Potter's Field
Richard Herring
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/fields.html
"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."
Scalar fields are not represented by lines of force.
Lines of force represent the direction of a vector field, not its "force
level", whatever that might be; the density of lines is proportional to
the magnitude of the field.
Scalar field:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ScalarField.html
Vector field:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorField.html
Extra points for applying the biblical allusion.
--
Richard Herring
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:G3h01YGz...@baesystems.com...
Thanks for the good definition.
I will substitute some variation of
"proportional to the magnitude of the field"
for "a particular force level".
Your definition is much better than mine.
Thank you.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Richard Herring
<t...@hotsheet.com> writes
You're welcome. Don't forget to make it clear that the whole
lines-of-force concept only applies to vector fields. For scalar fields
(e.g. gravitational potential energy) the concept of isosurfaces is more
useful.
--
Richard Herring
Randy Poe
I think you're still missing the fact that the field is
not constant (in magnitude or anything else) along a
"line of force".
You made the statement that "each line represents a
particular force level". If you change that to "each
line represents a particular magnitude", it's still
wrong. Those lines are NOT contours. The contours run
perpendicular to those lines.
Notice Richard's statement that the strength of the
field is proportional to the DENSITY of lines.
- Randy
Tom Potter
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.03050...@posting.google.com...
I'll think about how to best reword this part of the tutorial,
and keep the main theme of the tutorial on track,
and the main theme is, to start with a minimum of
fundamentals, and develop a two-dimensional overview
of the physics properties and the atomic particles,
in a few steps.
As can be seen, my tutorial starts with the
assumption that the fundamental units of reality are events,
and that man stores and correlates the events he experiences.
As the tutorial shows graphically,
one body correlation gives rise to the concept of time,
and two body correlations give rise to the concept of space.
Kepler's Law is used to equate time and space to mass,
and then time, space and mass, are used to develop the
physical properties.
As can be seen, the unique Physical Properties Chart,
shows the relationships between the physical properties
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
The tutorial also features an Atomic Particle Chart
that shows the relationships between the long-lived particles.
Another chart shows the decay times and paths
of the particles, and clicking on a particle of property
calls up technical and historical information on that item.
Sam Wormley
>
> Kepler's Law is used to equate time and space to mass,
> and then time, space and mass, are used to develop the
> physical properties.
>
Tom, I got out my English translation of Kepler's "Harmonies
of the World", Book Five. Translated by Charles Glen Wallis.
No where in Kepler's laws does the quantity appear in the
equations.
Now it is certainly true that Newton put Kepler's third law
into the form:
n^2 a^3 = G M
where n is the mean motion (n = 2 pi /T ) of an orbiting body,
a its semimajor axis, G the gravitational constant, and M the
mass. And Kepler had no idea that the planet "fell" under the
influence of a gravitational force.
So after Newton, we could say that Kepler's third law relates
a orbiting objects period to its elliptical orbit semimajor
axis... but saying Kepler's third law equates time and space
to mass is just plain nonsense.
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KeplersThirdLaw.html
Hawking, "On the Shoulders of Giants", Running Press (2002)
Sam Wormley
>
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > Kepler's Law is used to equate time and space to mass,
> > and then time, space and mass, are used to develop the
> > physical properties.
> >
>
> Tom, I got out my English translation of Kepler's "Harmonies
> of the World", Book Five. Translated by Charles Glen Wallis.
> equations.
>
> Now it is certainly true that Newton put Kepler's third law
> into the form:
>
> n^2 a^3 = G M
>
> where n is the mean motion (n = 2 pi /T ) of an orbiting body,
> a its semimajor axis, G the gravitational constant, and M the
> mass. And Kepler had no idea that the planet "fell" under the
> influence of a gravitational force.
>
> So after Newton, we could say that Kepler's third law relates
> a orbiting objects period to its elliptical orbit semimajor
> axis... but saying Kepler's third law equates time and space
> to mass is just plain nonsense.
>
> Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KeplersThirdLaw.html
> Hawking, "On the Shoulders of Giants", Running Press (2002)
CORRECTED TO INCLUDE THE WORD "MASS"
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3EBB36B8...@mchsi.com...
Kepler discovered the relationship between space/time and mass,
and as I say in the tutorial:
Quote
=====================
Three of the most important equations in physics are:
force(B) = mass(B) * acceleration(B)
mass(A) * G = distance(B)^3 / time(Common)^2
force(B) = mass(A) * mass(B) * G / distance^2
Galilei discovered the first of these relationships by performing
experiments on objects rolling down ramps. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
discovered the second relationship when he analyzed the orbital data of the
planets that Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) had laboriously determined. Newton
built upon these two relationships, and came up with the three equations
after observing the apple fall from the tree.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) performed experiments on accelerated and falling
bodies using towers and inclined planes. He knew that projectiles followed
parabolas and that the distance traversed by falling bodies was proportional
to time squared. Galilei's experiments and observations set the stage for
the transition from Aristotle's physics to modern physics.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) extended the concept of acceleration to astronomy
and the motion of celestial bodies. He saw an apple fall from a tree, and
reasoned that if some property associated with the Earth acted on apples at
any height in a tree, the same property might act on celestial bodies.
