial and find out for yourself.
I notice that nowhere in this entire response have you
addressed the truth of
energy * time = angular momentum
So once again I'll ask you: Justify this. What makes you
say this is true? Tell me ANYTHING to which it applies, with
numbers.
Do you believe your own tutorial? Why not answer one tiny
question? Why keep dancing?
- Randy
John Schoenfeld
Energy*time=angular momentum
Energy of what?
Time, from where? Or is that delta time?
Angular momentum of what? What's the mass (i.e. inertia, missing from
properties chart)?
It's angular velocity is exactly what?
JS
Tom Potter
It takes two to tango.
I would like to think "Randy Poe"
for his intense interest in my physics tutorial.
As I mentioned, the intent of this tutorial is to:
1. Start with a minimum of fundamental assumptions.
(I start with events, and then categorize events
into two classes, time periods, which are events
associated with one body, and are identified by
the process of "auto-correlation", and time intervals,
which are events associated with two bodies, and
are identified by the process of "cross-correlation".
Time periods are fundamental times, and time
intervals are fundamental space.)
2. Develop the other physical properties
in the fewest possible steps.
(I start with events, proceed to
time periods and time intervals,
and then use these two primitives
to construct a unique two-dimensional,
Physical Properties Chart, which shows
the relationships between the physical properties, much as
the Periodic Chart shows the relationship between the elements,
and I do this in nine, simple, graphics-oriented steps.
a Tenth step compares the charge and mass oriented properties.)
3. Provide the reader with a clear, overview of the physical properties,
their units, history, and some fundamental equations that
involve the property.
I think I have succeeded quite well in my effect,
but don't take my word for it,
visit my web site, download the tutorial,
and see for yourself.
To comment on "Randy Poe" grasping for straws
to discredit my tutorial, as I wrote, a road map of America
will not give you all the information you might want to know
about Kokomo, Indiana. If "Randy Poe" or any reader
is puzzled, or irritated by what I have left undone,
or under-emphasized in his mind, then they can
get more information about Kokomo, Indiana
from other sources. I don't intend to get involved
in side issues, nor do I intend to corrupt my basic
plan to provide a well-integrated, overview of
physics to my intended audience.
Dirk Van de moortel
"John Schoenfeld" <j.scho...@programmer.net> wrote in message news:a98beaaa.03042...@posting.google.com...
He gave an example in:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=%g217.17973$YS5.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=yzE47.10965$Xy1.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Have a close look at it - he will not produce anything new ;-)
Dirk Vdm
>
> JS
Randy Poe
wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:585ab5d8.03042...@posting.google.com...
>> I notice that nowhere in this entire response have you
>> addressed the truth of
>> energy * time = angular momentum
>>
>> Do you believe your own tutorial? Why not answer one tiny
>> question? Why keep dancing?
>
>It takes two to tango.
>
>I would like to think "Randy Poe"
>for his intense interest in my physics tutorial.
Confined for now to one single equation. Is it true, as you claim,
that energy * time = angular momentum? Where would a student be able
to apply this principle to an angular momentum problem? What
quantities would he/she substitute into this equation?
Fascinating. Yet again you have failed to address this elementary
question from page one. If I were a member of your prospective student
audience, I would have given up long before now.
Is the relationship energy * time = angular momentum true? Where would
a student be able to use this relationship? Can you give an example of
a physical situation where the quantities in question are related this
way?
How many words are you willing to write without ever addressing this
simple question?
- Randy
Randy Poe
Schoenfeld) wrote:
>rpo...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<585ab5d8.0304...@posting.google.com>...
>> So once more, to Tom Potter: Can you give an illustration of
>> a situation where this correctly describes the relationship
>> between energy and angular momentum? Can you describe what
>> a student should be able to do, armed with this information?
>>
>
>Energy*time=angular momentum
>
>Energy of what?
>Time, from where? Or is that delta time?
>Angular momentum of what? What's the mass (i.e. inertia, missing from
>properties chart)?
>It's angular velocity is exactly what?
That of course is the question to Potter. So far he has asserted (a
few times) that it's "correct", and now several times he has simply
ignored the question entirely and gone off on a wild rant about the
philosophical intent of his website. Pity the poor student actualy
trying to learn what he meant by this relationship.
It's false of course. I can't think of a single place where it is
true. It's interesting to watch Potter squirm so obviously, though.
Hmmm. From this computer I can't access the site at all. I get
redirected to a site administrator page. Perhaps he took it down.
- Randy
Randy Poe
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>He gave an example in:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=%g217.17973$YS5.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=yzE47.10965$Xy1.2...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
>Have a close look at it - he will not produce anything new ;-)
>
That seems to be a different relationship purporting to deal with
orbital precession. Did that discussion start with energy * time =
angular momentum?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mkpkav82u1pt50jcb...@4ax.com...
Iirc sometime much earlier up the thread before it was
renamed into the quoted one.
The discussions usually start with some quote of the
"tutorial" and I remember having asked him about his
angular momentum...
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
Apparently someone is playing games with my web site,
in violation of FEDERAL LAW.
I am in the process of tracking down the problem,
and the CRIMINAL involved.
I will be back on the air as soon as I can
resolve the problems.
Tom Potter
As a long time teacher, I learned long ago,
to not let students waste my time by trying to
divert me from the basic issue.
If you want to know the answer to your question,
I suggest that you use the global search feature on my
physics tutorial, and search for "action" and "angular momentum".
Tom Potter
telenet-ops.be
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=yzE47.10965$Xy1.2403700@afrodite.
telenet-ops.be
>
> I see from the above that Potter has never seen the elementary
> center-of-mass formulation of the two-body problem. He thinks
> all celestial mechanics is done with small masses orbiting
> infinite masses. In fact, he thinks he has made a new discovery
> in physics by noting that a twirling baton rotates around its
> center of mass.
It is interesting to see that "Randy Poe"
thinks he has remote viewing abilities.
I suggest that he contact Randy about this.
--
As some maladjusted vandals have trashed my regular web site:
http://www.tompotter.ws, use my Earthlink site until I repair the
damage and find out who the criminals are.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
FrediFizzx
Looks like maybe your hosting company has it messed up. In the meantime,
why don't you just answer Randy's question?
