Linux-Advocacy Digest #771, Volume #34 Fri, 25 May 01 12:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:49 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 12:47:33
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>
>>Know this, sir. I do not give a rip how educated you are, or how
>>bloated your head has become, or what kind of accomplished scientist you
>>may be. I am *never* completely wrong. I am frequently entirely
>>mistaken. You, however, can be completely confused, and I can be
>>completely insulted by your attempts to blame it on me. If you will
>>refrain from telling me I am 'wrong', I will try to refrain from
>>presuming I am not mistaken.
>
>I hate to break the news to you, T. Max, but in this group we use English as
>a means of communication.
As do I.
>In some groups (alt.english.usage, or
>sci.lang.english, or alt.philosophy), people might discuss nuances of
>particular words. But here, as in the real world, common words mean what
>everyone agrees they mean.
Since when is this newsgroup some special case which is magically 'the
real world' when others are not?
>"Mistaken" and "wrong" are close enough to be
>effectively the same - people use them interchangably to provide a little
>variety of language.
Indeed; you could use them completely interchangeably. Since I use
English, and would like to communicate, I see no need to do so, however.
They are different words; obviously they have different connotations, if
not different meanings. If you don't want to trot over to aeu or ap,
then you should simply accept that they are different, but similar
enough to be interchangeable. I've given you a valid and comprehensible
reason for not using one, and using the other. If you feel they are
close enough to be effective, then you should agree that they are more
effective when not considered interchangeable. Thus, your use of
"wrong" when "mistaken" should, would, and can suffice, not just in my
rigorous use of language but in your more casual speech with others, is
mistaken, at least. It could even be "wrong", being inspired by
dishonest intent.
> Thus, if someone says "Max, you're completly wrong" or
>"Max, you're totatly mistaken", they mean the same thing.
They aren't the same thing, though. Why do you think they mean the same
thing, when clearly they cannot? I think what you mean to say is the
difference is not worth bothering about. I disagree; it may be subtle,
but it is the ONLY difference worth bother about.
>Maybe we can
>start another thread about the differences between these terms (linguistic
>threads can often be more interesting than yet another MS/Linux basher, even
>if they are OT). But here we are discussing physics - you can't make your
>arguements stand by complaining about other people's choice of language.
I think you *must* have forgotten some smilies somewhere there.
[...]
>>I thought that was "ultraviolet light". I thought physicists recognized
>>the need for precision. I thought when physicists use the term 'light'
>>they are talking about 'photons', and when they were talking about 'emr'
>>they usually were discussing 'waves'. I though physicists understood
>>that not all light causes sun burn, but only waves of a certain
>>frequency.
>
>He meant that when physicists talk about "light", they are talking about the
>physical phenominum, not just some equation on a bit of paper. And "light"
>and "EMR" are the same things - they are both photons and waves.
I know what he meant; I don't bother responding if I am clueless as to
the intended meaning of a post. I was pointing out that they are not
"talking about" anything; they are doing science, which is, yes, only a
matter of equations on a bit of paper, metaphorically speaking.
>>You could help me out, here, by trying to explain how physicists
>>consider the 'frequency of a photon'. I'm not sure if the term actually
>>translates at all.
>
>This is a useful and helpful question - I've answered it in a seperate post,
>to avoid mixing informative posts with the usual silly ramblings (both mine
>and yours).
I have read all the posts in the thread so far, so if you attempted to
answer, I must sadly inform you that you failed to make clear any new
information I was not already aware of. Fact is, physicists deal with
frequency of waves, and velocity of photons; photons have no frequency,
and waves do not have "speed", but propagation rate. Physicists deal
with this using what to non-physicists counts as mumbo-jumbo; Quantum
Electro-Dynamics, QED. The math has meaning; the words are gibberish.
The value of the math only makes more clear the fact that the words are
not only gibberish, but meaningless. Thus, physicists do not talk about
frequency of photons, and it makes no sense to talk about the frequency
of photons, thought they still do the math. Neither wave, nor photon,
but "quantum packet". A necessary fiction, better then either wave or
photon (but considered to be "both", while being neither), but still
known to be a fiction. The only part that has "meaning" is the math.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:51 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 13:06:29
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>>opinions. In this thread, there seems to be three sorts of people. There
>>>are those of us who have a reasonable understanding of physics (I guess
>>>there are plenty in sci.physics with a much better than "reasonable"
>>>understanding) who know the basics, and, far more importantly, know the
>>>limits of our own understanding and that of science. Then there are those
>>>who have some basic ideas, and have read lots more that they don't
>actually
>>>understand, but regurgitate parts of this without being able to fit it
>into
>>>a cohesive whole. And thirdly, there are those who are spouting such
>drivel
>>>that they cannot even write legible sentences.