===========
Unquote
As I mention, Kepler discovered the relationship in equation 2 above,
and when newton saw the apple fall, he extended Galileo's acceleration to
affect celestial bodies.
He basically came up with the idea of "G", and if he had just assumed that
"G" was one ( "1" ),
as it should bem he would not have modified Kepler's Law.
As I point out in the tutorial, "G" is a useless constant, and really
distorts the
symmetrical relationship between interacting bodies.
Quote
===========
When Einstein indicated that the "equivalence" of inertial and gravitational
forces was the cornerstone of General Relativity,
he was effectively restating Newton's observations
about inertia forces (force(B) = mass(B) * acceleration(B))
and gravitational forces (force(B) = mass(A) * mass(B) * G / distance^2)
These two different ways (Inertia and gravity) of looking at the same thing
(An interaction) come about because of the weaknesses in man's two-body
math. To simplify two-body problems, one body is perceived to be fixed in
media ( Time and space) and the second body is perceived to be varying in
media. Gravitational forces are associated with bodies perceived to be fixed
in media, whereas inertia forces are associated with bodies perceived to be
varying in media. For example, in the Sun/Earth two-body system, the Sun is
perceived to be fixed in media ( Time and space), and the Earth is perceived
to be varying in media. Thus the Earth gets the 365.25 days ( Time) and the
93,000,000 miles ( Space), and the Sun gets the Universal Gravitational
Constant "G" to balance the equation.
mass(Sun) * G = distance(Earth)^3 / time(Earth)^2
As interactions are symmetrical, and as the time period of a system is
shared by both bodies,
the correct formula is:
mass(Sun) * G(Sun) = distance(Earth)^3 / time(common)^2
Note that if we perceive the Earth as varying in media and we assign it the
distance, we must assign the Sun, which we are perceiving to be fixed in
media, the "G". Also note that the time period of a system is shared by both
bodies. One of the great omissions of contemporary physics is not specifying
the particular bodies to which constants and variables apply.
As explained in the tutorial section of this program, the Universal
Gravitational Constant "G" serves two functions. First, it differentiates
between bodies perceived to be fixed in media and bodies perceived to be
varying in media ( Bodies perceived to be fixed in media have the constant
"G" associated with them.). Secondly, it sets the units of mass, after the
constant "C" has set the units of space, and the selection of a clock has
set the units of time. The best mass standard would be the mass of the
celestial body ( The Earth or the Sun?) with the most precise satellite
orbital data ( Periods and distances). The mass of the body would be set to
some convenient value, and powers of ten would be used to scale the mass
units to a comprehensible range (one to ten) for the problem under
consideration.
=============
Unquote
The best way to grasp the gestalt of the physical properties,
and who should get credit for what
(As if that matters, Newton's dead Jim!),
is to read all ten lessons of the tutorial.
Tom Potter
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > Kepler's Law is used to equate time and space to mass,
> > and then time, space and mass, are used to develop the
> > physical properties.
> >
>
> Tom, I got out my English translation of Kepler's "Harmonies
> of the World", Book Five. Translated by Charles Glen Wallis.
> No where in Kepler's laws does the quantity appear in the
> equations.
>
> Now it is certainly true that Newton put Kepler's third law
> into the form:
>
> n^2 a^3 = G M
>
> where n is the mean motion (n = 2 pi /T ) of an orbiting body,
> a its semimajor axis, G the gravitational constant, and M the
> mass. And Kepler had no idea that the planet "fell" under the
> influence of a gravitational force.
>
> So after Newton, we could say that Kepler's third law relates
> a orbiting objects period to its elliptical orbit semimajor
> axis... but saying Kepler's third law equates time and space
> to mass is just plain nonsense.
As I state in a long post to your other post on this point,
read ALL ten lessons, and about some of the properties,
and you will have a clear idea of who discovered what,
as if this matters any way.
I might point out that there are NO Sir's in my tutorial,
and no Englishmen, Frenchmen, no Catholics, Christians or Jews,
just people making discoveries that were important to mankind.
I personally think that it is stupid for classes of people to
try to elevate their ego, by identifying themselves with
important people in history, and I think that people are
foolish when they write the Sir XXX discovered the YYY.
Self-serving leaders condition the masses to associate them
with the winners of the World Series, the NBA title,
successful space events, great discoveries, etc.
I for one, don't buy into this con job.
Newton did his thing, the Queen did her thing,
the Pope did his thing, and the rest of us
should do our thing, and not con ourselves,
or let people with an agenda con us.
How often do you see leaders and the masses line up
to take credit for a serial killer?
