Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 14:32

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 01:33 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Steve wrote:
Mole wrote:
This is "doing my head in" ! Both seats of arguments make sense, (which clearly can't be the case!) so I'm watchign with interest.

One thing though, I can't see (maybe I'm not "gedankening" into the spirit of it it!) but I wondered about (instead of a generator and battery) a lovely frictionless flywheel and completely lossless transmission. Clearly the same experiment would work there, but the flywheel would have momentum (rotationally), which isn't your point - I see that. The question is whether the "movement" is the movement of lots of electrons at a particular velocity? (I haven't a clue, by the way, just interested...)

Angular momentum is conserved separately from linear momentum (the latter is what has been scrutinised).

The creation of angular momentum will place a differential force on the object it is bound to; simply put: it pushes on one side of the object and pulls on the other (trying to spin it) - the net linear force on object is zero. This results with angular momentum of the object in the same plane but in the opposite direction, and no linear momentum.
Flywheel or electron flow, it makes no difference.


I understand about angular momentum. I was just "thinking aloud", trying to turn it into a more mechanical system that I had a better chance of understanding. Going back to DCB's original lossless electrical system, where's the "MV" to conserve the momentum once it's been turned into electricity and put in the battery? Is it really the "M" of all the electrons multiplied by their velocities?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 01:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
but if the "system" is - as it might appear to the driver - only the car, then momentum is lost. But the conservation law is not violated because as external force has been applied so the conservation law is not valid.
you mean 'lost' to the driver ? Or lost to the momentum 'system'?
OK on the last sentence 'how' is the C Law not violated ?
dcbwhaley wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
can I trouble you to reply to Steve's queries, as this can help me (and others) to better then appreciate your perspective.
No. Because they are not questions intended to bring enlightenment but rather to demonstrate how clever he is.
I had not taken them that way whatsoever. That is a serious criticism and seems extremely harsh. What might someone possibly achieve from point scoring? This is a serious debating forum! We are here to bring debate in an open honest way, not in any 'self motivated' manner as you are suggesting!
It can be hard to sometimes 'tell' how people mean something when it is all just in word format, and then perhaps read into things that are just not there.
These forums are watched by a fair few from political standings, because of their serious and earnest intent, and it has always had that aim - to debate matters fully. Hence too why I try to ensure good debates don't descend into chaos! No one is point scoring!
These forums can get very, very precise and detailed, and I would have thought that you might like that type of discussion?
I thought IMHO that they were offering a 'basis' to the points debated.
dcbwhaley wrote:
The fundamental law of physics states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant. And the collarary to that is that if an external force does act then the momentum does change.
... and the debate is 'within' this IIUnderstandC?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 01:47 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Mole wrote:
Going back to DCB's original lossless electrical system, where's the "MV" to conserve the momentum once it's been turned into electricity and put in the battery? Is it really the "M" of all the electrons multiplied by their velocities?


It is dcb not DCB :)

No. The momentum of the vehicle (system) isn't conserved because an external force is applied through the wheels. It is transferred from the vehicle to the plane which moves slightly backwards. (In normal life the plane is the entire planet so the change in its momentum is not perceptible).
The momentum of the vehicle plus plane system is conserved because there is no external force.

Since the motion of the electrons is random their net momentum will be zero (since momentum is a vector quantity). Actually at the level of electrons you are deep into quantum mechanics where momentum is treated very differently - as an operator on the wave function

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 02:04 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
but if the "system" is - as it might appear to the driver - only the car, then momentum is lost. But the conservation law is not violated because as external force has been applied so the conservation law is not valid.
you mean 'lost' to the driver ? Or lost to the momentum 'system'?

Lost to the car which is the "system we are dealing with". It is transferred to the roadway.

Quote:
OK on the last sentence 'how' is the C Law not violated ?

The law of conservation of linear momentum states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant. In the situation I describe an external force is applied so momentum will not be conserved.

Quote:
What might someone possibly achieve from point scoring? This is a serious debating forum! We are here to bring debate in an open honest way, not in any 'self motivated' manner as you are suggesting!

Ask Steve. Tell Steve. I find his sneering tone - comments such as "How utterly stooopid!" - to be unhelpful. My attempt to widen the discussion and entertain the audience with a digression in Relativistic and Quantum effects, without suggesting that they were relevant to the substantive argument, was used by him as a weapon against me. That is not "open honest debate"

dcbwhaley wrote:
The fundamental law of physics states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant. And the collarary to that is that if an external force does act then the momentum does change.
...

