The most we can hope for from threads like this one is a good laugh and a few moments relief from insomnia.

Moderators:

Please can we have some better smilies for laughter and insomnia?

 

Moderators:

Please can we have some better smilies for laughter and insomnia?

I'll see what we can do!

Dave

 

But you are now going to show me what I missed, right?

Already did. Twice. At no time did my fingers leave my hands, and I had nothing up my sleeve. If you like, we could try it in slow-motion.

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.

Yes. We get that. We got that in May. You were in error then, and you are in error now. Do you see any pattern here? If you say it again, you will be in error again.

Sure you can. Someone named Ratch has to be answering and submitting these posts.

What posts? These posts can't be proven to exist either. You use the word "philosophy" quite frequently, but seem never to have read anything about it.

I don't think Latin is not going to show errors to anybody.

Latin, Sanskrit, Swahili, English, Tagalog, whatever - you are still committing logical fallacies. Your rejection of the accepted name of said logical fallacies makes no more sense and serves your position no better than your rejection of accepted (albeit redundant) terminology. Get past the language barrier and look at the concept it is used to convey!!

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.

EXCELLENT! Now we are getting somewhere! "Everyone else" uses phrases like "ATM machine" and "PIN number" and "Current flow." PER YOUR OWN ARGUMENT (quoted a fraction of an inch above) THIS IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE. It is good to know you will no longer object to "charge flow flow," any more than anyone else objects to "teller machine machine."

Well, I sure can't see it.

Correction: "won't" see.

You sure did not prove it.

Everyone else thinks I did. (HINT: I'm leaving you an opening here. Will you make proper us of this opening?)

Do you believe it yourself?

With great zeal, Sir, with great zeal.

Nonsense, it is you who is saying that perfection exists even when you cannot determine whether it is there or not.

You do me the greiveous injury of misquoting me, Sir! I've maintained throughout that it does not exist. My unedited words remain online for all to see, as do your own. You made error in logic (specifically Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) - you claimed no current exists simply because my meter cannot detect such a small current. Your premise depends on infinite resistance. Your premise depends on a "perfect" insulator. Your premise is flawed. I have maintained thus from the outset. Now you misrepresent me. I await the apology that you, who's gentility has proven itself so often in the past, are sure to provide.

I believe my way of looking at it is more in tune with what the majority of the folks think.

If you are in error as to the belief of the majority, then you commit Hypothesis contrary to fact. If the majority believe as you suggest, you commit Argumentum ad populum. Either way, you've got some reading ahead of you. Use the search term "logical fallacy" to begin your quest for truth.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam=Argument from ignorance. Makes no sense to me in this discussion.

Again, you refuse to look the term up. How can I teach you when you so stubbornly refuse to learn? If you never learn about logical fallacies, you will continue to make them.

Proof of what? Oh, the perfect insulator. This is not about proof. It is about definition.

It is about proof and logic. It will continue to be about proof and about logic - no matter how nimble your dodges.

You don't prove perfection, you define it.

You, sir, re-define it as needed to attempt support of your logical fallacies.

I defined what I thought was perfection.

Your definition was inappropriate to the context.

Maybe you could define what you think it is.

In the context of electronics, "perfect" means either "zero" or "infinite." It does not, as you erroneously suppose, mean "too small to measure" or "too big to measure." It does not, as you erroneously suppose, mean "negligible." This is shown clearly by a casual perusal of any number of discourses of "perfect this" or "perfect that" in the context of electronics.

The challenge where you prove my definition of perfection is wrong.

No, there was no challenge. Your definition and your logic are both in error. I simply pointed out your logical fallacies. It was easy.

You simply ignored my effort. Continue to do so, and I shall tire of attempting to educate you. Cease to do so, and I shall provide you with such effort as I can muster. In either case, Beaty is wrong.

You did?

Yup. The offer for slow-motion is still open.

You think so?

Yup. The offer for slow-motion is still open

Does your friend address the ambiguity that the word has?

There is no ambiguity about 120VAC across the tongue.

What does it mean to say that a wire is full of "electricity" when it is plugged into a wall outlet?

We call that fallacy "straw man argument." Go ask Beatty what "full of electricity" means. He brought it up. Nobody on this forum ever said it.

What Beaty was trying to say is that the word "electricity" has multiple meanings and that a singular definition does not exist.