>>
>>The third group is a mirage caused by your inability to understand
>>someone else's reason. This leaves us with two groups; one who is sure
>>they know the answers because they learned them in school, and one who
>>is unsure if the answers they learned in school are worth anything more
>>than the dogma of buddhism in terms of "actually" explaining the world.
>>
>>The first group gets incensed by free inquiry, and seeks to berate
>>"regular people" who even try to make sense without having math as the
>>basis of their teleology (an explanation 'why' something is as it is).
>>They tell people they are using words WRONG, rather than trying to
>>figure out how the mistake could be considered reasonable, and further
>>trying to figure out how it *makes perfect sense and is correct*, being
>>the most accurate, consistent, and practical word the speaker knew at
>>the time.
>>
>>Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to correct their words,
>>not "prove them wrong". NOTHING can be proven by words alone (outside
>>of a courtroom); anything else requires MATH to merit any consideration
>>of "proof", and therefore have any ability to be "wrong", rather than
>>merely mistaken.
>>
>>>Remember the old saying, T. Max - a closed mouth gathers no foot.
>>
>>I have something of a foot fetish, I'm afraid.
>>
>>So far as I can tell, GreyCloud is mistaken about several things, but he
>>isn't "wrong" at all in explaining his considerations, and even his
>>conclusions. Just as I am not 'wrong' (or even, to my mind, mistaken at
>>all) in describing the 'sum-over-paths' mechanism as still being a valid
>>lingual translation of *current* physics theory, even though it has been
>>abandoned as a *mathematical* mechanism within physics itself.
>>
>>Admittedly, there is a fine line between what constitutes free inquiry
>>and what constitutes pseudo-science. Presuming you can tell the
>>difference a priori is just begging the question, though. If you claim
>>you are on the side of the scientists, you must therefore reject it as a
>>logical fallacy. Only the pseudo-scientist would insist that no
>>statements contradictory to theory will be considered.
>
>I think you are too hung up on the word "wrong".
I think other people are, which is why I go on and on about it.
>I am getting the
>impression (and do correct me if I am /mistaken/) that you are interpreting
>"wrong" in the sense of "morally wrong", or "does not have the right to".
This is part of the meaning of the word; since I cannot jettison it
(and, yes, I find the suggestion of judgement offensive and insulting) I
simply recognize that it is part of the meaning of the word, and avoid
using the word when I don't want to use a word with that meaning.
>In that sense, it is not "wrong" for anyone to post ideas about scientific
>theories even if they are totally incorrect. But unfortunately for you,
>Max, everyone else uses the word "wrong" to mean "incorrect" in most
>circumstances.
I don't see why it would be me that would be disadvantaged by the
unfortunate flaw you've discovered in people's speech. Everyone else
uses the word wrong *wrongly*. If they simply were mistaken in their
use, as you seem to indicate, I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. But
it is indeed the fact that there would be no reason to NOT use the word
"mistaken", unless you wanted to indicate a moralistic judgement on the
reason and wisdom of someone else in the choice they have made. QED; I
am correct and you are mistaken concerning the word 'wrong'.
>Both you and everyone else are going to get a lot more (more
>information, anyway, but probably less words) out of these discussions when
>you use language like everyone else. You may feel you are having to lower
>yourself to a lowest common denominator, but sometimes that's just the way
>life is.
I have no need at all to lower myself to anything, no. You've obviously
comprehend my words, and your continued defensiveness on the subject
indicates strongly that I was correct in my statement to begin with. I
am willing to bear the burden of being a pain in the ass about people
flinging the word "wrong" around mistakenly; it is unfortunate if it
annoys you, but I will continue to do so, whenever it might come up in
conversation.
>As for my mission, I have been having a go at that in other posts - proving
>you and GreyCloud "incorrect", if you will.