Quote:
and the debate is 'within' this IIUnderstandC?

By arguing that momentum is always conserves Steve either doesn't accept that definition or insists on only discussing closed systems

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 02:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Mole wrote:
I understand about angular momentum. I was just "thinking aloud", trying to turn it into a more mechanical system that I had a better chance of understanding. Going back to DCB's original lossless electrical system, where's the "MV" to conserve the momentum once it's been turned into electricity and put in the battery? Is it really the "M" of all the electrons multiplied by their velocities?

No, MV is conserved by accelerating the planet surface (a really big M multiplied by a teeny weeny little V).

DCB is needlessly obfuscating matters with his inconsistent use of "closed".
In one sentence he says the example has an external force, then he says it has no external force, then he says it is non closed. He keeps moving the goalposts so that no one can follow his argument.

This is trolling, we are being trolled!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 18:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Ask Steve. Tell Steve. I find his sneering tone - comments such as "How utterly stooopid!" - to be unhelpful.

It was no less unhelpful as your prior sarcastic opening line here, and even earlier here.
And it was clear that it was indeed daft; it was rebutted without acknowledgement, but then this is painfully obvious to anyone who has done any advanced course in physics, let alone a degree.

dcbwhaley wrote:
My attempt to widen the discussion and entertain the audience with a digression in Relativistic and Quantum effects, without suggesting that they were relevant to the substantive argument, was used by him as a weapon against me. That is not "open honest debate"

So why on earth did you widen it when it wasn't relevant? What is honest about what is obviously a diversion, instead of simply answering the questions posed to you?

No, it was an attempt by you to find a solution for your original claim: "In that one nano second the momentum of the two particles don't add up. ", and "you have to modify the definition of momentum to allow for relativistic effects.".
So how did these two anything but "without suggesting that they were relevant to the substantive argument?" :scratchchin:

I fully addressed every and all of your questions; you utterly blank all of mine - not honest debate indeed.
Why do you ask all these examples Dave? What was the point? And why haven't you even acknowledged the majority of them being addressed?

dcbwhaley wrote:
By arguing that momentum is always conserves Steve either doesn't accept that definition or insists on only discussing closed systems

:roll:

Good bit of trolling there! Let me explain why that was never relevant and show how you keep evading:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Of course I know how to close the system in order to conserve the momentum. But I was demonstrating that in a non closed system momentum is not conserved. That the rate of change of momentum is equal to the applied force. Right or wrong? And please don' t shout

I have already answered this – twice - and thrice.
However, as I have repeatedly pointed out: that doesn’t matter …

By the same token, I can show that in a non-closed system, energy also isn't conserved (external power source, or even the same external force you keep referring to (power=force*velocity)).
I can apply an external power into a system (analogous to an external force for momentum), so can I now make the umbrella claim, in just the same way that you had, that "energy isn't conserved"? Right or wrong? And please don' t shout - or evade - again.

Remember Dave, it was you, and only you, who made the distinction between 'conservation of energy' and 'conservation of momentum' by quite equivocally saying "is" and "isn't" respectively. Critically, there was no open or closed clause in your original claim: "Energy is always conserved. Momentum isn't." and that's it, with no reference to how or what either system is.

Of course you could have rightly said that energy is conserved in a closed system and momentum not conserved in a non-closed system. However, it would have been just as correct to say that energy is not conserved in a non-closed system and momentum conserved in a closed system (I remember saying something like this before – twice in fact) but it is somewhat pointless, unless with that I can equally say, without any further qualification: "Momentum is always conserved. Energy isn't."? Yes or no?

So yet again for what must be the fifth time:
" ...how does one fail where the other succeeds?" , or "the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is", or "Can you provide your description of the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is" Answer this please!
Thus it doesn't matter how you defined 'closed', so long as it is applied equally to both concepts. Then your argument, whatever you are twisting it as, inherently fails. True or false?

dcbwhaley wrote:
I didn't rely on Quantum Mechanics or relativity to bolster my argument. I introduced them as an interesting discussion point. Unfortunately you seem to engrossed in massaging your own ego to be interested in them.