I'll take your word for it. I quite frankly can't get past his rantings. All I can infer from his dribble is "all of you are wrong and I am right - the almighty ME has an inside track on how the universe REALLY works and the rest of you are buffoons who worship at the alter of higher education." I admit my interpretation of his words my not be entirely accurate. I will maintain, however, that he is an arrogant and condescending writer.

Too bad Beaty is so verbose and tries to be too dramatic.

We concur on this. I lament the inability of the written word to convey more than 25% of human communication. I further lament the inability of so many adults to effectively use the written word.

 

the inability of so many adults to effectively use the written word.

That's why I want a better smilie.

 

thingmaker3,

Already did. Twice. At no time did my fingers leave my hands, and I had nothing up my sleeve. If you like, we could try it in slow-motion.

You went through the motions twice, but you never showed me. Try it in slow motion.

Yes. We get that. We got that in May. You were in error then, and you are in error now. Do you see any pattern here? If you say it again, you will be in error again.

Saying it's so does not make it so. You have to show it.

What posts? These posts can't be proven to exist either. You use the word "philosophy" quite frequently, but seem never to have read anything about it.

These posts of course. You mean to tell me that you monitor posts that possibly do not exist? I would be careful to not advertise that fact very much.

Latin, Sanskrit, Swahili, English, Tagalog, whatever - you are still committing logical fallacies. Your rejection of the accepted name of said logical fallacies makes no more sense and serves your position no better than your rejection of accepted (albeit redundant) terminology. Get past the language barrier and look at the concept it is used to convey!!

You are the one first sprouting non-English language phrases. I already explained my concept. Now it is up to you to explain why it is not correct.

EXCELLENT! Now we are getting somewhere! "Everyone else" uses phrases like "ATM machine" and "PIN number" and "Current flow." PER YOUR OWN ARGUMENT (quoted a fraction of an inch above) THIS IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE. It is good to know you will no longer object to "charge flow flow," any more than anyone else objects to "teller machine machine."

I do object to redundancy, even when it does not obfuscate what the user is trying to convey.

Correction: "won't" see.

Nope, I honestly can't see it.

Everyone else thinks I did. (HINT: I'm leaving you an opening here. Will you make proper us of this opening?)

They do? How do you know?

With great zeal, Sir, with great zeal.

I also believe what I say.

You do me the greiveous injury of misquoting me, Sir! I've maintained throughout that it does not exist. My unedited words remain online for all to see, as do your own. You made error in logic (specifically Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) - you claimed no current exists simply because my meter cannot detect such a small current. Your premise depends on infinite resistance. Your premise depends on a "perfect" insulator. Your premise is flawed. I have maintained thus from the outset. Now you misrepresent me. I await the apology that you, who's gentility has proven itself so often in the past, are sure to provide.

Sorry, I should have said you do not believe that perfection exists. I forgot to put in the "not". But I made no error in logic. Taking your definition to the extreme, the word "perfection" should be removed from the language because nothing is perfect. I say perfect exists when it cannot be determined that something differs from what it should be. I claimed that no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter, or any effect it causes. I said that a insulator is perfect if the resistance is so high that no detectable currect passes. I can defend that proposition.

If you are in error as to the belief of the majority, then you commit Hypothesis contrary to fact. If the majority believe as you suggest, you commit Argumentum ad populum. Either way, you've got some reading ahead of you. Use the search term "logical fallacy" to begin your quest for truth.

A consensus of the majority is not always the truth. I already gave an example of how Galileo used hypotheses contrary to fact in a useful manner. I don't need to look up "logical fallacy". It is self-defining.

Again, you refuse to look the term up. How can I teach you when you so stubbornly refuse to learn? If you never learn about logical fallacies, you will continue to make them.

Wrong. I did look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

It is about proof and logic. It will continue to be about proof and about logic - no matter how nimble your dodges.

Before proofs and logic come definitions.

You, sir, re-define it as needed to attempt support of your logical fallacies.

I have iterated the definition, not redefined it.

Your definition was inappropriate to the context.

Why so?

