Hold on folks.

papageno reads a link I post and misapplies the term isotropy as well as his own choice of word homogeneity to a situation where the word symmetry should be applied (as in "And if you look at it from the point of view of the pucker, the surface is isotropic") I point out that he has poor reading comprehension. He insists that my usage of the word field is not standard in physics and that medium should be used. As if quantum field, electromagnetic field, gravitational field, Maxwell's field equations aren't standard in physics. I point out that he has minimal vocabulary. He apparently doesn't understand the analogy of the pucker and makes a snippy comment, I take the trouble to write another analogy using houshold materials so he might better understand and he makes more snippy comments and insists that analogies not be used. As if the phrase "light moves like a wave" isn't an analogy or the standard model or any models aren't analogies. I call his continuing snippy in a physics discussion porr social grace and I get a warning from a moderator for personal attack and a snippy comment from the peanut gallery.

I don't think I made a personal attack. Without turning this into a basic physics, language and etiquette lesson (nor desiring to take the trouble for same considering the last) I pointed out some obvious deficiencies in his postings.

Frankly, despite papageno's snippy aspersions of "word salad" regarding my "pucker" analogy I think he was being disingenuous. I suspect that he did in fact understand somewhat. I think, given his obvious limitations, that he obviously didn't understand fully. Due to his lack of comprehension he disagreed with the conclusion of my model. I might have been more inclined to help him understand my model in spite of his limitations but there are some basic considerations that have to be addressed first like snippyness. If you all think that snippyness is ok but that pointing out errors in sombody's posts is an attack then you all have some insoluable problems.