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Jim
Tom Potter
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:3tflav0q2g0ceg1gp...@4ax.com...
As I indicated, Randy Poe is desperately trying to
make out that my tutorial is something other than what it is,
an attempt to provide folks interested in physics,
a clear overview of physics, starting from a
couple of fundamental principles.
I suggest that Randy Poe would be justified as much
in chastising Newton, Maxwell, Galileo, Schrödinger, etc.
for providing too narrow view of physics, as in chastising
me for providing the first, graphic overview of the physical properties.
My tutorial starts with the principles of
time periods (Auto-correlations of a sequence of events
associated with a single body.) and time intervals
Cross-correlations of a sequence of events
associated with two bodies.) and develops
a unique, two-dimensional Physical Properties Chart
that shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships
between the elements.
But why should rational, intelligent folks believe me
or Randy Poe? The best way to find out, is to download
the tutorial (About one megabyte) and see for themselves.
--
As some maladjusted vandal trashed my regular web site:
http://www.tompotter.ws, use my Earthlink site until I repair the
damage and find out who the criminal is.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Tom Potter
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8ec3b$93b3j$1...@ID-185976.news.dfncis.de...
I have addressed this question several times.
I suggest that you read the threads,
and read the pages "Action" and "Angular momentum"
and go through the tutorial.
--
Jim
Don't stop now. Continue on. You have a shit-load of words to go.
Jim
FrediFizzx
Unless you can successfully answer Randy's question here on the group, I am
not going to bother with your tutorial.
FrediFizzx
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/photong/photong.html
Tom Potter
Why should I answer his question?
It has no bearing on fundamental purpose of my tutorial,
and is just an effort by Randy Poe to save face,
and spin my wheels.
As I posted, as a teacher, manager and father,
I learned long ago not to allow
immature people spin my wheels,
and get me involved in side issues.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to comprehend,
that if I wanted to answer his question,
and didn't have a good answer, I could quickly find one,
as many posters in sci.physics do,
by simply doing a quick search on Google.
It is stupid for efficient, goal oriented, people to allow
immature, wheel spinners to dominate an interaction.
The best way to handle them is to ignore them,
play off of them and stick to your agenda,
or use them as a bad example for others.
And why am I explaining this to you?
I am actually explaining to the astute folks who might
read this post some day, that they should stick to their
agenda, and not let nay sayers, wheel spinners,
sharpshooters, and ego trippers, waste their time
and get them off track. If someone jumps every time some loser
tries to waste their time, they'll never get anywhere.
Regarding you taking the position that you will
"not going to bother with <my> tutorial",
you are the loser, not me.
Losing you as a reader, would be like losing
my subscription to the Book of the Month Club.
Tom Potter
"Four score and seven years ago,
our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation.
Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal...."
Jim
>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
>news:ahcmavg90s7scd50h...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> >the tutorial (About one megabyte) and see for themselves.
>>
>> Don't stop now. Continue on. You have a shit-load of words to go.
>
>"Four score and seven years ago,
>our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation.
>Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
>that all men are created equal...."
:)
Jim
Jim
>
>"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Unless you can successfully answer Randy's question here on the group, I
>am
>> not going to bother with your tutorial.
>
>Why should I answer his question?
>It has no bearing on fundamental purpose of my tutorial,
>and is just an effort by Randy Poe to save face,
>and spin my wheels.
You are so silly. :)
Jim
Tom Potter
As a long time manager and entrepreneur,
I learned years ago, not to allow people with
ulterior motives get me off the main track,
and I assert that good managers and leaders don't
allow people to spin their wheels, and get them off
the main track.
I'll tell you what is "silly",
and that is to let some immature, habitual, maladjusted flamer
and bushwhacker, control your agenda.
Now that is "silly".
On second thought,
it's not "silly",
it's STUPID!
If you don't "successfully" refute this
in a rational, intelligent, mature, convincing way,
I assert that you are the "silly" one.
Note that I am asserting that you are silly,
(Or ignorant, or stupid, or immoral, or flawed in some way.)
if you don't conform to my agenda.
I assert that if you allowed yourself to be controlled by
my agenda, you wouldn't be "silly",
you'd be stupid.
I strongly object to letting some clown control my agenda,
but I don't mind discoursing at length on this subject,
as I am sure that some young folks will gain some
insights from this thread.
Mensanator
>From: "Tom Potter" t...@hotsheet.com
>Date: 4/27/2003 5:00 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <b8g9j9$9kc4h$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
[snip]
>> Don't stop now. Continue on. You have a shit-load of words to go.
>
>"Four score and seven years ago,
>our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation.
>Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
>that all men are created equal...."
It's "fathers", not "forefathers".
>
>--
>As some maladjusted vandal trashed my regular web site:
>http://www.tompotter.ws, use my Earthlink site until I repair the
>damage and find out who the criminal is.
>
>Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
--
Mensanator
2 of Clubs http://members.aol.com/mensanator666/2ofclubs/2ofclubs.htm
Tom Potter
"Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030427112658...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Potter's tutorial: critiques
> >From: "Tom Potter" t...@hotsheet.com
> >Date: 4/27/2003 5:00 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <b8g9j9$9kc4h$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
> >
> >
> >"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
> >news:ahcmavg90s7scd50h...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Don't stop now. Continue on. You have a shit-load of words to go.
> >
> >"Four score and seven years ago,
> >Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
> >that all men are created equal...."
>
> It's "fathers", not "forefathers".
Thanks for the correction.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:b8gud6$9v6jk$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de...
>
[snip]
> --
> As some maladjusted vandal trashed my regular web site:
> http://www.tompotter.ws, use my Earthlink site until I repair the
> damage and find out who the criminal is.
>
> Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
I prefer the silence on http://www.tompotter.ws
Dirk Vdm
Jim
>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
>news:8nonav4svo2ldr1vj...@4ax.com...
>> "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Unless you can successfully answer Randy's question here on the group,
>I
>> >am
>> >> not going to bother with your tutorial.
>> >
>> >Why should I answer his question?
>> >It has no bearing on fundamental purpose of my tutorial,
But it does have bearing on its accuracy.
More, but far from all, words.
On the other hand, you could just answer the question.