In my tutorial the discoverers get the credit,
not the Queen, nor the Pope,
nor any racial, religious or national group.
Sam Wormley
Kelper's Third Law states that the square of the period is PROPORTIONAL
to the cube of the semimajor axis of the orbit [ellipse]. The constant
of proportionality is ONE for units of one EARTH period (year) and one
EARTH oribital semimajor axis (au).
Newton deterined that the "constant" of proportionality was (2 pi)^2/G(M+m)
You also (incorectly) haveing Galileo using F = ma
Potter--Cite your sources of [mis]information!
Sam Wormley
>
> Kelper's Third Law states that the square of the period is PROPORTIONAL
> to the cube of the semimajor axis of the orbit [ellipse]. The constant
> of proportionality is ONE for units of one EARTH period (year) and one
> EARTH oribital semimajor axis (au).
>
> Newton deterined that the "constant" of proportionality was (2 pi)^2/G(M+m)
>
>
> Potter--Cite your sources of [mis]information!
WITH CORRECTIONS
Sam Wormley
But you have to get the material right, Potter!
o Galileo did NOT discover or use F = ma
o Kepler did not discover, use or understand P^2 = (2 pi)^2 a^3 / G(M+m)
o Isaac Newton "stood on the shoulders" of these two "giants", among others,
to give us F = dp/dt and P^2 = (2 pi)^2 a^3 / G(M+m)
Tom Potter
There are numerous references to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.
on the Internet, and I suggest that any person who is interested
in knowing what contributions each of these people
made to man's understanding of the physics properties,
should surf the net.
My physics tutorial starts with events as the fundamental quanta of reality,
uses events to develop the concepts of time periods (fundamental times)
and time intervals (Fundamental spaces),
and uses time and space to develop the concept of mass,
and then goes on to use time, space and mass, to define
all of the other physical properties, and presents them in 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.
When a property on the chart is clicked on,
it calls up technical and HISTORICAL information on that property,
and the HISTORICAL information gives credit to the individuals that I
perceive
to have been most responsible for advancing man's understanding
of that property. I suggest that Galileo should be given credit for
advancing mans knowledge of acceleration,
and that Kepler should be given credit for advancing
man's understanding of the relationship between time/space and matter.
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.
Technical and historical information about the atomic particles
is also called up when a property name is clicked on.
Tom Potter
There are numerous references to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.
on the Internet, and I suggest that any person who is interested
in knowing what contributions each of these people
made to man's understanding of the physics properties,
should surf the net.
My physics tutorial starts with events as the fundamental quanta of reality,
uses events to develop the concepts of time periods (fundamental times)
and time intervals (Fundamental spaces),
and uses time and space to develop the concept of mass,
and then goes on to use time, space and mass, to define
all of the other physical properties, and presents them in 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.
When a property on the chart is clicked on,
it calls up technical and HISTORICAL information on that property,
and the HISTORICAL information gives credit to the individuals that I
perceive
to have been most responsible for advancing man's understanding
of that property. I suggest that Galileo should be given credit for
advancing mans knowledge of acceleration,
and that Kepler should be given credit for advancing
man's understanding of the relationship between time/space and matter.
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.
Technical and historical information about the atomic partcles
is also called up when a property name is clicked on.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Sam Wormley
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:3EBBDAD2...@mchsi.com...
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Kelper's Third Law states that the square of the period is PROPORTIONAL
> > > to the cube of the semimajor axis of the orbit [ellipse]. The constant
> > > of proportionality is ONE for units of one EARTH period (year) and one
> > > EARTH oribital semimajor axis (au).
> > >
> > > Newton deterined that the "constant" of proportionality was (2
> pi)^2/G(M+m)
> > >
> > > You also (incor[r]ectly) having Galileo using F = ma
> > >
> > > Potter--Cite your sources of [mis]information!
> >
> > WITH CORRECTIONS
>
> There are numerous references to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.
> on the Internet, and I suggest that any person who is interested
> in knowing what contributions each of these people
> made to man's understanding of the physics properties,
> should surf the net.
>
Sam Wormley
>
>
> There are numerous references to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.
> on the Internet, and I suggest that any person who is interested
> in knowing what contributions each of these people
> made to man's understanding of the physics properties,
> should surf the net.
>
Tom Potter
It seems to me, that a rational. intelligent person,
could first read my tutorial and see how a word
or phrase is used, and then, if my usage of the word or term
is incongruent with his perception of the usage, that
he could satisfy himself by doing a Google search,
or reading a few books.
My question to you, "Sam Wormley", is
why are YOU trying so desperately to
distort the contents of my tutorial, and for that matter,
Physics and physics history????
For example, in your efforts to discredit my tutorial,
you have made many stupid assertions,
such as the mass flow is actually volume flow, etc.
and I have to constantly correct your errors, distortions,
and outright lies.
Why don't you read the tutorial?
Better yet, why don't you learn some physics,
and some physics history?