IIRC, I had some unflattering comments on your attempts. You are
mistaken in thinking you were trying to prove either of us 'incorrect',
I think. You were trying to prove us wrong, which is why you failed so
utterly that I felt the need to ridicule you with insults.
You'll do better when you worry about your own vocabulary, and how
consistent you are with 'everybody else' more, and mine less. My
vocabulary is just fine, thank you, and doesn't suffer a bit from being
more accurate, consistent, and practical than most other people's.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:53 GMT
Said Gregory L. Hansen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 24 May 2001 14:00:48
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Gregory L. Hansen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 19:18:42
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>>Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
>>>>
>>>>In article
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Radio waves are not light!
>>>
>>>It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
>>
>>"Same as" means it is in the same category as light, not that it is
>>light. Yes, you are correct that they are both in the category 'emr'.
>
>Do we want to include infrared? Far infrared? Microwaves? There's no
>line of demarcation. Radio waves and visible light are the same thing,
>their behavior is described well by Maxwell's equations.
Yes; well but not perfectly.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:52 GMT
Said Mark Fergerson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Gregory L. Hansen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 19:18:42
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
>> >>
>> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>> Radio waves are not light!
>> >
>> >It's electromagnetic radiation, same as light.
>>
>> "Same as" means it is in the same category as light, not that it is
>> light. Yes, you are correct that they are both in the category 'emr'.
>
> This got crossposted to sci.physics which is where I'm posting from,
>so what I write here is from that perspective.
>
> (Note that I used to think Linux had something to do with expensive
>watches, and I still don't get the significance of the name "Windows".
>Them little boxes on my screen don't look like no damn windows to me.)
Thank you for the context, then. ;-)
> Light is radio waves are gamma rays. They're all spin-1 bosons that
>carry exclusively the EM force.
>
> Claiming that "light" is exclusively the part of the EM spectrum
>that human eyes respond to is a reasonable usage in Common Street
>English, but in sci.physics it's abuse of jargon.
I agree completely, thank you.
> I OTOH do not use terms like "source code" (probably very comon
>jargon in the other two groups) in _any_ context because I wouldn't
>know what the hell I was talking about.
Unfortunately, "light" is both jargon and common term. Some day, RMS
willing, the same will be true of source code.
>> >>> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
>> >>> 88%.
>> >
>> >Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
>>
>> c
>
> What wavelength(s)? In what medium? If he thinks it was any part of
>the usual broadcast bands in air, I'll offer a categorical "bullshit"
>right now. Otherwise I want a citation to examine. Something at an
>official National Bureau of Standards website will do nicely.
IIRC, they were radio frequency in a waveguide.
> Speaking of citations, if he was right, speed radar would be a very
>much iffier thing than it already is.
If speed radar worked as simply as you probably imagine it does, it
would be! ;-)
>> >>> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>
> That's just plain deliberate ignorance.
I can understand that point. But I would have to suggest that in such
an extreme case as quantum effects, it is simply the fact of the matter.
Certainly, to use the claim to radically overhaul all of physics, it
would be an argument from ignorance. As an explanation of why a certain
subtle effect may not be easily understood by those well versed
(possibly too well versed, IYKWIM) in physics because it *seems* to
contradict some well-known facts, it is simply tentative.
>> >Sure it has. _Physics Letters_ (12), 260, for one.
>>
>> Not all theoretical proofs of lights velocity in a vacuum would
>> necessarily qualify as 'measurement', perhaps.
>
> _No_ theoretical proof of _anything_ qualifies as measurement.
>Measurement always means instruments and physical events.
I'm afraid I can't agree with that; indirect measurements predicated on
the validity of the theory make up the great balance of all scientific
knowledge.
>> >>> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
>> >>> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
>> >>> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
>> >
>> >No, it hasn't. Laser light bounced from retroreflectors on the Moon takes
>> >a number of seconds to make a round trip. And much of that trip is in a
>> >good vacuum.
>>
>> Yet some of it is in air, as GreyCloud is pointing out. Indeed, all
>> direct experimental evidence of the speed of light in a vacuum is
>> similarly burdened, according to him. I think it is unlikely, myself,
>> but possible.
>
> Irrelevant. The round-trip time is calculated including the velocity
>differentials for air and vacuum. Experiment matches calculations.