Jim
Sam Wormley
>
> As some maladjusted vandal trashed my regular web site:
> http://www.tompotter.ws, use my Earthlink site until I repair the
> damage and find out who the criminal is.
>
http://www.tompotter.ws
Good improvement for students of physics.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3EAC6202...@mchsi.com...
Sam makes a good point!
My physics tutorial,
which starts from two fundamental principles,
time periods and time intervals, and
develops a unique Physical Properties Chart,
which shows the relationships between the
physical properties, much as the
Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements,
in six simple steps,
is not suited for "students of physics".
"Students of physics". at least that set of the
"students of physics", who are in organized physics classes,
are expect to adhere to a rigid set of procedures and
though processes, that have become institutionalized.
If a student in an organized physics class had a good overview of physics,
and an open mind, it would disrupt the class and cause trouble for the
student.
I suggest that my physics tutorial is best suited for
rational, intelligent, engineers, technicians, laymen,
and open-minded, free thinking researchers,
who are interested in having a clear overview
of the way the universe works at the most fundamental level.
Of course, if there are intelligent, open-minded, physics students,
who want to gain a good overview of physics, and they can keep
a lid on in their physics classes, they are welcome to download the
tutorial, and use it carefully, understanding that their fragile minds
might be corrupted.
--
As some maladjusted vandal trashed my regular web site:
http://www.tompotter.ws, use my Earthlink site until I repair the
damage and find out who the criminal is.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Tom Potter
Are you asserting that folks should not have access to
information about science that you object to?
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Tom Potter
I strongly object to letting clowns control my agenda,
especially persistent clowns.
Do you allow clowns, children, co-workers, competitors, etc.
control your agenda, by letting them to maneuvering you
to jump through their hoops?
If you do,
you'll never be the best parent, teacher, manager, person,
that you can be.
A word to the wise,
the best way to handle people who try to manipulate your agenda, is to:
1. Ignore them.
2. Play off of them, and promote your agenda.
3. Expose their agenda, and give the insights,
so they are discredited, and motivated to quit inhibiting others.
Jim is a bright, motivated person,
and I am sure that some day, he will learn this.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Jim
<snip>
>
>Jim is a bright, motivated person,
>and I am sure that some day, he will learn this.
Jim already knows he's a bright, motivated person.
Jim
Randy Poe
wrote:
>> On the other hand, you could just answer the question.
>
>I strongly object to letting clowns control my agenda,
>especially persistent clowns.
So your agenda does not include correct physics. Fine.
Then stop calling it a "physics tutorial" since it is spreading
incorrect information. Or is "energy * time = angular momentum"
correct?
- Randy
Tom Potter
It is interesting to see,
that this particular, persistent clown,
thinks <sic> that he knows what does,
and does not, qualify to be called a "physics tutorial"
I suggest that before he makes up a list of what
qualifies as a physics tutorial,
that he learn some physics first.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:s12qavs44b82iq7at...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:14:25 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> On the other hand, you could just answer the question.
>> >
>> >I strongly object to letting clowns control my agenda,
>> >especially persistent clowns.
>>
>> So your agenda does not include correct physics. Fine.
>>
>> Then stop calling it a "physics tutorial" since it is spreading
>> incorrect information. Or is "energy * time = angular momentum"
>> correct?
>
>It is interesting to see,
>that this particular, persistent clown,
>thinks <sic> that he knows what does,
>and does not, qualify to be called a "physics tutorial"
Oh, take a sock and stuff it.
Given a choice of clowns to teach me physics, Randy will
win the contract any day.
>
>I suggest that before he makes up a list of what
>qualifies as a physics tutorial,
>that he learn some physics first.
So much for your lie about wanting to improve your site.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Randy Poe
> I strongly object to letting some clown control my agenda,
> but I don't mind discoursing at length on this subject,
> as I am sure that some young folks will gain some
> insights from this thread.
If some young person stumbles across your physical properties
chart, and reads from it "energy*time = angular momentum",
what insight do you want them to gain from it? How will
they use this principle in an actual application involving
angular momentum? Can you illustrate, for the sake of those
young people out there attempting to absorb the Chart,
how this principle is used in calculation?
Or does your agenda not include explaining the Chart to
your purported audience?
- Randy
Tom Potter
Take off your big shoes and your putty nose,
and read the tutorial. Particularly the pages on
"Action", Angular Momentum" and "Spin".
Sam Wormley
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Tom--Take a look at
Acceleration "a"
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/acceleration.html
Acceleration -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Acceleration.html
The first thing Weisstein does is give the definition of acceleration
derivative of velocity which essentially what Newton did, and what
is found in physics text books... now if you want to specify a
target audience of middle school (or simplified high school) kids
you might want to skip any references to the calculus.
Your statement "Acceleration is the rate at which a body changes
velocity or direction" is a bit confusing because velocity, being
a vector (which has direction), the "or direction" is ambiguous and
misleading.
You state that "A body moving in a straight line has acceleration
only when it is changing speed". Why confuse students with the
term "straight line" since a body experiencing acceleration
changes velocity no matter what its path.
It's just the disjointed way that material is presented without
unifying principles, loose definitions, and lack of rigor that
does a disservice to the learner.
OK--you can argue I'm just being picky... but your whole web site
is like this including mistakes.
Under "common equations" you have "acceleration = 1 / radius of curvature"
and out of its proper context (you credit Einstein for saying this) what
is a student to do with that?
Under "Editorial comments"
You mislead the student by writing "force(B) = mass(B) * acceleration(B)"
all of the quantities being a "function of B"???
You say "Galilei discovered the first of these relationships"
... I think NOT
"mass(A) * G = distance(B)^3 / time(Common)^2" is certainly not right.
Newton rewrote Kepler's third law as
p^2 = (4 pi^2 a^3 )/G(M+m)
where p is the period (not time) and of course Kepler knew there
was a direct proportionality between p^2 and a^3, but didn't have
the foggiest idea about mass, and G being part of the relationship.
... and on and on and on....
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f76e0bb3.03042...@posting.google.com...
Am I *asserting*??? Of course I'm not asserting.
I am *telling* you that folks should not have access to
information about science that I object to.
