Your reference to "your" is ambiguous. Which one of us did you have in mind?I think it may be better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.
It wasn't in the slightest ambiguous from where I'm sitting.beenthere,
Papabravo,
Your reference to "your" is ambiguous. Which one of us did you have in mind?
Ratch
Clue me in.It wasn't in the slightest ambiguous from where I'm sitting.
That article is terrible - you get 1000s of words of near incomprehensible waffle debunking the mysteries and misunderstandings of the black-art of "static electricity" and then at the bottom in a couple of hundred words we actually find out what the author thinks static electricity is, note number 1: "Static electricity is a field of science" - not by any measure I have ever looked at, it is a phenomenon, it can be ascribed to a physical entity and scenario, but I have never in my life heard it referred to in the abstract sense as "a field".
While there appears to be ambiguity with Papabravo's comment, I am confident Papabravo understands our forum policies. Deduction therefore suggests the ad-hominem comment was directed at Beatty.Your reference to "your" is ambiguous. Which one of us did you have in mind?
You are right about the roundabout way the author tries to make his points. Also his writing style tends to be too dramatic. So you have a legitimate gripe about the way the messenger delivers his message. He basically says that "static electricity" is a generic catchall word like "electricity", that can mean a lot of different things depending on the context in which it is used. That is what I agree with, and the point I wanted to make also. The author finally gets around to saying that static electricity as a field of science is defined as electrostatics, which I think you would agree is a field or subfield of "electricity".That article is terrible - you get 1000s of words of near incomprehensible waffle debunking the mysteries and misunderstandings of the black-art of "static electricity" and then at the bottom in a couple of hundred words we actually find out what the author thinks static electricity is, note number 1: "Static electricity is a field of science" - not by any measure I have ever looked at, it is a phenomenon, it can be ascribed to a physical entity and scenario, but I have never in my life heard it referred to in the abstract sense as "a field".
Could you post an example and defend it against my challenges?This isn't the first or last time the OP has posted non-sense.
Thank you for your elucidation.While there appears to be ambiguity with Papabravo's comment, I am confident Papabravo understands our forum policies. Deduction therefore suggests the ad-hominem comment was directed at Beatty.
I think we agree on the writing style. Although I think saying static electricity and electrostatics are one and the same thing is potentially confusing to the reader, and particularly ironic considering the author is driven by debunking and making things clearer. Electrostatics is a field, that is it is an abstraction of a collection of phenomena and concepts. Static electricity describes the phenomena and can be ascribed to physical entities and scenarios - something the author does acknowledge in the article referenced in the OP. Electrostatics is the science of static electricity.Dave,
You are right about the roundabout way the author tries to make his points. Also his writing style tends to be too dramatic. So you have a legitimate gripe about the way the messenger delivers his message. He basically says that "static electricity" is a generic catchall word like "electricity", that can mean a lot of different things depending on the context in which it is used. That is what I agree with, and the point I wanted to make also. The author finally gets around to saying that static electricity as a field of science is defined as electrostatics, which I think you would agree is a field or subfield of "electricity".
Ratch
Obviously, one cannot provide example of something you've yet to say. I'll stick to examples from the past... How about your assertion that inability to detect something means it does not exist? How about your assertion that "perfect" objects exist in practical reality? (page 10 of this past May's "Treatise about Voltage.")Could you post an example and defend it against my challenges?
By all means.Obviously, one cannot provide example of something you've yet to say. I'll stick to examples from the past...
How about a reference so that I can see what the context was. I believe it had to do with specifing meaningless precision that could not be determined.How about your assertion that inability to detect something means it does not exist?
Yes, how about it? You quit discussing it, so you cannot claim that you are correct and I was wrong. Do you want to continue to explain why I am wrong and you are right? http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=11579&highlight=Treatise+Voltage&page=10How about your assertion that "perfect" objects exist in practical reality? (page 10 of this past May's "Treatise about Voltage.")
Page ten of the famous May threadHow about a reference so that I can see what the context was.
I believe it had to do with your off-hand dismissal of fact and logic counter to your weak argument. Shall we discuss the gods as well?I believe it had to do with specifing meaningless precision that could not be determined.
What I quit doing was wasting my time. What I claimed ws "argumentum ad ignoratium."Yes, how about it? You quit discussing it, so you cannot claim that you are correct and I was wrong.
I have already explained it. "Argumentum ad ignoratium." You simply chose to ignore the explanation. I predict you will continue to do so. (Wow! Got in an example from the future after all!)Do you want to continue to explain why I am wrong and you are right?
Your words do not surprise me in the least. It is the nature of perception that we most often see only what we want to see. You wanted to see nothing, so that is what your mind interpreted.I looked over "page 10" again, and I cannot find anything that justifies what you claim.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. There is no possible way for this argument to have any meaning or relevance whatsoever. This is simply an exercise or a diversion for you and a few moments entertainment for me. Nothing will be proven to anyone. Nothing new will be learned. No student will be enlightened. The most we can hope for from threads like this one is a good laugh and a few moments relief from insomnia. We're lucky this thing hasn't already been shut down by one of the moderators as a waste of bandwidth.In order for this argument to have any meaning or relevance...
You made no misstatement, my good man. You made an error in logic. A misstatement would be to quote "E=I/R" instead of "E=I*R." An error in logic (specifically Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) would be to claim no current exists simply because my meter cannot detect such a small current. You have internet access, look up the Latin. Knowing about logical fallacies might be of interest to you. Such knowledge would certainly allow you to indulge less often in what ScubaSteve911 calls "nonsense."Throwing Latin at it without backing it up is an accusation, not a cogent refutation of a misstatement.
