Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
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.
|
Show us examples from actual textbooks where they say "light travels through an electromagnetic field" or "sound moves through a density field".
Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
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.
|
Despite the fact that I used your own analogies, you never answered my questions:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Using you example: can you shows us that the light of the explosion is refracted?
[...]
How about a stick of dynamite and a nuclear bomb, both a high altitude? The shockwaves are both spherical.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
As if the phrase "light moves like a wave" isn't an analogy or the standard model or any models aren't analogies.
|
Light
is a wave, it is not an analogy.
An electromagnetic wave satisfies a (mathematical) wave equation.
Physicists use analogies to make the rigorous treatment more understandable, not to substitute it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
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.
|
Style over substance.
Instead of complaining about my style, you should address the substance of my points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
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.
|
Please show us exactly what are these "obvious" deficiencies and what is wrong with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
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.
|
It is fairly clear that you are confusing isotropy and homogeneity.
The fact that you prefer complicated waves and avoid my examples (see my questions above), is a sign that you cannot make your idea work as you would like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aastrotech
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.
|
Why don't you stop complaining about my tone, and show us exactly why my points don't stand.
It's time to put your money where your mouth is.