Can't you read? Look again at what I said:
"I prefer the silence on http://www.tompotter.ws"
Look again and read it carefully.
Was that merely *asserting*? Are you blind or what?
What a dumb question.
Title: "Potter's way of interpreting a message."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PotterWay.html
[ By the way, I know *exactly* what the problem is
with your site, and how to solve it. Guess. ]
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:s12qavs44b82iq7at...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:14:25 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> On the other hand, you could just answer the question.
> > >
> > >I strongly object to letting clowns control my agenda,
> > >especially persistent clowns.
> >
> > So your agenda does not include correct physics. Fine.
> >
> > Then stop calling it a "physics tutorial" since it is spreading
> > incorrect information. Or is "energy * time = angular momentum"
> > correct?
>
> It is interesting to see,
> that this particular, persistent clown,
> thinks <sic> that he knows what does,
> and does not, qualify to be called a "physics tutorial"
Presumably, something that teaches physics. What's your
definition?
> I suggest that before he makes up a list of what
> qualifies as a physics tutorial,
> that he learn some physics first.
OK, teach me some physics: "Dear Mr. Potter: I am stumped by
your brilliant Physical Properties Chart. For instance, the
way I read it, it seems to say that the relation between
energy and angular momentum is energy*time = angular
momentum. Please, can you explain this physical principle
to me and give me an example of its use? I am looking
to you rather than the orthodox Physics Establishment
to teach me everything I need to know about physics.
Signed, an earnest young physics student."
I'm all ears. Teach me.
- Randy
Tom Potter
Dear "earnest young physics student",
Just read the tutorial, and you'll understand.
As all "earnest young physics students"
can plainly see, the tutorial starts with two fundamental properties,
time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
The tutorial then goes on to develop all of the physical properties,
and present them on a unique two-dimensional, Physical Properties Chart,
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
All of this is done, in only nine, simple, graphic steps,
(With lots of cool background music and animation.)
and a tenth step shows the analogies between charge and mass.
The tutorial also contains a unique Atomic Particle Chart,
which shows the relationships between the long-lived atomic particles,
and a chart which shows the decay modes of the particles.
Be sure to study the tutorial earnestly,
as I shall be quizzing my students.
Tom Potter
Rational, intelligent folks know that if you want
nice clean oats, or unadulterated information,
you get it from the horses mouth,
not from a horses ass.
If you want comprehensive, factual information
about me, visit my web site at: http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
It has all kinds of information about me, my family and my thoughts.
The tactic used by "Dirk Van de moortel" does not yield truth and reality.
It simply amplifies the misconceptions of the seeker.
This approach is common to people who are trying to
FIX the results of experiment rather than present truth.
People who use this tactic cannot be TRUSTED when
it comes to money, sex, war or SCIENCE!!!!.
On the other hand, if you want to understand "Dirk Van de moortel",
a good place to start would be the article by
Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD
at http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/ entitled:
"The Psychopath's Brain"
Note that sociopaths are egocentric, have shallow emotions,
lack of empathy for other human beings, are calloused, etc.
Jim
I think that's a very good idea.
I'm sure anyone visiting that site will
come to realize just what kind of
unadulterated information is contained in
the tutorial.
It worked for me.
Jim
Randy Poe
wrote:
So then, this relationship does not stand on its own? It isn't true?
Why do I need to read a whole tutorial to understand one equation? Is
it true or not?
- E.Y.P.St.
Tom Potter
"When an irresistible force such as you,
meets an immovable object like me,
nothing's gonna give, nothing's gonna give, nothing's gonna give..."
With apologies to Sinatra.
Tom Potter
Jimbo, are you still bent out of shape,
because I oppose war mongers propagandizing in sci.physics??
Stay that way.
Being "crooked" fits you just fine."
People are judged by their enemies,
and I am proud to have the likes of Jimbo, and moortel
as enemies.
Jim
wrote:
>
Sorry, memory fails. Reference please?
I thought we were talking about your tutorial.
>
>Stay that way.
>Being "crooked" fits you just fine."
>
>People are judged by their enemies,
>and I am proud to have the likes of Jimbo, and moortel
>as enemies.
If:
"I think that's a very good idea.
I'm sure anyone visiting that site will
come to realize just what kind of
unadulterated information is contained in
the tutorial.
It worked for me."
Would cause you to think of me as an enemy, so be it.
Jim
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:b8l2tp$b36sk$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de...
>
[snip]
> People are judged by their enemies,
> and I am proud to have the likes of Jimbo, and moortel
> as enemies.
Huh? enemies?
I don't have enemies. Do *you* have enemies???
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
Only the ones who are shooting at me.
Everyone else is okay with me,
unless that are shooting at my friends,
in which case they are enemies of my friends,
and as such are NOT okay with me.
Of course, I have a long history
of converting enemies into friends,
or driving them nuts.
Which category do you think you will end up in?
Tom Potter
Tom Potter
I am pleased to see that Jim wants to be my friend.
I never reject an offer of friendship.
As my Pappy used to say,
"A friend is someone who treats you with respect,
and would never bushwhack you."
Jim
You are the second strangest person I've ever met
on the internet. :)
Jim
Tom Potter
And it seems to me, that this pretty well describes
a moral, rational, well-adjusted person.
What do you think?
Jim
I don't expect my friends to treat me with respect, just
because they're my friends.
Only one of my friends has ever pointed a gun at me, so
I guess you could say I've never been bushwhacked.
(He thought he was aiming at the V.C.) :)
Morals are relative.
Rationality isn't much fun.
Well-adjusted, is someone paying for a
chiropractor's Mercedes.
Jim
Randy Poe
wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:sctravogbhrbo3l52...@4ax.com...
>> So then, this relationship does not stand on its own? It isn't true?
>> Why do I need to read a whole tutorial to understand one equation? Is
>> it true or not?
>
>"When an irresistible force such as you,
>meets an immovable object like me,
>nothing's gonna give, nothing's gonna give, nothing's gonna give..."
>
>With apologies to Sinatra.
OK, point made. Your "tutorial" does not exist for the purpose of
conveying information, and you will fight to the death rather than let
any information actually escape from it.
Let's try another, shall we? Your Physical Property Chart appears to
say "mass density * time = frequency". Can you explain what is meant
by that, and illustrate a situation where it holds?