What challenge? I see nothing challenging about any of this. Heck, I even won the bit about you being irrational in the future. I'll go even further: you'll be irrationon in the future yet again. It will be in the very post you make in reply to mine own humble offering.Are you up to the challenge?
But you are now going to show me what I missed, right?Your words do not surprise me in the least. It is the nature of perception that we most often see only what we want to see. You wanted to see nothing, so that is what your mind interpreted.
That's all right. I can take it.Permit me to expand your mind. (This may pinch just a tad...)
I assert that if something cannot be measured or determined to be lacking in what is considered perfect, then for practical purposes, it is perfect. If a value, not necessary infinity, cannot be determined to show any error either by direct measurement, or the effects an error would cause, then for practical purposes, the value has been determined perfectly.I refer to posts #92 and #99. You assert that "perfect" insulators exist. You claim an unmeasurable value is an infinite value.
Sure you can. Someone named Ratch has to be answering and submitting these posts. Therefore you know I exist. You just don't know a lot of details about me. Other things you can determine by the effects they cause. I don't think Latin is not going to show errors to anybody.(Per inferential argument, I cannot prove anything to exist other than myself. Since I cannot prove you exist, you do not exist. What was that loud pop? It was the air rushing in where Ratch was.[/i] Alas! Poor Ratch! I knew, him, Horatio - a man of infinite pedantry.[/i]) If you look up the Latin phrase on your favorite search engine, you will find the error of your ways.
First of all, it was not redefining terms. I was making and sharing an observation. For instance, you hear about something being a perfect copy of another thing. Well, we know that it isn't so. If you get down into enough detail, you can always find some difference somewhere. But when the difference does not matter, we define it to be a perfect copy. I did not redefine perfection, I was just using the same definition that everyone uses.And, oh! the irony! You even went so far as to insist you showed me a perfect insulator insofar as perfection can be achieved. Shoot, by re-defining terms on the fly, one could make a case for any position. No wonder you enjoy argument so much! You get to re-define reality itself to fit your minority paradigm!
Yes, "hypotheses contrary to fact" is a very useful artifice and a very powerful tool for the theoretician. Galileo used it to determine that all objects fall at the same acceleration. He first assumed that heavier objects fall faster, which we know is contrary to fact. So he said that if he attached a heavy object to a much lighter object, the heavy object would speed up the lighter object and the lighter object would slow down the heavy object. So the acceleration would be some value in-between. But the combined objects are heavier than the heavy object, so it should fall faster than the heavy object alone. That is contrary to the first premise. So he concluded that the only way to solve that conundrum was to know that all uninhibited objects fall at the same rate of acceleration.And the hugely funny thing is that you yourself claimed on page 7 in post 66 "a perfect capacitor without leakage does not exist." You continue on " But if it did..." and then fall into the logical fallacy of Hypothesis contrary to fact. (That one is not in Latin, by the way.)
Well, I sure can't see it. You sure did not prove it. Do you believe it yourself?So, as all can clearly see, ScubaSteve911 is entirely correct in his assertion.
Perhaps nothing will be proven, but the knowledge of what is perfection was presented.I disagree in the strongest possible terms. There is no possible way for this argument to have any meaning or relevance whatsoever. This is simply an exercise or a diversion for you and a few moments entertainment for me. Nothing will be proven to anyone. Nothing new will be learned. No student will be enlightened. The most we can hope for from threads like this one is a good laugh and a few moments relief from insomnia. We're lucky this thing hasn't already been shut down by one of the moderators as a waste of bandwidth.
Nonsense, it is you who is saying that perfection exists even when you cannot determine whether it is there or not. I say it is a quantitative measurement and sometimes a qualitative assessment that is attained when deviation cannot be observed. I believe my way of looking at it is more in tune with what the majority of the folks think.You made no misstatement, my good man. You made an error in logic. A misstatement would be to quote "E=I/R" instead of "E=I*R." An error in logic (specifically Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) would be to claim no current exists simply because my meter cannot detect such a small current. You have internet access, look up the Latin. Knowing about logical fallacies might be of interest to you.
Proof of what? Oh, the perfect insulator. This is not about proof. It is about definition. I would have thought you realized that by now. You don't prove perfection, you define it. I defined what I thought was perfection. Maybe you could define what you think it is.Once again, the burden of proof lies squarely and upon your own shoulders. It will sit there like an albatross regardless of how tightly you close your eyes or how far into your ears you push your fingers.
The challenge where you prove my definition of perfection is wrong.What challenge? I see nothing challenging about any of this.
You did?Heck, I even won the bit about you being irrational in the future.
You think so?I'll go even further: you'll be irrationon in the future yet again. It will be in the very post you make in reply to mine own humble offering.
Does your friend address the ambiguity that the word has? What does it mean to say that a wire is full of "electricity" when it is plugged into a wall outlet? One could just as well say the wire is full of "physics". What Beaty was trying to say is that the word "electricity" has multiple meanings and that a singular definition does not exist. Do you have any problem with agreeing with the last sentence? Too bad Beaty is so verbose and tries to be too dramatic.Getting back on topic:
I have a co-worker who suggests Beaty do the following the following:
1) Cut the appliance cord from an appliance at the appliance.
2) Strip the insulation of the cut end.
3) Plug in the cord.
4) Stick the bare leads one to either side of his tongue.
5) Decide only then whether "electricity does not exist."