That's an interesting troll regarding all my unrebutted responses to them. Also, I believe I also said "fields", Dave. So where did that concept conveniently disappear to?
Your selectivity aside, as well as your obvious reliance upon them (shown above): you admit they don't forward the discussion at hand (so it was merely a distraction).

And how is answering all the questions and your gedanken experiments posed to me, 'massaging my ego'? What else was I meant to do with them?!
Oh and did I tell you my salary? Did I even ask for yours?
Moreover, did I ever PM you with a link showing a high-res photo of myself, especially one as petty as holding a slide-rule to prove I had one? :o (in a dressing gown :shock: )

As for me being clever: this is fundamental physics, not something that requires Einsteinesque abilities.

dcbwhaley wrote:
I am not, as Steve thinks, denying that one can always close the system. Just that it is sometimes more convenient not to.

Yeah, especially when disingenuously coving up a really embarrassing mistake!

That's right folks, DCB can disprove a fundamental law of physics, simply by saying it is "convenient" to ignore the details of it. And that is the basis of his claim and his subsequent posts. Could you possibly get any more disingenuous than that!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 22:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Having read a few posts on this topic, can I stand back and ask if PERHAPS the origonal poster has had his wish -to see a lot of members waffle off steam and divert from road safety . Perhaps ,rather than fighting ,those in power might look at closing this to stop tempers getting frayed . Just my POV .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 00:46 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Don't worry, Botach. I am too worried about Steve's blood pressure (all that shouting and red ink) to allow him to continue the discussion. Much safer to let him lie down in a darkened room and bask in the contentment that comes from thinking that he has shown me up. But I wish he would get me name right.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 01:27 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Don't worry, Bo. I am too worried about Steve's blood pressure (all that shouting and red ink) to allow him to continue the discussion. Much safer to let him lie down in a darkened room and bask in the contentment that comes from thinking that he has shown me up.

What shouting?
Why do you assume my standards to be equal to yours, Dave?

The red text and emboldening were only to direct your attention, purely so that you didn't miss the fundamental questions posed to you. You ignore so many questions that I thought I would highlight ones you really shouldn't. Evidently even that doesn’t work! :roll:

Hand on heart, I honestly didn’t set out to do it, but what I am doing now is exposing your insincere behaviour:


viewtopic.php?p=246527#p246527
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
tell us your claimed difference between the "conservation of momentum" and the "conservation of energy"; how does one fail where the other succeeds?
Completely unacknowledged


viewtopic.php?p=246555#p246555
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is, as per your claim. ..., are you sure you don't want to explain?
Quoted but you masked your evasion of these with your own new questions


viewtopic.php?p=246558#p246558
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
Can you provide your description of the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is, as per your claim.
Completely unacknowledged


viewtopic.php?p=246567#p246567
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
" ... how does one fail where the other succeeds?" , or "the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is", or "Can you provide your description of the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is"
Completely unacknowledged


viewtopic.php?p=246633#p246633
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
So yet again for what must be the fifth time:
" ...how does one fail where the other succeeds?" , or "the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is", or "Can you provide your description of the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is" Answer this please!
Completely unacknowledged
(PS, my "5th" was correct)

So, do you this time fancy answering this straightforward and pertinent question, or will I instead have scored my 'six!' :)


Leading to the clincher:

viewtopic.php?p=246508#p246508
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
Of If external energy is applied to a system, then the system isn’t isolated; otherwise the energy is conserved.
Likewise, if an external force is applied to a system, then the system isn’t isolated; otherwise the momentum is conserved.
Completely unacknowledged.

Even though I had clearly stated this, you later asked me: "Are you claiming that momentum is conserved in ac losed system even when an external force is applied?". So what thread were you reading, Dave?


And last but far from least - summarised with:

viewtopic.php?p=246633#p246633
Steve directly to DCB wrote:
Of course you could have rightly said that energy is conserved in a closed system and momentum not conserved in a non-closed system. However, it would have been just as correct to say that energy is not conserved in a non-closed system and momentum conserved in a closed system (I remember saying something like this before – twice in fact) but it is somewhat pointless, unless with that I can equally say, without any further qualification: "Momentum is always conserved. Energy isn't."? Yes or no?

And can you guess?
Even though it was with the red text you so clearly noticed and pointed out, this went … completely unacknowledged :scratchchin:

We both (and everyone else who knows physics) know that you can't bring yourself to answer this, again very straightforward and critically pertinent question, and why ;)
You can prove me wrong, and support your original claim, by simply ... answering it.