Sam Wormley
Tom--I have read your tutorial and have been pointing out some
of the problems with it... Many of your historical "facts" are
wrong. I can read and search and your wrong historical "facts"
won't go away.
My question to you, Tom, is where did YOU get the wrong information!
Or did you just create your own historical "facts"?
Tom Potter
No, Sam, I didn't create any historical facts.
The concept of "physical properties"
is used to model and quantize man's perception of reality.
In order to understand how man came to perceive the
physical properties as he does,
I have done numerous searches on all of the resources
available to me, looking for indications of man's understanding
of the properties. I searched all of the Greek, Roman, Chinese,
Indian, Jewish, and western books looking for the first usage
of such terms as swift, quickly, area, long, short, and of course,
the modern terms such as mass, power, weight, etc.
Here are a small sample of the works I researched:
"Great Experiments in Physics" which provides first hand accounts, by
Galileo Galilei,
Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Charles Coulomb, Michael Faraday,
James Clerk Maxwell and many others, of the experiments that shaped modern
physics.
The books by James Clerk Maxwell including
"A treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" and "Matter and Motion".
"The Nature of the Universe" by Lucretius,
Greek philosophers such as Thales, Pythagoras, Zeno, Paramenides,
Democritus,
Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.
The works of Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybuis, Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy,
Suetonius,
Josephus ( Histories) Pliny the Elder, ( Encyclopedia) Strabo, ( Geography),
etc.
And even such works as the Bible, the "Book of the Dead", the Tao Te Ching,
Bhagvat Gita,
If you live as long as I have, and dedicate yourself to understanding the
world,
**** and the pursuit of truth, ****
rather than let a compulsion for ego trips control you,
some day, you may have a good insight into the realities of the world.
Here is a word of advice for you, when you cast off your childish ego,
and become a true seeker of wisdom and truth:
*** Read source material!!! ****
Don't read reconstructed history!
It puts a spin on the facts to serve the agenda of the writers and
publishers.
**** Avoid hero worship! ****
This is exactly what the spinners of reconstructed history
are trying to get you to do, worship the hero they are creating.
Once they have created a hero in your mind,
you are hooked, and become oblivious to facts.
The spinners own your mind. ***
Sam Wormley
point out that Galileo never discovered the equation "F = ma" as
you indicate in your web pages.
Galileo learned that "gravitational acceleration is constant on the
surface of the Earth. It did not vary. And this no one before Galileo
knew". Ref: Berlinski, "Newton's Gift", Simon & Schuster, (2000), pg 37
Tom, I urge you to read Berlinski's book and if you have the stomach
for it, Newton's Principia. Before Newton figured it all out:
"The discoveries made by Kepler and by Galileo were subtle and they
were profound; but they were tantalizingly incomplete as well, every
issue that they settled prompting another in return. Kepler had
determined that the path of the planets exhibited certain geometrical
regularities; he could give no reasonable explanation for their
nature. Why should the planets have taken into their heads to
describe an ellipse, and not some other shape? For that matter, just
why were they in motion at all? Objects on the surface of the earth
remain suspended in space only briefly, and then come sailing down.
What force sustained the earth in its revolution about the sun?
"The air of mystery deepens when the work of Galileo and Kepler are
considered jointly. for the insidiously vexing fact is that somehow
Galileo and Kepler seem to be describing phenomena that in some very
elusive sense are connected, if only because gravitational acceleration
and planetary motion are alike in being movements of material bodies.
And yet plainly, the planets are one thing, objects falling on the
surface of the earth, another. The planets, after all, are not falling.
Unperturbed, they simply sail through the night sky as they have
always sailed.
"the questions formed and reformed themselves throughout the
sixteenth century; they glittered far from the place where such
questions arise.
Tom Potter
I get my information from the source.
You get your information from "Berlinski".
I scan all of the historical records
in order to find who seemed to be the first person
to recognize and describe a physical property.
You quote "Berlinski".
I use rational, factual, first-hand information.
You quote emotionally charged Berlinski" phrases
more suited for a Liberal Arts reader.
No wonder we don't see eye to eye.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> I get my information from the source.
> You get your information from "Berlinski".
>
> I scan all of the historical records
> in order to find who seemed to be the first person
> to recognize and describe a physical property.
> You quote "Berlinski".
>
> I use rational, factual, first-hand information.
> You quote emotionally charged Berlinski" phrases
> more suited for a Liberal Arts reader.
>
Tom--The problem is not the sources, as none of them indicate
that Galileo discovered, used, or understood the equation
F = ma -- After all you cannot reproduce ANY source that says
otherwise.
This is the part that I don't understand... why you are
unable to accept that you are mistakem on this point. Why
you won't recheck your source material. Why you won't check
anything about the material on your web site. Why do people
get so resistant to the learning process?
Was not your original purpose to help people understand some
physics?