- Randy
Tom Potter
Rather than try to kill nits,
why not go through the tutorial and digest it?
BTW, what do you think about the fact that
Einstein called energy, "inertia mass"?
I hope I don't have any mistakes like this in my tutorial.
I will admit that it is difficult to "convey information"
if there is no receiver, or if the
receiver has a lot of noise at its' input stage,
which obscures the signal.
Randy Poe
wrote:
But when you write words in your tutorial, they're not just for me,
are they? No more than words in a public discussion forum.
For the sake of the masses, not me, what do you mean by "mass
density*time = frequency". Is that a correct relationship? In what
sense?
How about "acceleration * time = velocity" and "velocity*time =
distance"? That should be easy, because there is a sense in which they
are conveying correct information even though not correct as written.
How about you telling the masses, not me, what you meant by those
relationships? Can I (they) use them to solve acceleration problems?
- Randy
jmfb...@aol.com
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:qtkuav4l210d3drt9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:28:55 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:sctravogbhrbo3l52...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> So then, this relationship does not stand on its own? It isn't true?
>> >> Why do I need to read a whole tutorial to understand one equation? Is
>> >> it true or not?
>> >
>> >"When an irresistible force such as you,
>> >meets an immovable object like me,
>> >nothing's gonna give, nothing's gonna give, nothing's gonna give..."
>> >
>> >With apologies to Sinatra.
>>
>> OK, point made. Your "tutorial" does not exist for the purpose of
>> conveying information, and you will fight to the death rather than let
>> any information actually escape from it.
>>
>> Let's try another, shall we? Your Physical Property Chart appears to
>> say "mass density * time = frequency". Can you explain what is meant
>> by that, and illustrate a situation where it holds?
>
>Rather than try to kill nits,
>why not go through the tutorial and digest it?
Since you claim to have been in the computer biz, you know
that this is absolute nonsense. In reviewing code, you fix
the bugs as you go; anything else is a waste of time, money,
and effort.
Richard Herring
There's a legal doctrine "falsa in unus, falsa in omnibus". In other
words, if one part of a witness's testimony is demonstrably false, why
should you bother to listen to the rest?
--
Richard Herring
jmfb...@aol.com
You know that; I know that; the rest of the world minus one knows
that. :-)
He's essentially claiming that his computerization of the information
has to be completely read in order to understand it. In any other
context, this approach would categorized as religion.
Tom Potter
As can be seen, my physics tutorial
starts with two fundamental properties,
time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
The tutorial then goes on to develop all of the physical properties,
and presents them on a unique two-dimensional, Physical Properties Chart,
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
All of this is done, in only nine, simple, graphic steps,
(With lots of cool background music and animation.)
and a tenth step shows the analogies between charge and mass.
The tutorial also contains a unique Atomic Particle Chart,
which shows the relationships between the long-lived atomic particles,
and a chart which shows the decay modes of the particles.
I suggest that anyone who wants to obtain
a clear overview of physics, in a short amount of time,
should visit my web site,
download the tutorial,
and see if it can be of value to them.
Nothing ventured. Nothing gained.
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:6wjLUgRs...@baesystems.com...
Please indicate which witness testified falsely
indicate what testimony was false,
and why it is false.
This is called innocent until proven guilty.
In other words, accusations from clowns,
idiots, and liars, cannot be trusted.
I must indicate that if there are "bugs"
in my physics tutorial,
and they are reported to me by
reliable, honest, trustworthy, individuals,
I will make any necessary changes.
I won't waste my time chasing phantom "bugs"
dreamed up by chronic flamers
who haven't gone through the tutorial,
and who do not comprehend it.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:b8nf32$bu5kd$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:YWyra.67390$t_2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
> news:b8l2tp$b36sk$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > People are judged by their enemies,
> > > and I am proud to have the likes of Jimbo, and moortel
> > > as enemies.
> >
> > Huh? enemies?
> > I don't have enemies. Do *you* have enemies???
>
> Only the ones who are shooting at me.
>
> Everyone else is okay with me,
> unless that are shooting at my friends,
> in which case they are enemies of my friends,
> and as such are NOT okay with me.
How old are you?
11?
>
> Of course, I have a long history
> of converting enemies into friends,
> or driving them nuts.
>
> Which category do you think you will end up in?
Ha, an intelligent, moral, mature dichotomy like in
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Apotter+mature+dichotomy
Dirk Vdm
mensanator
I worked for years as a System Test technician. I was my job to take
the programmer's newly compiled code and test it in the production
systems. When it immediately crashed, I went back and asked the
programmer if he actually tried running the program. He replied
"I don't need to run it. I know how it works because I wrote it."
To which my reply was
"You only _think_ you know how it works. Until you actually _run_ it,
you have no way of knowing whether your algorithms _actually_ do what
you _think_ they should do."
The point is the person who doesn't understand it will give you better
feedback than the person who _thinks_ they understand it.
Tom Potter
news:fbf22ff1.03043...@posting.google.com...
Perhaps there is something you don't know "mensanator".
There is a small group of chronic trouble-makers in sci.physics,
whose sole purpose in life is to try to stroke their egos by
attacking posters to the newsgroup. It is my long standing policy
to treat this group of sociopaths as follows:
1. Ignore them.
2. Expose the psychological source of their actions.
3. Or play off of them to promote my agenda,
rather than let them control the agenda.
As most new posters to sci.physics fear becoming a target
for this group of sociopaths, they usually ignore them,
although as has been pointed out many times by others,
intimidated, new posters, sometimes "kiss the asses"
of this sci.physics Taliban, as they kiss each other.
I think my approach is best,
because, as can be seen,
it is driving them mad,
and keeping them busy,
and this lets the good folks
interact in a mature, moral, intelligent way,
without being bothered.
Tom Potter
Rational, intelligent folks know that if you want
nice clean oats, or unadulterated information,
you get it from the horses mouth,
not from a horses ass.
If you want comprehensive, factual information
about me, visit my web site at: http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
It has all kinds of information about me, my family and my thoughts.
The tactic used by "Dirk Van de moortel" does not yield truth and reality.
It simply amplifies the misconceptions of the seeker.