In the context of electronics, "perfect" means either "zero" or "infinite." It does not, as you erroneously suppose, mean "too small to measure" or "too big to measure." It does not, as you erroneously suppose, mean "negligible." This is shown clearly by a casual perusal of any number of discourses of "perfect this" or "perfect that" in the context of electronics.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. I believe that the limits of measurement apply not only to electronics, but everything else. And not only zero and infinity, but any value. And when we reach the limits of measurement or the effects they cause, we have reached perfection. Thus far you have not proved that concept wrong or suggested how that definition should be changed.

No, there was no challenge. Your definition and your logic are both in error. I simply pointed out your logical fallacies. It was easy.

You did no such thing.

You simply ignored my effort. Continue to do so, and I shall tire of attempting to educate you. Cease to do so, and I shall provide you with such effort as I can muster. In either case, Beaty is wrong.

I ignored false and irrelevant statements. Beaty was not wrong in what he said, but he did not say it in a concise manner.

Yup. The offer for slow-motion is still open.

Lay it on me.

Yup. The offer for slow-motion is still open

Sock it to me.

There is no ambiguity about 120VAC across the tongue.

But it has no relevance.

We call that fallacy "straw man argument." Go ask Beatty what "full of electricity" means. He brought it up. Nobody on this forum ever said it.

He said the word was ambiguous. Looking in the dictionary I come across the following:
1. See electric charge.
2. See electric current.
3. the science dealing with electric charges and currents.
4. a state or feeling of excitement, anticipation, tension, etc.

I am sure there many more.

I'll take your word for it. I quite frankly can't get past his rantings. All I can infer from his dribble is "all of you are wrong and I am right - the almighty ME has an inside track on how the universe REALLY works and the rest of you are buffoons who worship at the alter of higher education." I admit my interpretation of his words my not be entirely accurate. I will maintain, however, that he is an arrogant and condescending writer.

I already admitted that his writing style is not endearing. But in this case, what he is saying is correct.

Ratch

 

Thingmaker,

Please remind me not to argue with you, lest I forget.

Ratch,

You asked me to provide an example of when you posted non-sense. How about the time when you asked if there was a way to detect some characteristics of a ball? Then, when answered by many, you changed the rules and critized solution attempts. From that point, I knew you were about trying to look correct and win arguments, not solutions to real problems.

Steve

 

Let me once again level the charge of sophistry: misleading but clever reasoning. Although in Beaty's case I question the clever.

If only and precisely one person in the world has discovered the absolute truth about something and says that everyone else is wrong (excepting one adherent), why might this be? Especially when is is a difference that makes no difference. Rewrite the texts to suit him and nothing in the real world changes. No new insights, no new devices. Nothing worthwhile promises to come out of his writings.

Beaty's bizarro redifinitions simply do not matter. Not a single thing he rants about makes any difference at all. It's as if he would think that replacing signs in a city with ones in a different language would make some fundamental difference to the way the city works. Either he is a complete whack job, or it is some elaborate attempt at a joke. You have tried and tried and tried to push his views. We aren't going to buy it.

 

Sorry, I should have said you do not believe that perfection exists. I forgot to put in the "not". But I made no error in logic. Taking your definition to the extreme, the word "perfection" should be removed from the language because nothing is perfect. I say perfect exists when it cannot be determined that something differs from what it should be. I claimed that no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter, or any effect it causes. I said that a insulator is perfect if the resistance is so high that no detectable currect passes. I can defend that proposition.

The problem with taking the pedant's mantle is the danger that one might be hoist with one's own pedantry.

Taking your definition to the extreme, the word "perfection" should be removed from the language because nothing is perfect.

If I examine the above statement critically I find for instance that there is a logical error here.
There is a noun (nothing) which is claimed to have the property 'perfect'.
If there is a noun with this property why then should perfection be struck from the language?
Did you really mean the pedantically correct statement?
"there is no thing (noun) that possesses the property of perfection"

Even then the logical jump to striking the property perfection from the language is inappropriate.

For instance the statement

There is no wholly green ball that possesses the property "red"

does not mean that the property red should be deleted.

Now to examine your other claim

That something does not exist if it can't be measured or even detected.

This approach stifles progress.

For example radio waves were predicted by Maxwell and Hertz 50 years before they were measured by Marconi.

The positron was predicted by Dirac, 70 years before it was finally detected at CERN.

Higgs predicted, and received a Nobel prize for, his famous boson. It hasn't yet been detected should we stop looking at CERN?

He said the word was ambiguous.