Or shall you forever be remembered for the ever-hilarious justification for disregarding selected fundamental laws of physics because it's "convenient" :lol:

If that isn't "showing you up", then I don't know what is!

I'm going to lay down in my darkened room; I know my conscience will sleep easy.
Now will you answer those questions, or will you go and crawl back to the shadowy area from whence you came: under your bridge!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 14:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 18:35
Posts: 76
And so "safespeed" disappears a little further up its own backside... :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 14:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
JBr wrote:
And so "safespeed" disappears a little further up its own backside... :lol:

So is there actually anything constructive you wish to add that will help further this discussion?
I kinda expected something more 'inspired' with your first post after a 9 month gap.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 16:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Steve wrote:
JBr wrote:
And so "safespeed" disappears a little further up its own backside... :lol:

So is there actually anything constructive you wish to add that will help further this discussion?
I kinda expected something more 'inspired' with your first post after a 9 month gap.

Steve - he may have a point . I've just come back up with a cuppa . Mrs B is watching the Jeremy Kyle show - and how simillar to this discussion . Like Mole -I've explored Physics to A level ( well Scottish equivalent) , mechanics to "O" level, Dynamics ( the scottish equavelent of mechanics to a level,based on a mathematical concept) , and other versions ,admittedly not to degree level ( well not since I tried a year on a BSc eng course in the 60's) . Now ,those of us with a lowly HND might sit and laugh at our ( suppossedly) betters with a degree agrueing .Time for both of you to shake hands and call it a draw ? :D ( you and dcb/DCB )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 16:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
botach wrote:
Time for both of you to shake hands and call it a draw ? :D ( you and dcb/DCB )

That depends entirely on how he responds to the previous set of questions (repeatedly) posed to him. I don't think this is unreasonable.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 16:30 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Steve wrote:
botach wrote:
Time for both of you to shake hands and call it a draw ? :D ( you and dcb/DCB )

That depends entirely on how he responds to the previous set of questions (repeatedly) posed to him. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Based on some of his previous - I would back you on that .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 18:14 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
botach wrote:
Steve wrote:
botach wrote:
Time for both of you to shake hands and call it a draw ? :D ( you and dcb/DCB )

That depends entirely on how he responds to the previous set of questions (repeatedly) posed to him. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Based on some of his previous - I would back you on that .


If Steve would PM his set of questions to me, set out logically, I will attempt to answer them. There is entirely too much noise on this thread for me to understand what he is asking.

I would point out that my last "thought experiment" describes a system where energy is conserved and momentum isn't and I could come up with several more such scenarios. Steve's rebuttal of that is the very enlightening comment "I can't believe the £60K physicist still doesn't get it"

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 21:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
:listenup: "SIX!"

dcbwhaley wrote:
botach wrote:
Steve wrote:
botach wrote:
Time for both of you to shake hands and call it a draw ? :D ( you and dcb/DCB )

That depends entirely on how he responds to the previous set of questions (repeatedly) posed to him. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Based on some of his previous - I would back you on that .


If Steve would PM his set of questions to me, set out logically, I will attempt to answer them.

Not bad for the sixth attempt!

Your desire to have the debate offline, is evidently the most this supposedly "open honest" debate could ever hope for.

Only now you do comment on the presentation, after a full 6 times that it was posed to you. I notice you never said you didn't understand the questions. What exactly was wrong with answering them on the open forums?

No Dave, you understand them perfectly well; they obviously invokes reductio ad absurdum to your argument.

Your trolling has been well and truly exposed.

dcbwhaley wrote:
There is entirely too much noise on this thread for me to understand what he is asking.

That's a poor excuse for your evasion.
The questions stand on their own, independent of the rest of the thread (except your original claim of course).

The 'noise' is your own doing: who is it that posed most of those examples, as well as needlessly "widen" the discussion? If that isn't noise then what is!

dcbwhaley wrote:
I would point out that my last "thought experiment" describes a system where energy is conserved and momentum isn't

And I showed how your model was incomplete. You could have rebutted, but I guess "it is sometimes more convenient not to" :roll:

dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve's rebuttal of that is the very enlightening comment "I can't believe the £60K physicist still doesn't get it"

I should point out that comment was subsequent the equally enlightening comment "And to a man who says "I know physics - quite well too"". Why are you surprised when you get as good as you gave?