This approach is common to people who are trying to
FIX the results of experiment rather than present truth.
People who use this tactic cannot be TRUSTED when
it comes to money, sex, war or SCIENCE!!!!.
On the other hand, if you want to understand "Dirk Van de moortel",
a good place to start would be the article by
Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD
at http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/ entitled:
"The Psychopath's Brain"
Note that sociopaths are egocentric, have shallow emotions,
lack of empathy for other human beings, are calloused, etc.
--
Tom Potter http://www.tompotter.ws
Mensanator
>From: "Tom Potter" t...@hotsheet.com
>Date: 4/30/03 8:12 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b8ps50$coab4$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say I don't know.
>
>There is a small group of chronic trouble-makers in sci.physics,
>whose sole purpose in life is to try to stroke their egos by
>attacking posters to the newsgroup. It is my long standing policy
>to treat this group of sociopaths as follows:
>
>1. Ignore them.
>2. Expose the psychological source of their actions.
>3. Or play off of them to promote my agenda,
>rather than let them control the agenda.
I won't debate how effective this policy is, but the fact is everyone knows it
and you seem to be very inflexible about it.
>
>As most new posters to sci.physics fear becoming a target
>for this group of sociopaths, they usually ignore them,
>although as has been pointed out many times by others,
>intimidated, new posters, sometimes "kiss the asses"
>of this sci.physics Taliban, as they kiss each other.
So when the "Taliban" asks you a legitimate question, it paints _you_ to be the
fool to the outsiders who think you're stonewalling.
>
>I think my approach is best,
>because, as can be seen,
>it is driving them mad,
>and keeping them busy,
They're stringing you along and laughing at your pathetic excuses for not
answering the question.
>and this lets the good folks
>interact in a mature, moral, intelligent way,
>without being bothered.
>
>--
>Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
--
Mensanator
2 of Clubs http://members.aol.com/mensanator666/2ofclubs/2ofclubs.htm
Mensanator
>Message-id: <b8pues$cm8kk$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
>
>
>
>Rational, intelligent folks know that if you want
>nice clean oats, or unadulterated information,
>you get it from the horses mouth,
But they'll still have spit on them.
>not from a horses ass.
>
>
>--
>Tom Potter http://www.tompotter.ws
--
Richard Herring
<t...@hotsheet.com> writes
>
>"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:6wjLUgRs...@baesystems.com...
>> In message <b8ocee$bkg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com writes
>> >In article <b8nnff$c0d5g$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>,
>> > "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Rather than try to kill nits,
>> >>why not go through the tutorial and digest it?
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Since you claim to have been in the computer biz, you know
>> >that this is absolute nonsense. In reviewing code, you fix
>> >the bugs as you go; anything else is a waste of time, money,
>> >and effort.
>>
>> There's a legal doctrine "falsa in unus, falsa in omnibus". In other
>> words, if one part of a witness's testimony is demonstrably false, why
>> should you bother to listen to the rest?
>
>Please indicate which witness testified falsely
You.
>indicate what testimony was false,
For example:
"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."
- from http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/fields.html
>and why it is false.
Scalar fields are not represented by lines of force.
Lines of force do not represent force levels.
>
>This is called innocent until proven guilty.
>In other words, accusations from clowns,
>idiots, and liars, cannot be trusted.
>
>I must indicate that if there are "bugs"
>in my physics tutorial,
>and they are reported to me by
>reliable, honest, trustworthy, individuals,
True Scotsmen, in fact.
>I will make any necessary changes.
>
>I won't waste my time chasing phantom "bugs"
>dreamed up by chronic flamers
>who haven't gone through the tutorial,
>and who do not comprehend it.
--
Richard Herring
Randy Poe
wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:05avavo1th6p2a1so...@4ax.com...
>> For the sake of the masses, not me, what do you mean by "mass
>> density*time = frequency". Is that a correct relationship? In what
>> sense?
>>
>> How about "acceleration * time = velocity" and "velocity*time =
>> distance"? That should be easy, because there is a sense in which they
>> are conveying correct information even though not correct as written.
>> How about you telling the masses, not me, what you meant by those
>> relationships? Can I (they) use them to solve acceleration problems?
>
>As can be seen, my physics tutorial
>starts with two fundamental properties,
>time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
>and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
[snip]
You don't know the answer to any of those questions either, do you?
- Randy
Randy Poe
wrote:
>I think my approach is best,
>because, as can be seen,
>it is driving them mad,
>and keeping them busy,
What you think is, as usual, inconsistent with reality.
How many seconds per day do you think I waste on you? How many seconds
do you think were spent composing this post? Hint: less than 60.
By the way, can you explain in what sense mass density * time =
frequency?
- Randy
jmfb...@aol.com
mensa...@aol.com (Mensanator) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Potter's tutorial: critiques
>>From: "Tom Potter" t...@hotsheet.com
>>Date: 4/30/03 8:52 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <b8pues$cm8kk$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
>>
>>
>>
>>Rational, intelligent folks know that if you want
>>nice clean oats, or unadulterated information,
>>you get it from the horses mouth,
>
>But they'll still have spit on them.
Not really. Have you ever tried to take away a horse's oats? ;-)
Even Tom's analogies are wrong.
Tom Potter
Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
My approach is pretty effective, eh?
The best way to handle the people who
try to waste your time, is to manipulate them
into wasting their own time. Of course,
the time of the wheel spinners is not valuable,
but they still get frustrated when they spin their
wheels far more than their target.
Tom Potter
As can be seen, these questions are clearly answered in the tutorial.
As indicated, the tutorial starts with two fundamental properties,
time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
The tutorial then goes on to develop all of the physical properties,
and present them on a unique two-dimensional, Physical Properties Chart,
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
All of this is done, in only nine, simple, graphic steps,
(With lots of cool background music and animation.)
and a tenth step shows the analogies between charge and mass.
The tutorial also contains a unique Atomic Particle Chart,
which shows the relationships between the long-lived atomic particles,
and a chart which shows the decay modes of the particles.
There is also an animated gif "History Chart"
that cycles between the properties, the major contributor
to the understanding of that property, and the year of the discovery.
Of course, the wild card search feature calls up all the pages that match
the word entered by the reader. For example, searching on Newton
or Maxwell, calls up about 10 pages.