>What else is there to say?
That there are other experiments that indicate slightly different ways
of explaining the match between calculation and experiment which are
more accurate, consistent, or practical. These results can be
considered more of a mirage than a proof of the theory, if modeled by
quantum packets speeding up and slowing down. Or at least this is what
my understanding of GreyCloud's point was.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:54 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 19:08:29
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You've generally confabulated the original argument to the point it is
>> incomprehensible entirely. Nobody claimed that radio waves travel at
>> .88c in a vacuum. You are mistaking a claim that seems to contradict
>> your explanation for one that actually contradicts the mathematics those
>> explanations are based on.
>
>Sorry Max, but you are wrong. Go back and read the whole thread. It
>started with GreyCloud claiming the the radio waves from a distant star
>traveled slower than the the speed of light. In the next post he put
>a number to this:
>
>"The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>copper wire."
I've read the thread, agree with your description of it, and still don't
understand why you think I am even mistaken, let alone wrong.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:55 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 16:28:54
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Occasionally, breakthroughs may be made by amateurs, but I will continue
>to
>>>trust the opinions of real physists over random outbursts from people who
>>>clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
>>
>>Clearly, he has an idea what he is talking about; according to him, his
>>explanations come from a Nobel-prize-winning physicist in a specialized
>
>If I said that grass is a type of tree, and a Nobel-prize winning biologist
>told me so, would you believe me then?
That is entirely beside the point, and really is nothing more than an ad
hominem attack. Think harder.
>Think, Max. Have you noticed how many posts GreyCloud has produced in the
>past couple of days? None. He has probably realised that since dozens of
>people, including physics professors, have refuted his claims, that he has
>probably made a mistake. Maybe he did read something by a Nobel prizer
>winner, but he misunderstood it (this is the kindest explanation I have for
>his posts).
If being beaten down by defensive specialists proves anything, it is
that Usenet is dominated by cretins. Maybe nothing; you can claim he is
lying, but you are trying not to do so. I can't think for a moment that
you don't realize you are doing so, or that it is civility that prevents
you from making the accusation clear. If you want to pretend that
GreyCloud is lying about his experience, then say so. Your posturing
about how "wrong" he is is not any proof of that, and actually proves to
be very counter-productive. I am in far less doubt that his experience
is true than that yours is.
He has posted, and has proven himself to be a very reasonable fellow,
grasping my points and responding comprehensibly. It has become clear
he is no nukulear physicists, but is simply attempting some free
inquiry. Pointing out his mistake is civilized; whining about how
'wrong' he is BULLSHIT.
>>educational course. He didn't claim any breakthroughs, only a
>>counter-intuitive teleology concerning the behavior of light in true
>>vacuum. Perhaps some people might reject counter-intuitive claims about
>>physics outright, but I would call them "pig-headed", more than "real
>>physicists". Real physicists know that there is quite a bit that is
>>counter-intuitive about light, and everything else in our universe.
>
>Yes, there is plenty of counter-intuitive stuff in physics - that's part of
>what makes it fun. But it does not follow that because a claim is
>counter-intuitive, it must be correct.
Did I claim that? When did I claim that? What makes you think I would
make such a claim? Do you honestly believe I have made that claim?
Where did you get the idea I would ever make such a claim? Does that
claim make any sense to you?
I submit in posting that bullshit, you've crossed the line from being
pig-headed to engaging in dishonest discourse.
[...]
>>>No, it is as if I were claiming that a state education board is not in a
>>>position to redefine pi, or as if I were claiming that interested but
>>>ignorant amateurs are not in a position to contradict the findings of a
>>>centuary of expert science.
>>
>>You are mistaken in your assessment. The analogy is bogus: it clearly
>>indicates your miscomprehension of what was actually claimed. The first
>>one, anyway. Your second analogy seems incomprehensible to me. I
>>suspect a grammatical error.
>
>The first analogy is certainly tenuous - it was more an example of the sort
>of riduculous things people do and say when they know nothing about a
>subject. In the second paragraph, what is catching you is not a grammatical
>error, but the sarcasm.
Why couldn't you just admit that the whole analogy was not simply
tenuous or sarcastic, but bogus? THEN you would be engaging in real
communication, honest discourse, free inquiry. As it stands, your
position is meaningless posturing, and has achieved none of the goals
you intended for it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:56 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 16:35:54
[...]