Furthermore: the rebuttal was actually:
the apparently invisible text that Steve wrote:
And even more idiotic is that I have already answered your latest question; all is 100% answered here, Dave. :headbash:
In a direct response to that post, you said yourself:
DCB previously wrote:
"Of course. In those circumstances with no external force (i.e force from outside the closed system) applied momentum will be conserved. "
(the highlighting is mine)

So now you are a liar too!



I don't believe you were in for the long troll. I believe that your original claim was a genuine error, and I reckon you then trolled the thread to disguise the now obvious fact that you accidentally portrayed yourself as an incompetent physicist. I certainly won't question your competency to troll.

Your troll was good while it lasted DCB, but now something has to give.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 21:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
What might someone possibly achieve from point scoring? This is a serious debating forum! We are here to bring debate in an open honest way, not in any 'self motivated' manner as you are suggesting!

Ask Steve. ... My attempt to widen the discussion and entertain the audience with a digression in Relativistic and Quantum effects, without suggesting that they were relevant to the substantive argument, was used by him as a weapon against me. That is not "open honest debate"
I was directly asking you and I do not need to be told who to ask or when. These are my forums and I run them as best as I can with the most serious intention always to arrive at the truth through honest and open debate.
There really was no need to divert away when a very specific discussion was being debated. \
I can understand and forgive frustration easily, when serious questions go unheeded and as you say you wish to 'entertain'. If you are 'toying with' a topic to entertain then that is a shame as that questions your 'seriousness'.
I see that serious discussions and development help everyone home their debating skills to achieve a greater appreciation, understanding and better knowledge of that topic. I perhaps should have picked up on the diversion and split it out those posts, however at the time I wasn't sure if that wasn't going to introduce a new point relating to the debate. Certain allowance for off-topic-ness is tolerated but not if it is to divert the discussion.
If you don't know then there is never ever any harm in just saying so.

dcbwhaley wrote:
By arguing that momentum is always conserves Steve either doesn't accept that definition or insists on only discussing closed systems
I see it that Steve has shown extreme patience in carefully explaining his points clearly. My father was an engineer and also having lived with an engineer for about half of my life, it seems normal to me that precision is the name of the game. Cutting to the chase - or being very direct simply moves a conversation on very efficiently. I can see though that for many other people that might be taken as aggression or 'point scoring' but it isn't.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 21:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
If Steve would PM his set of questions to me, set out logically, I will attempt to answer them. There is entirely too much noise on this thread for me to understand what he is asking.
The questions are set out very clearly throughout this thread. I can easily see the questions and queries with my limited ability in physics. This does sadly seem terribly insincere and you are now forcing my hand to act.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 21:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
... it seems normal to me that precision is the name of the game. Cutting to the chase - or being very direct simply moves a conversation on very efficiently. I can see though that for many other people that might be taken as aggression or 'point scoring' but it isn't.

Yes. In any science/engineering subject, especially one where each step has to be perfect otherwise the end equation is in error, attention to detail is critically important; the 'devil's in the detail' and all that.

One certainly can't choose to ignore parts of fundamental laws simply because it is more "convenient"; doing so is a mockery of science and rejects the truth it seeks.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 21:46 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
These are my forums and I run them as best as I can with the most serious intention always to arrive at the truth through honest and open debate.


I have asked Steve to PM me the questions he wishes me to answer so that I consider them at leisure, without the smokescreen he keeps raising. Then I will present my answers openly in the forum.

Quote:
There really was no need to divert away when a very specific discussion was being debated.

Sorry, Claire, but I lack Steve's tunnel vision. Thirty years in academia where discussions always range widely has spoiled me :-)

Quote:
Certain allowance for off-topic-ness is tolerated but not if it is to divert the discussion.

Really? If a brief aside about field momentum in a discussion about conservation laws is not to be tolerated then you have a very sterile idea of what constitutes a good debate.

Quote:
If you don't know then there is never ever any harm in just saying so.

Is that aimed at me or Steve?

Quote:
I see it that Steve has shown extreme patience in carefully explaining his points clearly

Posts like the last one with massive multilevel quoting, awkward cross references and a continued insistence that he has answered my questions when he hasn't are the antithesis of clarity.

Quote:
it seems normal to me that precision is the name of the game.

Precision is excellent but before you start doing precise calculations you have to make sure that you are solving the correct question

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.651s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]