A word cannot by itself be ambiguous.
Many words in our language possess more than one meaning. Some have totally unconnected multiple meanings, some have shades of the same concept. Some have a formal meaning, given in a technical sense, alongside a looser common or garden meaning.

Either way it is the context which helps determine the correct meaning.
Sometime the context is inadequte for this task and ambiguity ensues.
Sometimes the author deliberately transposes one meaning into another context for effect, comical or subversive.
A good deal of Vauderville depends on this,
as did many human lives in the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Thank you for bringing another misguided prophet to our attention (Beatty), but surely we can all agree that he adds nothing useful to formal electricity theory

 

scubasteve_911,

Ratch,

You asked me to provide an example of when you posted non-sense. How about the time when you asked if there was a way to detect some characteristics of a ball? Then, when answered by many, you changed the rules and critized solution attempts. From that point, I knew you were about trying to look correct and win arguments, not solutions to real problems.

OK, I looked over the thread to which I believe you are referring, even though you did not give a link. http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=13116&page=4 Did you also review it? It was about determining whether a ball was solid or hollow by rolling it down a incline to determine which ball had the higher moment of inertia. As I already admitted in the thread, I should have specified that the submission was a brain teaser and not a practical application. Pointing out that some of the methods submitted were unnecessarily elaborate or complicated is not nonsense. I did not change any rules, but I asked for a simpler solution. There was no argument to win, just a simple solution for determining a geometric condition. So unless you can specifically point out what was nonsense in the thread, I really don't know what you are talking about.

 

One is made of gold and hollow, other is not hollow and made of titanium. Both balls are identical in size and weight, and covered with a shell made of non-transparent, electricity/heat/cold non conducting material. Find a way to determine which ball is made of what, without damaging the shell (you are not allowed to burn it, place in liquid, etc.) and without using any external measurement equipment.

Ratch

You can use a VLF metal detector to distinguish the metal type. Basically, you have a transmitter and a shielded recieve coil. The amplitude and phase compared with the transmitted wave will give you both the amount of eddy current flowing and the conductivity of the metal.

You would need to calculate or easily test the response in order to be able to identify them in the future.

Steve

scubasteve_911,

What if I specified glass and balsa wood? Ratch

quod erat demonstrandum

I know you love latin

Steve

 

beenthere,

Let me once again level the charge of sophistry: misleading but clever reasoning. Although in Beaty's case I question the clever.

Charging someone is easy, proving it might be more difficult. You have to specify what part of Beaty you disagree with.

Beaty's bizarro redifinitions simply do not matter. Not a single thing he rants about makes any difference at all. It's as if he would think that replacing signs in a city with ones in a different language would make some fundamental difference to the way the city works. Either he is a complete whack job, or it is some elaborate attempt at a joke. You have tried and tried and tried to push his views. We aren't going to buy it.

Most of what he writes are about clarifications, not redefinitions. You make ad hominem attacks on him, but do not specify exactly what you disagree with. I am not saying he is the final arbiter of definitions, but you have to agree that a lot of things in this world are ill defined and just plain wrong. Even though they are in common usage. For instance, NASA keeps saying that their astronauts "walk" in space. Now if their tethers broke, would the astronauts walk away, or float away?


Ratch

 

studiot,

Quote:
Taking your definition to the extreme, the word "perfection" should be removed from the language because nothing is perfect.

The problem with taking the pedant's mantle is the danger that one might be hoist with one's own pedantry

If I examine the above statement critically I find for instance that there is a logical error here.
There is a noun (nothing) which is claimed to have the property 'perfect'.
If there is a noun with this property why then should perfection be struck from the language?
Did you really mean the pedantically correct statement?
"there is no thing (noun) that possesses the property of perfection"

Even then the logical jump to striking the property perfection from the language is inappropriate.

My dictionary shows 19 definitons of "nothing". I was using it in the common sense that no things are truly withough fault. I did not say the "the word nothing" itself is not perfect. That would be meaningless, yet you chose to intrepret it that way. I maintain that perfection is achieved when no fault can be detected, even when one suspects that there is one. Common usage sometimes call something perfect when it is "good enough". You realize that, don't you?

That something does not exist if it can't be measured or even detected.

This approach stifles progress.

For example radio waves were predicted by Maxwell and Hertz 50 years before they were measured by Marconi.