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
Anyone else care to comment on these two statements
by "Richard Herring"?
If he, or anyone else,
comes up with a better paragraph to describe
a "field" than I have used, I'll be happy to use it.
I also urge readers to visit that page,
and look at the accompanying graphics, which
I think helps folks understand fields.
As can be see, the tutorial starts with two fundamental properties,
time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
The tutorial then goes on to develop all of the physical properties,
and present them on a unique two-dimensional, Physical Properties Chart,
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
All of this is done, in only nine, simple, graphic steps,
(With lots of cool background music and animation.)
and a tenth step shows the analogies between charge and mass.
The tutorial also contains a unique Atomic Particle Chart,
which shows the relationships between the long-lived atomic particles,
and a chart which shows the decay modes of the particles.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:b8r35u$crn3c$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de...
[snip]
> > By the way, can you explain in what sense mass density * time =
> > frequency?
That was the question.
>
> Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
> and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
> out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
>
> My approach is pretty effective, eh?
>
> The best way to handle the people who
> try to waste your time, is to manipulate them
> into wasting their own time. Of course,
> the time of the wheel spinners is not valuable,
> but they still get frustrated when they spin their
> wheels far more than their target.
And here is the answer: "No, I cannot."
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
"Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030501002157...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Potter's tutorial: critiques
> >From: "Tom Potter" t...@hotsheet.com
> >Date: 4/30/03 8:52 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <b8pues$cm8kk$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
> >
> >Rational, intelligent folks know that if you want
> >nice clean oats, or unadulterated information,
> >you get it from the horses mouth,
>
> But they'll still have spit on them.
>
> >not from a horses ass.
I'd rather have spit on them,
than the alternate.
But to each his own.
Jim
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5gu1bvk0fvvcviq8v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:12:10 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
>> wrote:
>> >I think my approach is best,
>> >because, as can be seen,
>> >it is driving them mad,
>> >and keeping them busy,
>>
>> What you think is, as usual, inconsistent with reality.
>>
>> How many seconds per day do you think I waste on you? How many seconds
>> do you think were spent composing this post? Hint: less than 60.
>>
>> By the way, can you explain in what sense mass density * time =
>> frequency?
>
>Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
>and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
>out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
>
>My approach is pretty effective, eh?
>
>The best way to handle the people who
>try to waste your time, is to manipulate them
>into wasting their own time. Of course,
By having them read your tutorial.
>the time of the wheel spinners is not valuable,
>but they still get frustrated when they spin their
>wheels far more than their target.
Jim
Tom Potter
"Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030501001927...@mb-m04.aol.com...
I could care less what people think.
I try to speak the truth and act morally.
If anyone has a problem with this, tough.
And who's stringing who along?
I know how to assume a low profile
if I care too, and I know how to cater to the loud mouths,
who are present in any group, but rarely do this,
as it compromises my values.
I assert that any time, any one,
caters to the rabble and bullies,
that they compromise the integrity
of their psychic, not to mention
the fact that they have adversely affect the
good in the long run, for a temporary gain.
No doubt, there are times to lie, genuflect,
confess, squeal, kiss ass, shuck and jive, and eat shit,
but that would be when faced with a firing squad,
not fencing with a few immature sociopaths in a newsgroup.
Jim
Main Entry: 1field
Pronunciation: 'fE(&)ld
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English feld; akin to Old High
German feld field, Old English flOr floor -- more at FLOOR
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : an open land area free of woods and buildings.
Jim
Tom Potter
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:ai52bv4cjm28e7sel...@4ax.com...
> "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5gu1bvk0fvvcviq8v...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:12:10 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >I think my approach is best,
> >> >because, as can be seen,
> >> >it is driving them mad,
> >> >and keeping them busy,
> >>
> >> What you think is, as usual, inconsistent with reality.
> >>
> >> How many seconds per day do you think I waste on you? How many seconds
> >> do you think were spent composing this post? Hint: less than 60.
> >>
> >> By the way, can you explain in what sense mass density * time =
> >> frequency?
> >
> >Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
> >and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
> >out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
> >
> >My approach is pretty effective, eh?
> >
> >The best way to handle the people who
> >try to waste your time, is to manipulate them
> >into wasting their own time. Of course,
>
> By having them read your tutorial.
Good line Jimbo!
As the members of the sci.physics Taliban
know everything about physics
(And for that matter, everything else.),
it is a waste of their time to read my physics tutorial.
But to keep them busy,
and out of trouble,
and from hassling other posters,
I find ways to keep them going back for more.
Tom Potter
Although "Dirk Van de moortel"cannot answer the question,
the readers of my physics tutorial will
find the answer right in the tutorial.
As can be seen, the tutorial starts with two fundamental properties,
time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
The tutorial then goes on to develop all of the physical properties,
and present them on a unique two-dimensional, Physical Properties Chart,
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
All of this is done, in only nine, simple, graphic steps,
(With lots of cool background music and animation.)
and a tenth step shows the analogies between charge and mass.
The tutorial also contains a unique Atomic Particle Chart,
which shows the relationships between the long-lived atomic particles,
and a chart which shows the decay modes of the particles.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
jmfb...@aol.com
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:5gu1bvk0fvvcviq8v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:12:10 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
>> wrote:
>> >I think my approach is best,
>> >because, as can be seen,
>> >it is driving them mad,
>> >and keeping them busy,
>>
>> What you think is, as usual, inconsistent with reality.
>>
>> How many seconds per day do you think I waste on you? How many seconds
>> do you think were spent composing this post? Hint: less than 60.
>>
>> By the way, can you explain in what sense mass density * time =
>> frequency?
>
>Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
>and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
>out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
So you do admit that your goal is to prevent or destroy production.
Dirk Van de moortel
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:b8r89e$lin$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
[snip]
> >Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
> >and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
> >out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
>
> So you do admit that your goal is to prevent or destroy production.
Of course, but only with his "enemies".
He told us before about his heroic exploits:
| "In one case, I, my manager, and a few of my employees,
| all sued a head hunting firm that was trying to recruit some
| of my best people, in different courts, at different times.
| We cost them a lot of time and money, not to mention
| sleep and tension, and drove them out of business."
