24df4ad6   
   XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.particle, sci.physics   
   From: bjacoby@iwaynet.net   
      
   On 6/1/2012 4:28 PM, Big Dog wrote:   
   > On Jun 1, 3:00 pm, bjacoby  wrote:   
      
   > Yes, they do, you tiresome loon. What is your "meaning" of the word   
   > "wave"?   
      
   Since you are obviously an uneducated mental patient, adjust your   
   tinfoil helmet and note that in a physical world a "wave" is a property   
   that propagates through SOMETHING. The mechanism of a wave is that there   
   is a connection between properties at this point and the next point so   
   that action here is capable of moving there. If there is NOTHING then   
   there is nothing to transmit the action. Simple science. Now it's time   
   for your meds. Go see nurz Ratched.   
      
   > Logical according to WHAT? A golf ball dropped from the doorstep of   
   > the Lunar Lander propagates from the doorstep to the surface of the   
   > moon. Are you saying that the golf ball needs a medium to propagate   
   > from A to B? Are you saying that motion in a vacuum is impossible   
   > because propagation requires a medium so in the absence of a medium   
   > this would be impossible?   
      
   Idiot. Read some Maxwell. A golf ball is a "particle". Maxwell notes   
   that energy can ONLY be transmitted by particles and by waves. There is   
   no alternative like the "magic" that you like to claim.   
      
   > But as you say, words have meaning. So when you say "propagate", what   
   > bullshit meaning do YOU have in mind that distinguishes a wave   
   > propagating from a golf ball in vacuum propagating?   
      
   Obviously you cannot figure the difference between a particle moving and   
   a wave propagating. Ask the ward nurse for help.   
      
   > Let's just find out if the meanings you have in your head for "words   
   > have meanings" even have consistent sense in your OWN head, let alone   
   > in the heads of anyone else.   
      
   Just listen to the voices in your head. They will explain it all to you.   
   Idiot.   
      
   >> Physicists claim that Maxwells   
   >> fields are "behavior fields" and then deny that there is anything that   
   >> is doing the behaving. The assertion is that behavior is not a   
   >> descriptor of something else but exists all by itself as a singular   
   >> "behavior" entity. This is obviously logical, philosophical, and   
   >> scientific nonsense.   
   >   
   > Bullshit, though how clever of you to come up with the misnomer   
   > "behavior field" to describe something you don't understand.   
      
   Excuse me. See chapter 10 in the book "theory of elementary waves" by   
   Dr. Lewis Little for a discussion of "behavior fields".  You see that   
   "Dr." that means "doctor" and the man has an actual science education   
   and advanced degree, which is something you can't even dream about. Idiot.   
      
   > Why don't you just come out and say, "Nobody has explained what a   
   > field is to me in a way that I understand, and so fields are   
   > bullshit?" That would be at least honest and it would be reflective of   
   > your paranoia that scientists are out to confuse the masses.   
      
   Fields are descriptions of forces and forces can be measured. So the   
   measured forces are real, but obviously the mathematical descriptions of   
   them are not real. Math (fields) is not real. I suggest taking grade   
   school over again so you can finally learn to read. We won't even   
   consider trying to get you to learn how to think.   
      
      
   >> In fact, mathematics is totally imaginary (in spite of   
   >> Andro's silly assertions to the contrary). The total test for the   
   >> validity of mathematics is SELF-CONSISTENCY. Double-think is indeed the   
   >> norm in math. I can give a word one meaning simply by defining it as   
   >> such. And then another person can turn around and give that SAME word   
   >> the opposite meaning. As with political double-think, the key is simply   
   >> keeping the two situations separate in your mind.   
   >   
   > Yes, this is true.   
   > And not a fucking thing wrong with that.   
   > Unless you would like to say that it is YOUR expectation that science   
   > should be understandable using a conventional conversational   
   > dictionary, whether that is true or not.   
   > When it isn't true, foil-hat loonies like you start babbling about   
   > Orwell and double-think and black-helicopter conspiracies, because   
   > OBVIOUSLY if there is something that's over your head that could ONLY   
   > be the result of deliberate and systemic obfuscation. Because you   
   > cannot FATHOM the idea that something might just be over your head   
   > without that. It's always about ego, isn't it? Even among the foil-hat   
   > loonies. ESPECIALLY among the foil-hat loonies.   
      
   It seems to me the only person ranting here (or even MENTIONING) Orwell,   
   or black helicopters or conspiracies or tinfoil hats is YOU.   
   Clearly you are quite concerned about mental illness. I'm curious how   
   this provides any scientific argument. Given your repeated diagnosis of   
   me, please list your medical credentials. Oh, I see. No credentials   
   except your current address and experiences living in the ward.   
      
     > Yup, indeed that is TRUE.   
      
   Wait a minute. If I'm insane and paranoid how can anything I say be   
   true? You MUST Be lying!   
      
   > And if you have a physical system WITHOUT a medium, then that system   
   > is allowed to have physical laws that govern it, right?   
      
   Idiot. Physical laws describe reality. They do not "govern" it.   
      
   > And if those physical laws just HAPPEN to have the form of the wave   
   > equation, then it is obviously TRUE that wave solutions will be   
   > exhibited in the behavior of that system.   
      
   True, physical systems can be modeled by wave equations.   
      
   > But you say, oh hey, wait a second. Physical systems without a medium   
   > shall never be allowed to have physical laws in the form of a wave   
   > equation. No, no, no! That's ILLEGAL! By Jacoby's fiat, if there is a   
   > physical system apparently without medium, then there are two and ONLY   
   > TWO possibilities allowed by Jacoby:   
   > - This system shall have no physical laws that take the form of the   
   > wave equation and hence no wave behavior exhibited, OR   
   > - This system shall be judged to have a medium SOMEPLACE just because   
   > it has physical laws that take the form of the wave equation. So   
   > speaketh Jacoby.   
      
   Things modeled by the wave equation MUST have a medium because by the   
   very nature of waves we have ENERGY MOVING and the MATERIAL (medium,   
   duh) staying in place. Please note how different that is from golf balls   
   where the material is MOVING. Idiot. But if transmission of energy takes   
   propagation of properties (Again note that the only  "property" of   
   "nothing at all" is that IT HAS NO PROPERTIES!) then SOMETHING MUST have   
   those properties.   
      
   You are astoundingly dense and stupid. Trying to discuss this with you   
   is like talking to a box of hammers.   
      
      
   >> But in the real physical world one is NOT permitted to define things at   
   >> random. In science theory must predict actual measurements. If you can't   
   >> measure it, it's not science.   
   >   
   > Exactly!   
      
   Oh wait. I'm insane but right again? How interesting!   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)