The positron was predicted by Dirac, 70 years before it was finally detected at CERN.

Higgs predicted, and received a Nobel prize for, his famous boson. It hasn't yet been detected should we stop looking at CERN?

Not true. Those examples have nothing to do with perfection. They were discoveries, not measurements. I never said that searching and developing new and better ways of detecting and measuring things should stop. I said that the values should be considered perfect if no fault can be found in them. It is a matter of definition, not method.

A word cannot by itself be ambiguous.
Many words in our language possess more than one meaning. Some have totally unconnected multiple meanings, some have shades of the same concept. Some have a formal meaning, given in a technical sense, alongside a looser common or garden meaning.

No, not the word itself, but the meaning of a word can be ambiguous, especially if it is used for too many things. The words that have unconnected multiple meaning are better than words with shades of meaning. It is easier to determine the context.

Ratch

 

It was about determining whether a ball was solid or hollow by rolling it down a incline to determine which ball had the higher moment of inertia.

This was after your problem statement.

As I already admitted in the thread, I should have specified that the submission was a brain teaser and not a practical application.

This was my point. You were being ridiculous by posing a problem that you perpetually changed upon a reasonable solution. I believe you are the type of person to want to appear more intelligent by introducing new problems/solutions that nobody has thought of ,but cannot, so you invent schemes to do so.

Steve

 

scubasteve_911,

You submitted snippets from the thread to which you referred. What does this mean? How does it explain what you want to say? What is the context?

quod erat demonstrandum

I know you love latin

Not if it is not capitalized.

Ratch

 

scubasteve_911,

This was after your problem statement.

I would hope so. I would not want to give the answer or the simplest solution immediately after the problem statement, would I?

This was my point. You were being ridiculous by posing a problem that you perpetually changed upon a reasonable solution. I believe you are the type of person to want to appear more intelligent by introducing new problems/solutions that nobody has thought of ,but cannot, so you invent schemes to do so.

Thoughtless maybe for not specifiying it better. But not ridiculous for asking for a better and simpler solution. And certainly not nonsensical.

Ratch

 

You're wasting my time.

This was after your problem statement.

I would hope so. I would not want to give the answer or the simplest solution immediately after the problem statement, would I?

So, you don't think when you ask a question you should provide details?

Life is too precious to be wasted squabbling with you and I am sure others will concede.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

 

I'll say one thing about the article. For the first time in the years I've studied physics and electronics, I now realize that the term "Static Electricity" is an oxymoron. When i think of static electricity i think of lightning, zapping my finger on the doorknob and rubbing a balloon on my head to make it stick to the wall. There's nothing "static" about those things at all. That's dynamic motion of charges, clearly.

But, we shouldn't get too hung up on the evolution of terminology, as long as we know what we are talking about. LoL

 

scubasteve_911,

So, you don't think when you ask a question you should provide details?

Life is too precious to be wasted squabbling with you and I am sure others will concede.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Certainly, I already conceded that my definition of the problem was lacking. I was still hoping someone would provide a universal solution that would work for any material and any reasonable size. What more can I say?

Ratch

 

steveb,

I'll say one thing about the article. For the first time in the years I've studied physics and electronics, I now realize that the term "Static Electricity" is an oxymoron. When i think of static electricity i think of lightning, zapping my finger on the doorknob and rubbing a balloon on my head to make it stick to the wall. There's nothing "static" about those things at all. That's dynamic motion of charges, clearly.

But, we shouldn't get too hung up on the evolution of terminology, as long as we know what we are talking about. LoL

When lightning strikes, or your finger discharges on a doorknow, it is not static electricity anymore. Anytime charges move, they produce a magnetic field. Now an energized capacitor is an example of static electricity. All its energy is tied up in a electrostatic field until it leaks away or is de-energized. So static electricity is not an oxymoron, it is something that is explained by electrostatic energy fields.

Ratch

 

Please read carefully: I deny the significance of everything he has to say about electricity. As I stated before, a more elaborated terminology provides nothing of value. Beaty's writings are not compelling enough to warrant a close reading. That is because nothing he "clarifies" or redefines makes any difference in the sense of allowing the state of the art to go on to another level. It lacks significance.

Something my father used to ask comes to mind - is the world out of step with you or are you out of step with it? What are the odds that Beaty is correct and all the rest of the electronics world is in error?