>If that were what GreyCloud had said, then you would be correct in defending
>him. However, that is *not* what he said:
[...]
One can presume at any time that any statement is unreasonable. Or one
can presume it reasonable. If you do the first, then you are incapable
of comprehending what he meant, regardless of whether you "understand"
what he *said*. If you do the second, you can *always* (this is really
a lot of fun, once you get the hang of it) understand what they *meant*,
no matter how badly they might have *said* it.
So, I've cut your response short because, regardless of what GreyCloud
*said*, you are mistaken about what he *meant*. I feel secure in this
claim because I've exchanged messages with him and he seems to believe I
understand what he meant and he agrees with at least some of my opinion
on it.
So you see, which of us is better off; the ones who presumed he was
spouting gibberish and tried to brow-beat him by claiming he is wrong,
or the one who presumed he was speaking correctly and reasonably, and
tried to learn enough about what he was saying to point out where he
might be mistaken?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:57 GMT
Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 12:14:44
>> [...]
>>>I think the two of you have been reading way above your heads.
>>
>> We think you are an insulting and pathetic cretin.
>>
>>>You've heard
>>>of wave-particle duality, and have grasped some of the ideas without
>>>understanding the basics. Light does not swap between being particles
>>>(i.e., photons) and waves as though these were two different states. It
>>>is both at once.[...]
>>
>> This makes no logical sense at all. The only logical position would be
>> that it is neither. Both particle and wave are most obviously
>> incomplete descriptions of whatever this stuff is, whether you call it
>> 'light', 'electromagnetic radiation', or 'radio waves'.
>
>There is experimental proof of the particle/wave duality. ISTR an
>experiment where individual electrons were fired through an interference
>grid (two vertical slits - if you shine a light (or electron) beam through
>them, you get an interference pattern on the other side). If electrons were
>only particles, the firing of individual electrons would only have resulted
>in a random scatter pattern on the other side of the grid; yet, right from
>the start a clear interference pattern was forming, as if the electrons
>knew where they had to go. This experiment can be explained by the
>particle/wave duality. Do you have a better explanation?
Yes; it is light. Light is not particles or waves, though both terms
partially describe what it is. The split slit experiment proves that
neither is a complete description. That doesn't make using them both a
complete description; that is a kludge like zeroing out the infinities.
It means neither description is complete, so to say that light "is"
either is incorrect. Sure, there's not much reason not to just say "it
is both". But why is that? Are we somehow under the impression that if
children are taught in grade-school that light is *neither* particle or
wave, but is something that can appear to be either or both under
various circumstances, is too hard to understand because it is not a
nice convenient absolute that they can memorize once and then forget
about?
So my "better explanation" is already provided. In proving the
particle/wave duality of light, the split slit experiment proves that
light is neither, because it is nonsensical to claim it is both.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:58 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>>>Other words, attenuation and also radial dispersion of the photons.
>>>Also a lot of time would be needed to get that photon from there to
>>>here. Even EM waves attenuate over the inverse square of the distance.
>>>How would it be that there is infinite energy to propel that photon from
>>>the farthest distances then?
>>
>> This seems very similar, to my amateur eye, to the 'black body' problem
>> which first indicated the flaws in Maxwell's equations which would later
>> fell Einstein's as well.
>>
>> According to Maxwell's equations, a 'black body' (an object which cannot
>> radiate energy; considered a 'perfectly insulated oven' in most thought
>> experiments) *must* have an infinite amount of energy.
>
>You are very confused. Black bodies happily radiate. In fact, a black
>body has a higher emissivity than any other body.
If you hadn't bothered to claim I was "very confused", I'd just say you
were right, and I was mistaken. I've gone back and re-read parts of The
Elegant Universe, my main text, and I did indeed make the mistake you
indicated. It did not require any great deal of confusion, though, so
you were yourself mistaken.
>The only thing that doesn't radiate is an object that is at 0K. getting
>to 0K violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics which has never been shown
>to be violated on a large scale.
>
>Maxwells (electromagentic) equations say nothing about bodies radiating.
They aren't used for that, maybe, but, yes, radiation has something to
do with electromagnetism. <*Grin*>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