Tom Potter
Sam, This is the part that I don't understand, why you are
unable to accept that you are mistaken on this point.
Why don't you prefer, original, first-hand accounts of history,
rather than the re-spun- history- with-a-spin,
by a writer ( Berlinski )
who is obviously writing
for a liberal arts audience????
Personally, I prefer to use first-hand, historical accounts,
rather than history-with-a-spin
written for a biased, liberal arts audience
by a writer like ( Berlinski ).
In other words, I am extremely "resistant"
to changing anything in my physics tutorial to please you,
and I am extremely "resistant" to putting a spin on history,
like you and ( Berlinski ), to please whom ever might like
that particular slant on history.
I have too great a respect for the truth to
cater to any particular nation, race, religion, etc.,
or to appeal to the liberal arts audience.
As can be seen by reading my physics tutorial,
there are no "Sir XXX's", no races, no religions, or nations mentioned.
I give credit to the folks who invented the way man
looks at reality, not to Kings, or Popes, or presidents,
or races or religions, or people who
try to elevate themselves on other's accomplishments.
Mensanator
>From: "Tom Potter" t...@hotsheet.com
>Date: 5/11/2003 11:31 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <b9ltoa$kj60l$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>
So, if you claim to have first-hand accounts, but refuse to quote or cite
them....
>rather than the re-spun- history- with-a-spin,
>by a writer ( Berlinski )
>who is obviously writing
>for a liberal arts audience????
...then Tom Potter is just another Berlinski?
>
>Personally, I prefer to use first-hand, historical accounts,
>rather than history-with-a-spin
>written for a biased, liberal arts audience
>by a writer like ( Berlinski ).
Who's your audience? Someone who just accepts your spin on history? Even
Liberal Arts students are smarter than that.
>
>In other words, I am extremely "resistant"
>to changing anything in my physics tutorial to please you,
>and I am extremely "resistant" to putting a spin on history,
>like you and ( Berlinski ), to please whom ever might like
>that particular slant on history.
>
>I have too great a respect for the truth to
So much respect you won't reveal it so someone can verify your claims?
>cater to any particular nation, race, religion, etc.,
>or to appeal to the liberal arts audience.
>
>As can be seen by reading my physics tutorial,
>there are no "Sir XXX's", no races, no religions, or nations mentioned.
>
>I give credit to the folks who invented the way man
>looks at reality, not to Kings, or Popes, or presidents,
>or races or religions, or people who
>try to elevate themselves on other's accomplishments.
Isn't that exactly what Tom Potter is doing, elevating himself on other's
accomplishments?
>
>--
>Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
--
Mensanator
2 of Clubs http://members.aol.com/mensanator666/2ofclubs/2ofclubs.htm
Sam Wormley
You are all bullshit, Tom. You won't cite any sources that can checked;
author, tile, chapter and verse.... I don't know why you are knocking
Berlinski--he's not putting a spin on the historical record. The fact
is you are wrong and can't bring yourself to check your own sources...
which probably don't even exist You're just bull shitting us like most
cranks do... no wonder your pages got registered with crank.net.
Kenneth Doyle
> Personally, I prefer to use first-hand, historical
> accounts...
This is very cool. One meets so few people who can read ancient
Greek and Latin these days (I sometimes wish I could). Good on
you Tom.
Tom Potter
As can be seen,
Sam Wormley is using Berlinski as a reference to make his case,
whereas I am using original, first-hand historical accounts.
Also note that Sam Wormley tries to discredit the messenger
by refering to the web site of an immature, maladjusted flamer.
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 Sam Wormley 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 Sam Wormley,
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.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see who
is dispensing lies, distortions, propoganda,
and to express it at Sam Wormley's level "bullshit".
Tom Potter
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3EBE99C0...@mchsi.com>...
> >
> > author, tile, chapter and verse.... I don't know why you are knocking
> > Berlinski--he's not putting a spin on the historical record. The fact
> > is you are wrong and can't bring yourself to check your own sources...
> > which probably don't even exist You're just bull shitting us like most
> > cranks do... no wonder your pages got registered with crank.net.
>
> As can be seen,
> Sam Wormley is using Berlinski as a reference to make his case,
> whereas I am using original, first-hand historical accounts.
>
And that's because your "original, first-hand historical accounts"
won't support you incorrect statements, therefore, you call me an
"immature, maladjusted flamer". Have you no ethics?
Richard Herring
<nob...@notmail.com> writes
How disappointing. You have shattered my illusions. All this time I
thought he was _talking_ to Galileo and Kepler.
--
Richard Herring
Tom Potter
"Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030511131817...@mb-m15.aol.com...
1. My audience are those folks
who want to obtain a clear overview of physics,
and to gain some understanding of how and why
physics developed.
2. This is the computer age.
Almost everyone has access to the first hand historical accounts,
and can do wild card searches on the source material.
It is STUPID to provide detailed cites, as these focus
ONLY on the POINTS trying to be emphasized by the writer.
