arfa's musings on Elastic surfaces
- Thread starter arfa brane
- Start date
I came to see the retards being fed.
Conditioning . Yeah I know .
So you find this place entertaining enough to devote some of your time and attention to it. Stop complaining, then. Nobody is forcing you to be here. Your choices are your own.
Yes they are. You could always display some of that infantile behaviour of yours and "just ban me".
I could care less.
No you won't.
We agree, then. Stop whining about being here.
Are you planning a grand stomping exit? I'd say we're about due for someone to do that, based on the average time between these events.
If you want me to ban you, just say so. There's no need to try to goad me into it. It's entirely your choice, as it has always been. I thought we'd already agreed on that.
James. You should try growing up a bit.
You could start that process by learning when to just shut the hell up.
You could start that process by learning when to just shut the hell up.
I'm supposed to take that advice from you? Heh.
Yeah. Heh.
Unless you believe you're the only person anyone should ask for advice.
My other hint to you is, stop believing your own ideas are all good. Or that you, unique among humans knows all the answers to all the questions.
I know right? You also believe you have an open mind. You even say that.
But you also say that your mind has thoughts, and you claim they aren't physical. You can't explain that in a concrete way.
So that is how I know you believe your own mind. The Hallmark of a fool is that he believes what he thinks is true is true. No examination of those thoughts is required.
You're a special kind of idiot. You shouldn't be a moderator because you believe things that are just weird.
You have practically nothing useful to contribute to information science, you don't even know what information is, for instance. You're stuck with an idea that energy is just a number, you can't explain why an "energy number" has physical units. You try to slime your way out, to paraphrase you, by thinking your thoughts are not physical.
Again and with more emphasis, that is just moronic, James.
Last edited:
arfa:
Of course, it could be the case that neither of us really has a good idea of what the other person actually does in the "real world" outside sciforums - for a living, say. It would follow, therefore, that idiotic guessing about what the other might understand or contribute, regarding something we haven't discussed, would be a complete waste of time for a sensible and balanced interlocutor, wouldn't it?
As for the explanation, it's simple: energy is defined in such a way that it has certain physical units (or, more properly, dimensions). Energy is a concept, invented and defined by human beings, measured using numbers. You'd have to be a (what?) ... special kind of idiot ... to keep believing something else even after it has been patiently explained to you a few times.
What happened to your musings on elastic surfaces? Time to close the thread, perhaps?
---
* Did you spot the deliberate lie in response to the hyperbolically stupid claim, kids? If so, well done!
I'd have to start believing, first.
Oh, but I do know all the answers to all the questions, arfa! I truly believe that.*
Well, not so open that my brains fall out. Open about the right things, let's say. Hopefully.
I think you missed a subtle distinction somewhere up above. Oh well, never mind.
Sorry to break it to you, but I actually did a reasonable job of it. Go back and check again.
Interesting notion. When did not believing weird things become a qualification for being allowed to moderate an internet discussion forum? Maybe I missed the memo.
Well, here's the thing, arfa brane. I'd be willing to wager that I've read more on the topic of information science than 99% of all the other people in the world. Maybe you're right that I have nothing useful to contribute to that particular field. But then again, you're not exactly pumping out the research publications in that area either, are you?
Of course, it could be the case that neither of us really has a good idea of what the other person actually does in the "real world" outside sciforums - for a living, say. It would follow, therefore, that idiotic guessing about what the other might understand or contribute, regarding something we haven't discussed, would be a complete waste of time for a sensible and balanced interlocutor, wouldn't it?
I'm not stuck with anything. Open mind, see. All you have to do is to convince me to change my mind!
As for the explanation, it's simple: energy is defined in such a way that it has certain physical units (or, more properly, dimensions). Energy is a concept, invented and defined by human beings, measured using numbers. You'd have to be a (what?) ... special kind of idiot ... to keep believing something else even after it has been patiently explained to you a few times.
What happened to your musings on elastic surfaces? Time to close the thread, perhaps?
---
* Did you spot the deliberate lie in response to the hyperbolically stupid claim, kids? If so, well done!
But James, why is it defined that way?
Why does it have the units it does? Did someone spot something interesting on a cave wall?
Why does Feynman, in that lecture which is so great a reference for you, use physical blocks, children's playthings, in his discourse, which is patently an analogy?
What else does he say about energy and why does he say it?
What is his point, really if all we need to understand what it is, is counting some children's blocks?
As for elastic stuff, Feynman includes that in his lectures too, elastic stuff is able to store energy. Elastic stuff counts some blocks up and keeps them!
It's completely arbitrary to define it that way. What you ought to be asking is: why is it useful to define it that way? The answer to that question leads us to the important finding that if we define it in a particular way it is a conserved quantity in many situations, which is very useful indeed.
Because of how it is defined, of course!
You'd have to ask him, I suppose (except you can't, because he's no longer with us).
He says quite a bit about energy, I'm sure. Why don't you tell me what you think is important and why, instead of trying to drop obscure hints about what you might want to say?
I think the point of Feynman's physics lectures was to teach physics. Do you find that confusing?
No. We count the blocks and keep them. Elastic stuff can't count (well, not unless it is in the appropriate configuration to make a conscious being etc. etc.).
Also, your idea about "storing energy" is an analogy. It's a useful fiction that you're so used to using that now you're apparently completely unable to think outside that box. Energy is not "stuff" that can be stored. There's no stuff to store.
I disagree. There isn't anything arbitrary about a Hamiltonian, or a Lagrangian.
Actually that is what I was asking, without saying it explicitly. It isn't given the physical units it has for arbitrary reasons, nor because it's useful, nor because it's conserved. Do you also agree with the notion that information is conserved--even "lost" information isn't really lost?
He talks about the difference in a relaxed or in a stretched elastic band, in terms of intermolecular interactions. As you may know, a stretched elastic band has more energy than a relaxed one, it warms up too. Heat is a form of energy; so are a few other things. But you have already disagreed with me on that and so has exchemist.
Which I put down to you not knowing what you're talking about. It's why you and he get so uselessly dismissive and patronising. ("Do you find it confusing?")
But it doesn't work James, not with me anyway.
You avoid answering my questions at least as much as I do with your asinine queries and snide comments. Fuck you James.
Hamiltonians and Lagrangians are defined with reference to a pre-existing definition of work (energy), which leads to a derivation of ideas such as kinetic energy and potential energy. So, not arbitrary, but derivative of an arbitrary definition - albeit an incredibly useful one.
I'm sure that at some stage in the future you'll tell us all the secret about why it is given the physical units it has. When will you do that, exactly?
Without context, it's very difficult to agree to such a general statement. What information? What system are you talking about? How are you defining/measuring the information?
I agree that heat is a form of energy. Which makes heat just another number, by the way.
A warm object doesn't feel warm because it contains more magical "energy stuff" than a cold object. It feels warm because its atoms or molecules are vibrating/moving around/etc. more than in the cold object, and those atoms/molecules are more able to bump into the atoms/molecules in your hand and make them vibrate/move around etc.
That's because you stopped listening and thinking about what I've told you a long time ago in this conversation. You just decided that I must be an idiot, when the truth is that I have a much better grasp on all this stuff than you do. Your mistake is in assuming you have to be the smartest person in the room. It doesn't always work that way, arfa.
Remember that it was you who started (and have continued) with the personal insult bullshit. I have no problem dismissing an arrogant person who is both wrong and needlessly uncivil; that's what you deserve. You're lucky to get any of my attention at this point. Most people would probably have written you off long ago.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