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3cfb...@post.newsfeed.com
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
As can be seen,
I am keeping a few members of the sci.physics Taliban
working overtimes.
But to address their desparate attempts to brainwash folks about me,
(As if I, rather than facts and events, matter anyway.)
I assert that rational, intelligent folks know that if you want
nice clean oats, or unadulterated information,
you get it from the horses mouth,
not from a horses ass.
If you want comprehensive, factual information
about me, visit my web site at: http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
It has all kinds of information about me, my family and my thoughts.
The tactic used "Dirk Van de moortel" does not yield truth and reality.
It simply amplifies the misconceptions of the seeker.
This approach is common to people who are trying to
FIX the results of experiment rather than present truth.
People who use this tactic cannot be TRUSTED when
it comes to money, sex, war or SCIENCE!!!!.
On the other hand, if you want to understand "Dirk Van de moortel",
a good place to start would be the article by
Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD
at http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/ entitled:
"The Psychopath's Brain"
Note that sociopaths are egocentric, have shallow emotions,
lack of empathy for other human beings, are calloused, etc.
--
Tom Potter http://www.tompotter.ws
Tom Potter
Thanks for the input.
I was going to use that definition,
but I was concerned about copyright rights.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:b8rfr9$d89i5$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de...
[snip]
> Note that sociopaths are egocentric, have shallow emotions,
> lack of empathy for other human beings, are calloused,
and sue a head hunting firm that is trying to recruit some
of their best people, in different courts, at different times,
and drive them out of business.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5gu1bvk0fvvcviq8v...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 1 May 2003 09:12:10 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com>
> > wrote:
> > >I think my approach is best,
> > >because, as can be seen,
> > >it is driving them mad,
> > >and keeping them busy,
> >
> > What you think is, as usual, inconsistent with reality.
> >
> > How many seconds per day do you think I waste on you? How many seconds
> > do you think were spent composing this post? Hint: less than 60.
> >
> > By the way, can you explain in what sense mass density * time =
> > frequency?
>
> Note that I am keeping "Randy Poe",
> and three or four of the habitual sci.physics flamers
> out of trouble, and from wasting the time of other folks.
Are you under the impression I only post to your threads?
>
> My approach is pretty effective, eh?
Not really.
>
> The best way to handle the people who
> try to waste your time, is to manipulate them
> into wasting their own time.
Total time spent on this post: about 30 seconds.
How long did you spend?
- Randy
mensanator
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> I try to speak the truth and act morally.
> If anyone has a problem with this, tough.
>
> And who's stringing who along?
You said you welcome legitimate questions from reliable, honest,
trustworthy individuals.
You said you won't waste your time with illegitimate questions dreamed
up by chronic flamers.
But you left out the case of legitimate questions from chronic
flamers. The flamers don't care about your tutorial, they're trying to
make you look foolish with your own words. Knowing that you won't
respond to _any_ post from the "Taliban", they don't have to dream up
fake issues. They have got you so conditioned that you foam at the
mouth when asked a legitimate question.
> I know how to assume a low profile
> if I care too, and I know how to cater to the loud mouths,
> who are present in any group, but rarely do this,
> as it compromises my values.
>
> I assert that any time, any one,
> caters to the rabble and bullies,
> that they compromise the integrity
> of their psychic, not to mention
> the fact that they have adversely affect the
> good in the long run, for a temporary gain.
Nixon tried to stonewall Watergate because he saw it as a political
maneuver by the Democratic bullies. And he was right, it was a
political maneuver. But the issue of criminal conduct was legitimate.
He made a lot of temporary gains, but lost out in the long run. You
cannot dismiss the bullies when they get hold of a legitimate issue.
Remember, we're assuming there are a lot of things I don't know. You
know who's on your enemies list, but I don't. I have to assume that
failure to answer a legitimate question is because you _can't_.
So I am forced to conclude that your tutorial is a crackpot manifesto.
F.Art.Ingatu
> So I am forced to conclude that
> your tutorial is a crackpot manifesto.
It is interesting to note and he makes a good point
because he is either menstruating in his own peculiar
way, but more likely he is simply
F. Art Ingatu
mensa...@aol.com (mensanator) wrote in message news:<fbf22ff1.03050...@posting.google.com>...
mensanator
> Mr. Potter, this AOLer, "mensanator", said about you:
> > So I am forced to conclude that
> > your tutorial is a crackpot manifesto.
>
> It is interesting to note and he makes a good point
> because he is either menstruating in his own peculiar
> way, but more likely he is simply
> F. Art Ingatu
>
It's an ill wind that blows no good.
Jim
>Mr. Potter, this AOLer, "mensanator", said about you:
>> So I am forced to conclude that
>> your tutorial is a crackpot manifesto.
>
>It is interesting to note and he makes a good point
>because he is either menstruating in his own peculiar
>way, but more likely he is simply
>F. Art Ingatu
If in fact you think he's menstruating, then perhaps
you should him simply
Q. Ueef Ingatu
Jim
<snip>
>Although "Dirk Van de moortel"cannot answer the question,
>the readers of my physics tutorial will
>find the answer right in the tutorial.
So quote the tutorial.
Jim
Jim
You're welcome.
>
>I was going to use that definition,
No you weren't.
>but I was concerned about copyright rights.
No you weren't.
Jim
Tom Potter
Perhaps it is best to simply describe the tutorial and its' intent.
It starts with two fundamental properties,
time periods, which are correlations associated with a single body,
and time intervals, which are correlations associated with two bodies.
The purpose of the tutorial, is to provide folks with a clear overview
of physics, and to give some insight into the historical evolution of
man's view of the physical properties, said properties being the
quantifiable quantities of man's perception of reality.
Tom Potter
news:debfd70c.03050...@posting.google.com...
My take on "mensanator",
is that he is too intelligent, cultured and civilized
to intentionally fart in public or at anyone.
Only crude, uncivilized, maladjusted, people
from dysfunctional families would even do,
or suggest that others do, or did this.
I suggest that it is rude, crude, and low class
to suggest that one's superiors would do such
a crude, rude, low class thing as fart at someone.
Maybe the poster and his family would do such a thing,
but rational, civilized folks don't do this sort of thing.
The nut does not fall far from the tree.