It also STUPID to use second hand, accounts which have a
racial, religious, national, or personal spin on them, rather than
using the FIRST HAND historical accounts.
It is also STUPID to allow any immature, maladjusted misfit
off the street to spin your wheels by demanding that one
defend every point, and provide explicit, detailed responses
to every perverse instigation.
(I have written this paragraph to guide others who
have to deal with people how have a perverse agenda.
The best way to handle these people, is to play off of them,
and promote your personal agenda. In other words, let them
be an instrument of getting your message out. )
3. Tom Potter doesn't need or want "elevation"
I have made thousands of posts to various newsgroups,
and I am the first to give a person credit for their
accomplishments, and to defend movers and shakers
against the rabble that attacks them.
I don't try to steal anyone's glory,
and only post what some might consider my
personal glory when a direct personal attack has
been made on me in some specific area.
As can be seen, I greatly admire the accomplishments
of all folks regardless of race, religions, wealth, class,
sex, national origin, and I despise the maladjusted
malcontents who try to stroke their egos by attacking
people of accomplishment, and I despise the people
who spin history in order to piggyback a ride on
the accomplishments of others, be they World Series winners
or great men of science.
Tom Potter
"Kenneth Doyle" <nob...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns937977673F187...@61.9.128.12...
The poster makes a good point!
The more hands and minds that an idea
passes through, the more it gets corrupted.
That's why it is important to get as close to the
original idea as possible,
if you place any value on that idea,
or wish to credit someone for originating that idea.
The problem with education and media today,
is that they put self-serving spins on the data
they pass on to readers and students as facts.
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:Hu1kzFDl...@baesystems.com...
Maybe you should email Randy about your visions.
Randy Poe
You summoned me?
Has it occurred to you that everybody who has looked
at your tutorial has come away with what you claim is
incorrect information? That nobody has gotten anything
you claimed to want to convey? Does that strike you
as not a good performance measure for a "tutorial"?
Perhaps you should find someone in your target audience
who you believe actually learned whatever your lessons
are supposed to be teaching. If you find such a person,
let us know. That person could then explain to us what
you are unable or unwilling to.
Found any such person?
- Randy
Tom Potter
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:585ab5d8.03051...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
news:<b9ns40$kvkr2$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Richard Herring" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > news:Hu1kzFDl...@baesystems.com...
> > > In message <Xns937977673F187...@61.9.128.12>, Kenneth
Doyle
> > > <nob...@notmail.com> writes
> > > >"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in
> > > >news:b9ltoa$kj60l$1...@ID-188019.news.dfncis.de:
> > > >
> > > >> Personally, I prefer to use first-hand, historical
> > > >> accounts...
> > > >
> > > >This is very cool. One meets so few people who can read ancient
> > > >Greek and Latin these days (I sometimes wish I could). Good on
> > > >you Tom.
> > >
> > > How disappointing. You have shattered my illusions. All this time I
> > > thought he was _talking_ to Galileo and Kepler.
> >
> > Maybe you should email Randy about your visions.
>
> You summoned me?
>
> Has it occurred to you that everybody who has looked
> at your tutorial has come away with what you claim is
> incorrect information?
It is interesting to see that "Randy Poe"
continues to tout his psychic abilities
with his assertion that he knows what "everybody" thinks.
As I wrote before,
"Maybe "<Randy> should email Randy about <his> visions",
and other psychic abilities.
It is also interesting to see that "Randy Poe"
seems to be bent out of shape because
someone wrote a physics tutorial,
that starts with events as the fundamental quanta of reality,
then uses events to define time periods (Fundamental times),
and time intervals (Fundamental spaces),
and then these two fundamental properties are
used to define mass. After time, space and mass
have been defined, it becomes an easy matter to
define all of the other physical properties.
Perhaps "Randy Poe" is also bent out of shape
because the physics tutorial develops a
unique Physical Properties Chart,
( In six, simple, graphic steps.)
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between the elements.
One has to wonder why people like "Randy Poe"
get so emotionally wrought, when the masses
are provided with a clear overview
of some supposedly complex subject????
I wonder if this is how the Pope felt about the
printing press?
Could it be that this limits their ability to spout bullshit,
and make references to other sources of bullshit,
and pretend to be privy to secrets of the universe???
Randy Poe
OK, I'll revise that to "everybody who has commented".
Better?
I'm not the one claiming to peer into somebody's
emotions:
> seems to be bent out of shape because
> Perhaps "Randy Poe" is also bent out of shape
> One has to wonder why people like "Randy Poe"
> get so emotionally wrought,
How's that ESP working out for you?
>
> Could it be that this limits their ability to spout bullshit,
> and make references to other sources of bullshit,
> and pretend to be privy to secrets of the universe???
You have a superior description? Please tell me how some
principle from your "physics tutorial" can be applied
to any physical problem. Work out the numbers. Angular
momentum of an orbiting body, for instance.
Back in the bit bucket with you, you miniscule
self-important weasel. Which I say with no rancor.
- Randy
Tom Potter
We are all miniscule and
we are all the most important thing in the world
(to ourselves).
I am please to be in your bit bucket,
as I don't like to waste my time limboing
with people who want to see "how low they can go".
BTW, I didn't ring your bell,
I was suggesting that "Richard Herring"
should get in on James Randi's million dollar
challenge, as he claimed to have psychic powers.
Regarding how my "physics tutorial can be applied
to any physical problem", it provides a road map
for addressing all physic problems,
as the unique Physics Properties Chart
shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between
the elements, and one can instantly see what relationships are operative.
I list scores of the most common relationships (Equations) in the tutorial.
If you want numbers, plug in the numbers.
power = current * voltage
force = mass * acceleration
distance = velocity * time
voltage = flux / time
current = charge / time
volume flow = volume / time
mass flow = mass / time
pressure = force / area
etc.
etc.
etc.
Plug in the numbers.
Richard Herring
<t...@hotsheet.com> writes
>I was suggesting that "Richard Herring"
>should get in on James Randi's million dollar
>challenge, as he claimed to have psychic powers.
Liar.
--
Richard Herring
Jim
wrote:
<snip>
>
>We are all miniscule and
>we are all the most important thing in the world
>(to ourselves).
I would expect that from you.
Now find someone who agrees with you.
Here, in the group, or anywhere else for that matter.
Children excluded for obvious reasons.
.
Good luck. :)
Jim
Randy Poe
> I list scores of the most common relationships (Equations) in the tutorial.
> If you want numbers, plug in the numbers.
Ah, but you don't say how to apply them.
>
> power = current * voltage
In a reactive circuit with I = A*cos(wt) and V = B*sin(wt), does
your tutorial tell me what I should plug in for "current" and
"voltage"?
> force = mass * acceleration
> distance = velocity * time
Doesn't work for anything except constant velocity.
Example: Uniformly accelerated motion, say a free falling
body on earth, a = 9.8 m/sec^2
v = 9.8*t
d = 4.9*t^2 which is clearly not "velocity * time".
Tell me again how your "tutorial" tells a student how
to solve problems? That's a fairly basic one.
- Randy
Tom Potter
As knowledgeable folks, who read, (And understand)
my physics tutorial can plainly see,
the intent of the tutorial is to provide readers with a
clear oversight of physics.
It does this by starting with events as the
fundamental quanta of reality, then uses events
to define time periods (Fundamental times),
and time intervals (Fundamental spaces),
and then these two fundamental properties are
used to define mass. After time, space and mass
have been defined, it becomes an easy matter to
define all of the other physical properties.
This is done is six easy steps, and a
unique Physical Properties Chart is developed
which shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between
the elements.
In other words, the reader is quickly and simply
provided with a clear overview of physics
in a few simple steps, starting with a minimum
of principles, and making ONE step at a time.
Although the tutorial does an outstanding job
in presenting the reader with an overview,
it does no get into the details of every relationship
between the physical properties. It only examines a
relationship in detail when it is important to comprehending
the relationship between the particles, as a whole.
I have pages that get into the phase relationships
between properties that have the same physical dimensions,
such as resistance, inductive reactance and capacitive reactance,
and I have pages that go into the three dimensional relationships
of space vectors that involve the vector operations of
divergence, curl and gradient, but I do not plan to add these
pages to the tutorial until folks understand the gestalt
of what is already in the tutorial, and as can be seen,
some people who claim to comprehend physics,
do not grasp what is already there. Some readers
are so hung up on trees, that they cannot see the
forest that the tutorial lays out before them.
The tutorial is not about leaves, or twigs, or limbs,
or branches, or trees, or clumps of trees, it is about the forest.
There are thousands of books and articles about
the trees of physics, but few, if any, about the forest.
This tutorial is about the forest.
Tom Potter
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:00j2cvgulh1hunmpc...@4ax.com...
Say Jim, I know a guy who needs a
kidney transplant.
Care to donate one of yours?
As can be seen from my "Family" web page,
several of my family donate blood frequently.
How often do you and your family donate blood?
I gave away almost all of my businesses to ex-employees,
and most of my money to other people.
What have you given away.
I would be more than happy to
compare my altruism against people like Jimbo, any day.
But when the rubber meets the road,
who knows who will lay down their life for]
family and friends.
The Muslims who make the ultimate sacrifice
for family and friends are called terrorists by some people..
What do you call them Jimbo?
Sam Wormley
>
>
> As knowledgeable folks, who read, (And understand)
> my physics tutorial can plainly see,
> the intent of the tutorial is to provide readers with a
> clear oversight of physics.
>
That's pretty big bullshit coming from a guy who is
unwilling to take a critical look at his own pile of
nonsense. Wake up Potter... your stuff is crap!
Tom Potter
Well that's what some members of the
"Internet Maladjusted Poster's Club" say,
and that's no surprise to me, nor to the folks
who understand how maladjusted people operate.
But I dare say that rational, intelligent folks
think that a physics tutorial, that provides readers with a
clear oversight of physics by developing a
unique Physical Properties Chart that
shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships between
the elements, is a pretty good idea.
But don't take my word for it,
nor the word of a member of the
"Internet Maladjusted Poster's Club".
Download the tutorial and see for yourself.
Randy Poe
> > > distance = velocity * time
> >
> > Doesn't work for anything except constant velocity.
> >
> > Example: Uniformly accelerated motion, say a free falling
> > body on earth, a = 9.8 m/sec^2
> >
> > v = 9.8*t
> > d = 4.9*t^2 which is clearly not "velocity * time".
> >
> > Tell me again how your "tutorial" tells a student how
> > to solve problems? That's a fairly basic one.
>
> As knowledgeable folks, who read, (And understand)
> my physics tutorial can plainly see,
Found any of those yet? Can you quote from one of them
on how any of your "principles" is applied?
> the intent of the tutorial is to provide readers with a
> clear oversight of physics.
Yet you seem unable to formulate one without
repeating the same hundreds of words of boilerplate.
If you can't paraphrase, you don't understand.
- Randy
Jim
wrote:
I do.
>
>The Muslims who make the ultimate sacrifice
>for family and friends are called terrorists by some people..
>What do you call them Jimbo?
Say Tombo
If you are referring to suicide bombers,
I call 'em idiots.
You're a real history expert.
Ever hear of a war being won by
one side killing themselves?
Jim
Jim
wrote:
>
>"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:3EC1CFAF...@mchsi.com...
>> Tom Potter wrote:
>> >
>> > As knowledgeable folks, who read, (And understand)
>> > my physics tutorial can plainly see,
>> > the intent of the tutorial is to provide readers with a
>> > clear oversight of physics.
>>
>> That's pretty big bullshit coming from a guy who is
>> unwilling to take a critical look at his own pile of
>> nonsense. Wake up Potter... your stuff is crap!
>
>Well that's what some members of the
>"Internet Maladjusted Poster's Club" say,
OK, Tombo
Find ONE person in sci.physics that
doesn't think your stuff is crap.
Jim
Sam Wormley
>
> The problem with education and media today,
> is that they put self-serving spins on the data
> they pass on to readers and students as facts.
>
> --
> Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
That is sure evident in your pages.... spun till they make
little sense at all! You should be embarrassed, Tom.
Tom Potter
Perhaps I should be embarrassed
by my persistence in trying to elevate
someone locked in the early stages of eikasia,
but I am an eternal optimist,
and believe that elevating a person's
capacity to think and understand,
is a noble goal.
In other words, I don't think that eikasia
is a permanent condition,
and I believe there is hope for you.
Tom Potter
It is interesting to see that Jim,
like several other maladjusted people over the years,
is trying to get the folks in sci.physics
to divide into fractions and attack one another.
Unlike the members of the
"Internet Maladjusted Poster's Club"
who act like a pack of dogs and hyena's,
it is not my style.
nor the style of good folks,
to drag other folks into their debates,
and make them the target of a dog pack.
I can handle this miserable pack of dogs myself,
and don't need any help.
Tom Potter
Sam Wormley
>
> It is interesting to see that Jim,
> like several other maladjusted people over the years,
> is trying to get the folks in sci.physics
> to divide into fractions and attack one another.
>
Perhap Potter means "factions".
Jim
Tom Potter
Tom Potter
I am pleased to see that Jim understands that
I "don't need any help",
when it comes to dealing with a pack of surly curs.
"I can handle this job all by myself."
Tom Potter
Take your choice, factions or fractions.
It works either way.
For example an opposing army can be
divided into "fractions" and destroyed as small groups,
or an opposing army can be
divided into "factions" and left to destroy themselves.
Randy Poe
Fine one person period, anywhere, who can explain what
it all means to we maladjusted posters who can't figure
out the connection between the "physical properties chart"
and any physical properties, or between the "physics
tutorial" and physics.
- Randy
Tom Potter
Why should I "fine" <sic> anyone to join me in dealing with
a pack of surly curs, when I have them under control,
and yelking?
I would never ask anyone to subject themselves
to verbal abuse by a pack of maladjusted misfits,
even if I needed assistance, which I clearly don't
as I have the misfits dangling from a string.
As I posted before,
I can handle this job all by myself.
I don't need, nor want, anyone to
participate in my training this pack of curs.
Jim
<snip>
>
>Why should I "fine" <sic> anyone to join me in dealing with
>a pack of surly curs, when I have them under control,
>and yelking?
The only one "yelking" <sic> here is you. :)
Jim
Tom Potter
It's very apparent that
I have you on a short leash.
(And yelping.)
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp.