Ratch,

You misunderstand me, perhaps due to my insufficient explanation of what I thought was obvious. My point is that static electricity that we see in everyday life involves the dynamic change of charge distributions. In physics we differentiate statics and dynamics as terms which apply to processes that do, or do not have time dependence. A build-up (if I can use that term without getting shot) of charges in clouds, or on a balloon, or on my body as I walk on a carpet, is time dependent (or dynamic).

So, "static electricity" can be termed an oxymoron in the sense that our common everyday experience with it involves complex dynamic (time-dependent) processes, and not static (time independent) ones.

Steve

 

To strengthen my claim that "static electricity" is an oxymoron. I quote the following definition I found in a dictionary. These descriptions of static electricity use words like "accumulation" and "discharge" which clearly imply dynamic effects, not static ones.

static electricity

NOUN:

An accumulation of electric charge on an insulated body.
Electric discharge resulting from the accumulation of electric charge on an insulated body.

 

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?

Remember we are being pedantic here.
All those definitions are nouns.

You made the statement: "nothing (noun) is (verb) perfect (adjective)" not I .


Taking pedantry to the ultimate I maintain that it does not matter which definition you take for your noun, the very fact that you have assigned the adjective perfect to it requires the adjective to be in your version of the English language.

It does not even matter whether I know which definition you have chosen or understand it.


With regard to my examples

Of course they are wrong examples for the situation you now quote.

I did not compare them to this situation however. Furthermore since I introduced them I get to choose which circumstance I want to apply them to.

I was referring to your discussion with Thingmaker where you seem to state or imply that something which cannot be observed or measured does not exist.
This view most definitely stifles progress, as much progress has come from men inferring or speculating the existance of something, which is later observed or measured, but which proved impossible to observe or measure at the time of the speculation.

Talking of time, definitions change over time. I agree that there are multiple definitions in current usage for the word 'electricity'. We have also abandoned some older ones no longer considered true.

So what?

 

beenthere,

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.

No one says he is going to cause a revolution in electronics. And us old timers are not going to be awed and astonished by what he says. However, the newbies should get off on the right foot so to speak in terms of concepts and terminology. It is sometimes hard to realize the confusion of those new to the field go through before they understand some of the basics we take for granted.

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?

I don't know, which of the many points he makes did you have in mind?

Ratch

 

steveb,

So, "static electricity" can be termed an oxymoron in the sense that our common everyday experience with it involves complex dynamic (time-dependent) processes, and not static (time independent) ones.

static electricity

NOUN:

An accumulation of electric charge on an insulated body.
Electric discharge resulting from the accumulation of electric charge on an insulated body.

Yes, accumulating and releasing charges is a dynamic process that can result in a stable state of energy such as is found in a capacitor. I would not call the time of transition "static" until it stops changing.

Ratch

 

studiot,

Remember we are being pedantic here.
All those definitions are nouns.

No they are not. Most are nouns, one is a verb, one is an adjective.

Taking pedantry to the ultimate I maintain that it does not matter which definition you take for your noun, the very fact that you have assigned the adjective perfect to it requires the adjective to be in your version of the English language.

Of course it matters. How can you say otherwise. Meanings are the very essence of any discussion and of extreme importance.

It does not even matter whether I know which definition you have chosen or understand it.

Sure it does, we cannot have any meaningful discussion unless you and I understand what we are saying to each other.

With regard to my examples

Of course they are wrong examples for the situation you now quote.

Then why are we bothering to discuss them?

I did not compare them to this situation however. Furthermore since I introduced them I get to choose which circumstance I want to apply them to.

Then let's get on with it.

I was referring to your discussion with Thingmaker where you seem to state or imply that something which cannot be observed or measured does not exist.
This view most definitely stifles progress, as much progress has come from men inferring or speculating the existance of something, which is later observed or measured, but which proved impossible to observe or measure at the time of the speculation.

I was saying that if an error cannot be observed, or its effect not noted, then no error exists. How does that stifle progress? If it is found through better technology or discovery that an error does exist, then that fact can be noted. Nowhere does that outlook close off speculation or inference. It is simply a realization that at this time, perfection in observational accuracy exists of the object, at least until better measurements are possible.

Talking of time, definitions change over time. I agree that there are multiple definitions in current usage for the word 'electricity'. We have also abandoned some older ones no longer considered true.
So what?

So why is Beaty being taken to task for espousing that fact?

Ratch

 

Ratch,

I'm having trouble following your train of thought. First, you said that I was wrong that the term "static electricity" is an oxymoron. I showed you the common definition of "static electricity" which says that it is the accumulation of charge, or the discharge of an accumulated charge. Hence the definition implies dynamic effects, which is why I call it an oxymoron.

Now you say, "Yes, accumulating and releasing charges is a dynamic process that can result in a stable state of energy such as is found in a capacitor. I would not call the time of transition "static" until it stops changing."

Ok, i would not call those dynamic effects "static" either, and that is precisely my point. The term "static electricity", which is defined to be dynamic in nature, is an oxymoron. So, i guess you agree with me? I'm not sure by your responses, and don't really care. I do care that your statements imply that I don't know what I'm talking about, when I do, and was just making an interesting observation that the term "static electricity" is not the most accurate terminology.

I don't really know you, but my first impression is that you are someone who likes to twist words to make yourself look good, and make others look bad. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

Steve

 

No they are not. Most are nouns, one is a verb, one is an adjective.

I would be most interested to hear your dictionary definition of the verb 'to nothing' , along with the adjective nothing.

I would be even more interested in you constructing a sentence in the English language, using either the verb or the noun as the subject of the verb to be.

Since your memory is obviously not what it once was I will remind you that you chose the following clause

"nothing is perfect" this can only be a nothing used as a noun.

I can recognise 'is' as the 3rd person present of the verb 'to be'
so contrary to what you say you could substitute any noun in the English language and a good many adjectives for me to perform the same analysis.

If you link an adjective to a noun through the verb 'to be', you cannot, as you have tried to do, maintain that the adjective should be struck from the language as redundant or whatever.

This is a simple question of the rules of the English language.

 

Again to help your memory, your very words

I claimed that no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter,

You cannot now claim this only means that if an error cannot be detected it does not exist.

You clearly and unambiguously stated that if an particular physical phenomenon (current) cannot be detected it does not exist.

So my criticism stands.

 

Sorry, just a total rejection of every word Beaty has strung together. That encompasses everything you have linked to. I am not about to explore any of his other output, as the stuff I have seen is obnoxious.

 

steveb,

I'm having trouble following your train of thought. First, you said that I was wrong that the term "static electricity" is an oxymoron. I showed you the common definition of "static electricity" which says that it is the accumulation of charge, or the discharge of an accumulated charge. Hence the definition implies dynamic effects, which is why I call it an oxymoron.

I believe that static electricity is charge that does not move and has no magnetic component. I don't think it is an oxymoron. I don't know where you got your definition, but as far as I am understand it, if it moves it is not static anymore. So static electricity can be a charge accumulation, but never a discharge which is dynamic.

Now you say, "Yes, accumulating and releasing charges is a dynamic process that can result in a stable state of energy such as is found in a capacitor. I would not call the time of transition "static" until it stops changing."

Yes, that is what I said above.

Ok, i would not call those dynamic effects "static" either, and that is precisely my point. The term "static electricity", which is defined to be dynamic in nature, is an oxymoron.

Well, whoever is defining it is in error. If there are dyamic effects, then it is not static anymore, is it? So if we agree that the definition is in error, then "static electricity" is not a oxymoron.

I do care that your statements imply that I don't know what I'm talking about, when I do, and was just making an interesting observation that the term "static electricity" is not the most accurate terminology.

It is accurate if you exclude moving charges.

I don't really know you, but my first impression is that you are someone who likes to twist words to make yourself look good, and make others look bad. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

Did I not write exactly what my understanding of static electricity was, and is it not reasonable?

Ratch

 

studiot,

I would be most interested to hear your dictionary definition of the verb 'to nothing' , along with the adjective nothing.

From the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:

17. think nothing of,
a. to treat casually.
b. to regard as insignificant: He thinks nothing of lying to conceal his incompetence.
–adv.

18. in no respect or degree; not at all: It was nothing like that. Nothing dismayed, he repeated his question.
–adj.

Since your memory is obviously not what it once was I will remind you that you chose the following clause

"nothing is perfect" this can only be a nothing used as a noun.

I remember it quite well, thank you.

I think we need to review the quotation from the whole paragraph. This was from my exchange with thingmaker3, post #25 of this thread.

thingmaker3: 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.

Ratch: 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.

OK, I first apologized for inadvertently misquoting him. Then I corrected my statement of what I thought he said, which was that he did not believe in perfection. Then comes the sentence you quoted where I attribute the phrase "nothing is perfect" to thingmaker3. You know that is so because my next sentence is "I say perfect exists when it cannot be determined ....etc" So it is not I that inferred 'nothing is perfect'. I said "nothing is perfect" to describe thingmaker3's views which are not my own. So you are wrong to say that I made that statement because I believed it.

You clearly and unambiguously stated that if an particular physical phenomenon (current) cannot be detected it does not exist.

So my criticism stands.

No it does not, for the reason given above.

Ratch

 

beenthere,

Sorry, just a total rejection of every word Beaty has strung together. That encompasses everything you have linked to. I am not about to explore any of his other output, as the stuff I have seen is obnoxious.

And I can respect that. As I said before, his writing style leaves a lot to be desired.

Ratch

 

Ratch,

Of course your definition of static electricity is reasonable. What is unreasonable is your ignoring that language does not always evolve in a reasonable way, and that the term "static electricity", in common usage, does not match what we engineers and scientist might choose.

The definition of "static electricity" I quoted came from the American Heritage Dictionary which confirms my original opinion that this is the common usage of the layman. Word meaning is determined by past usage, not by logic applied in hindsight.

However, you agree with half of this definition anyway, so there is no point to argue here. You say that accumulation of charge is static electricity, but not discharge. Fine, this was my original consideration. The accumulation of charge is still a dynamic process since the charge distribution is time dependent. For example, I rub a balloon on my head (motion, dynamic forces, work done, power applied etc), and then, in the process, a charge difference accumulates as charges dynamically move from one object to another. The charges move and hence are not static, which is a very simple point. Dynamics refers to time dependent motion, even if electromagnetic interactions are negligible. Really this has no important significance. It was just an observation about a term I never thought about until I read that article.

Anyway, it doesn't bother me if you don't agree with me. I just felt you worded your objection in a way that made it sound like I had no understanding of the issues. It was just a subtle feeling about the type of person you are. As I said before, hopefully my first impressions are wrong. There are many instances when I don't want to be right.

Steve

 

You're wasting my time.

He does that...

 

Sorry, I should have said you do not believe that perfection exists. I forgot to put in the "not".

A simple typographical error, then. I should have seen this. I apologize for being so quick to take offense. I must strive to learn more patience.

OK, I first apologized for inadvertently misquoting him. Then I corrected my statement of what I thought he said, which was that he did not believe in perfection. Then comes the sentence you quoted where I attribute the phrase "nothing is perfect" to thingmaker3. You know that is so because my next sentence is "I say perfect exists when it cannot be determined ....etc" So it is not I that inferred 'nothing is perfect'. I said "nothing is perfect" to describe thingmaker3's views which are not my own. So you are wrong to say that I made that statement because I believed it.

My, but the thread has become confusing. Thank you for attempting to clarify. I was worried for a moment that you had forgotten which of the two of us was me.

Try it in slow motion.

Lay it on me.

Sock it to me.

I admire your enthusiasm. In slow motion then...

I took up the childishly simple task laid before Steve:

scubasteve_911,

This isn't the first or last time the OP has posted non-sense.

Steve

Could you post an example and defend it against my challenges?

Ratch

Perhaps it was forward of me to accept a challenge lain for another man. If either yourself or Steve are offended, I offer my sincere apology. The deed is done, though. I answered the task by pointing out one of your previous logical fallacies.

Here's where things got confusing... you don't seem to understand the concept of logical fallacy, Ratch! I thought at first you were simply playing "devil's advocate" for amusement. I later began to suspect you really don't understand fallacies, logic, philosophy, and/or the art of debate. It was this comment which clued me in:

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam=Argument from ignorance. Makes no sense to me in this discussion. I think I have a reasonable and defendable way at looking at something.

So I originated what became the following:

Of We Who Do Not Exist, (or at least Cannot Be Proven to Exist)

First, let's deal with the example I set - the one where you completely missed the point:

I could easily use your own "reasoning" to "prove" that you yourself do not exist. (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])

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.

These posts of course. You mean to tell me that you monitor posts that possibly do not exist?

What I mean to tell you, Ratch, is twofold. First, per inferential argument, NOTHING can be proven to exist. Even Descartes' axiom of the conscious self has been challenged. Second: my claim that you do not exist (for no better reason than than I am unable to prove you exist) is intended as an example of Argumentum ad ignorantium. I was illustrating by example the fallacy you yourself have committed. You have claimed a thing (an infinitesimal current in this instance) does not exist if it cannot be proven to exist. You have commited the error of Argumentum ad ignorantium. You will deny this, of course. Again. You will cite your erroneous "definition." Again. Your denial will be nonsense, for all to see, and will prove Steve was right about you.

I was finally convinced of your naivete regarding logic when you said:

I don't need to look up "logical fallacy". It is self-defining.

as well as your Galileo comment from the same post, (you don't understand Hypothosis contrary to fact)and your failure to identify Argumentum ad populum when I tried to throw you a "freebie." These comments demonstrate you clearly DO need to look up "logical fallacy." You clearly DO need to learn about fallacies and the art of debate. Trust me, Sir, you will enjoy learning these things! A man of your demonstrated intellect will find great satisfaction in such study. (And trust me, Sir, you do NOT already know them!)

Of Perfectoin and the Art of Using an Ohm-Meter

I was saying that if an error cannot be observed, or its effect not noted, then no error exists.

FOUL!!! What you were saying was "no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter." (cf. post #25 of this thread and several times in the ill-fated thread of this Past spring.) The clearly observable error is, yet again, your own. You attempt to obfuscate your error with yet more nonsense, adding more evidence to Steve's claim.

You clearly and unambiguously stated that if an particular physical phenomenon (current) cannot be detected it does not exist.

So my criticism stands.

No it does not, for the reason given above.

Yes it does. Studiot's criticism is valid. The "reason stated above" was merely a clarification of whether or not you agree with me about the existance and/or definition of "perfect insulators." You did indeed state clearly and unambiguiosly (and erroniously) "no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter." It is a preposterous statement you have made! It is "nonsense" by any definition other than your own (which is clearly out of sync with the rest of us here.) And it once again proves Steve's assertion of your predilection for nonsense.

And The Heart Of The Matter

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?

It means you were nonsensical, bordering on rudeness, in your behavior. To your credit, you recognised your social error and took at least some kind of corrective action..

Meanings are the very essence of any discussion and of extreme importance.

And this, Sir, is why we take you to task for attempting to change meaning. This, Sir, is why Steve so rightly takes you to task for your nonsense. Your nonsense regarding definitions of the words "nothing" and "perfect" is only a dodge. A poor dodge at that.

However, the newbies should get off on the right foot so to speak in terms of concepts and terminology. It is sometimes hard to realize the confusion of those new to the field go through before they understand some of the basics we take for granted.

I concur whole heartedly. You are right about this detail. Your words in this regard are true. It is for this very reason I condemn Beaty's platitudes, and those of his disciples. It is for this very reason you, Ratch, find so many of your own posts moved here to the "off topic" area. This is more proof that Steve is right. I predict the beginning post of this very thread will not be the last example of such nonsense. You will dismiss my judgment, of course. You will claim you have done no wrong and that the neophytes will benefit from your point of view. This dismissal and the resulting claim will be nonsense, of course. You will again prove Steve right.

-

My, my, just look at the time. This "slow motion" takes a while, yes? I hope you learn from it, Ratch. I can't afford the discretionary time to do it again. I have other projects, you know.

-

Thingmaker,

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

Feel free to argue with me anytime, Steve. Unlike some members of this forum (who will no doubt request clarification of whether I refer specifically to them) I am happy to acknowledge my errors. By doing so, as you well know, I get to learn from them. And errors are so vastly superior in their instruction to obscure textbooks or arrogant websites.

 

Feel free to argue with me anytime, Steve.

This would be like showing up at a gun fight with a knife, just not a good idea

Thanks for taking the time to do what I couldn't/wouldn't.

Steve

 

thingmaker3,

First of all, thank you for the excellent summary of this thread.

What I mean to tell you, Ratch, is twofold. First, per inferential argument, NOTHING can be proven to exist. Even Descartes' axiom of the conscious self has been challenged. Second: my claim that you do not exist (for no better reason than than I am unable to prove you exist) is intended as an example of Argumentum ad ignorantium. I was illustrating by example the fallacy you yourself have committed. You have claimed a thing (an infinitesimal current in this instance) does not exist if it cannot be proven to exist. You have commited the error of Argumentum ad ignorantium. You will deny this, of course. Again. You will cite your erroneous "definition." Again. Your denial will be nonsense, for all to see, and will prove Steve was right about you.

Your first claim that "nothing" can be proven to exist I have run into before in other situations. I believe that it is something that keeps philosophy professors employed, and has no practical existence in the world that most people live. It belongs in the twilight zone, outer limits, alternate universe, nether world, or subconcious. Very few practical people think that way. They don't say to themselves "Is that really a car speeding down the street that I want to cross? I can't really prove it."

You say that I "...claimed a thing (an infinitesimal current in this instance) does not exist if it cannot be proven to exist". Well that is an inference on your part. I did not say that. What I really said was "..if I can show you something so good that you cannot detect any imperfections, then I have showed you a perfect something." I can understand how you would infer existance from perfection. I should have made more clear by saying "undetectable currents should not be CONSIDERED to exist". That is the practical view most folks take. So I did not post nonsense, and Scubasteve 911 was wrong about me. As was his assertion that my presentation of the Two Balls problem was nonsense.

I was finally convinced of your naivete regarding logic when you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratch
I don't need to look up "logical fallacy". It is self-defining.

as well as your Galileo comment from the same post, (you don't understand Hypothosis contrary to fact)and your failure to identify Argumentum ad populum when I tried to throw you a "freebie." These comments demonstrate you clearly DO need to look up "logical fallacy." You clearly DO need to learn about fallacies and the art of debate. Trust me, Sir, you will enjoy learning these things! A man of your demonstrated intellect will find great satisfaction in such study. (And trust me, Sir, you do NOT already know them

Yes, you were convinced, not I. I don't think I would enjoy philosophy studies too well. Trust me on this. I don't think they are too practical, either.

Of Perfectoin and the Art of Using an Ohm-Meter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratch
I was saying that if an error cannot be observed, or its effect not noted, then no error exists.

FOUL!!! What you were saying was "no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter." (cf. post #25 of this thread and several times in the ill-fated thread of this Past spring.) The clearly observable error is, yet again, your own. You attempt to obfuscate your error with yet more nonsense, adding more evidence to Steve's claim.

Well, I would not use a ohmmeter to detect current anyway. Again, I should have said "considered to exist". I know you are going to howl about this change, but that is really what I meant. Please argue with me on that basis. I will stay with my claim of "error" because my principle encompasses more than just current.

Yes it does. Studiot's criticism is valid. The "reason stated above" was merely a clarification of whether or not you agree with me about the existance and/or definition of "perfect insulators." You did indeed state clearly and unambiguiosly (and erroniously) "no current exists when you cannot detect it with a meter." It is a preposterous statement you have made! It is "nonsense" by any definition other than your own (which is clearly out of sync with the rest of us here.) And it once again proves Steve's assertion of your predilection for nonsense.

No it does not. Studiot mistakenly assumed my description of your position was my own position. And as I said before, I should have said "considered to exist". It is not a perposterous statement and it does not prove Steve's assertion.

And The Heart Of The Matter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratch
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?

It means you were nonsensical, bordering on rudeness, in your behavior. To your credit, you recognised your social error and took at least some kind of corrective action..

I still have no idea what you are talking about or what you mean.

I concur whole heartedly. You are right about this detail. Your words in this regard are true. It is for this very reason I condemn Beaty's platitudes, and those of his disciples. It is for this very reason you, Ratch, find so many of your own posts moved here to the "off topic" area. This is more proof that Steve is right. I predict the beginning post of this very thread will not be the last example of such nonsense. You will dismiss my judgment, of course. You will claim you have done no wrong and that the neophytes will benefit from your point of view. This dismissal and the resulting claim will be nonsense, of course. You will again prove Steve right.

Moving posts to the off-topic area certainly does not prove Steve right. You are correct in that I will dismiss your judgement, and also claim that I have done nothing wrong. And that is also no proof of Steve's judgement.

My, my, just look at the time. This "slow motion" takes a while, yes? I hope you learn from it, Ratch. I can't afford the discretionary time to do it again. I have other projects, you know.

Actually, I learned very little except to choose and add my defining words more carefully. I am sorry you do not have more time.

Ratch

 

Your first claim that "nothing" can be proven to exist I have run into before in other situations. I believe that...

Irrelevant. You've either missed the point, or more likely are ignoring the point. I'll take the liberty of pushing it under your nose again: When you claim an argument to be true or false for no better reason than the converse has not been proven, you are spouting nonsense.

You say that I "...claimed a thing (an infinitesimal current in this instance) does not exist if it cannot be proven to exist". Well that is an inference on your part. I did not say that.

Prove you didn't say it. If you don't prove you didn't say it, then we should assume you did say it. (No less erroneous than assuming current does not exist when our meter is not as sensitive as we'd like...)

What I really said was "..if I can show you something so good that you cannot detect any imperfections, then I have showed you a perfect something."

What you really said was "I have showed you a perfect something." What you really said was really in error. Still is. Will still be when you reply with more of your nonsense in your next post.

I can understand how you would infer existance from perfection.

I can't tell if you've made another typo or if you are returning to your semantics dodge. Please clarify. (And spell "existence" correctly this time, if you please.)

I should have made more clear by saying "undetectable currents should not be CONSIDERED to exist".

I cannot detect the current in the satellite NASA launched a few years back. Does it exist? My meter does not have enough resolution to measure the difference between five and six nA. Is that difference non-existent? I have an old cheap meter which will only read 2MΩ full scale. Are my 3MΩ resistors non-existent?

That is the practical view most folks take.

Prove it!!!! Show me the survey!! I want to see your numbers and read the survey question!

That is the practical view most folks take. So I did not post nonsense, and Scubasteve 911 was wrong about me. As was his assertion that my presentation of the Two Balls problem was nonsense.

Your failure to admit your failure merely compounds your failure. It also counts as more nonsense.

I don't think I would enjoy philosophy studies too well. Trust me on this.

I enjoyed them quite a bit. You seem to have flunked yours, if indeed you sat through any at all. I am curious, though: If you despise philosophy, why did you attempt to use it in defense of your argument back in May? (And no, you'll have to dig it up yourself. If you can't find it then you obviously don't want to find it.)

Again, I should have said "considered to exist". I know you are going to howl about this change, but that is really what I meant. Please argue with me on that basis.

Howl? No. Just a sly wink to the gallery.

Negligible current may be disregarded for purposes of circuit analysis, troubleshooting, and design. (Yes. I just agreed with you. Take a few seconds to adjust if you need them. Rest assured we'll be locking horns again after the parenthesis.) Your nonsense back in May had nothing whatsoever to do with circuit analysis, troubleshooting, or design. You were talking about whether or not E was equal to I divided by R. (Again, do your own digging. PROVE you didn't say it.)

Studiot mistakenly assumed my description of your position was my own position.

Studiot correctly criticized your claim re: detectability/existence. You have since (and to your credit) modified your claim. It is still a bad claim in the context of last May's discussion of course. (No. Look it up yourself.)

I still have no idea what you are talking about or what you mean.

Then you have my pity.

Moving posts to the off-topic area certainly does not prove Steve right.

I agree. (Okay, take a breath again. Wait for the parenthesis...) The movement of the posts and the veracity of Steve's perspective both have another cause. I won't bother telling you what that cause is. You wouldn't listen, and I'm tired of typing the same phrases over again.

You are correct in that I will dismiss your judgement,

DING - another point for me...

and also claim that I have done nothing wrong.

DING - another point for me...

And that is also no proof of Steve's judgement.

DING - a third point. You also misspelled "judgment" twice.

Actually, I learned very little except to choose and add my defining words more carefully.

Again, I can do naught but offer my pity.

I am sorry you do not have more time.

Me too. Alas, I cannot match every "Nuh-Uh" with the requisite "Nyu-Huh" as I could when a wee lad. I envy you your capacity to keep up such vernal endeavor.

 

thingmaker3,

Irrelevant. You've either missed the point, or more likely are ignoring the point. I'll take the liberty of pushing it under your nose again: When you claim an argument to be true or false for no better reason than the converse has not been proven, you are spouting nonsense.

I am defining a condition or situation. You don't agree with the definition. Fine, but tell me how this is a formal "argument" and what the converse is.

Prove you didn't say it. If you don't prove you didn't say it, then we should assume you did say it. (No less erroneous than assuming current does not exist when our meter is not as sensitive as we'd like...)

It is easily proven that within this thread, I did not say that. Remember the word "consider" which I used last time? That leaves the possibility that better measurements might disclose different results.

What you really said was "I have showed you a perfect something." What you really said was really in error. Still is. Will still be when you reply with more of your nonsense in your next post.

No, I don't believe it to be in error. You can say it all you want, but that does not make it so.

I can't tell if you've made another typo or if you are returning to your semantics dodge. Please clarify. (And spell "existence" correctly this time, if you please.)

In your last post you talked about existence. I was talking about perfection. I think you were trying to tie in existence of error with existence of perfection. That is what I meant.

I cannot detect the current in the satellite NASA launched a few years back. Does it exist? My meter does not have enough resolution to measure the difference between five and six nA. Is that difference non-existent? I have an old cheap meter which will only read 2MΩ full scale. Are my 3MΩ resistors non-existent?

Wrong question. Is it considered to be perfectly within specifications is the correct question.

Prove it!!!! Show me the survey!! I want to see your numbers and read the survey question!

Fund it and I will.

Your failure to admit your failure merely compounds your failure. It also counts as more nonsense.

No failure on my part. No nonsense either.

I enjoyed them quite a bit. You seem to have flunked yours, if indeed you sat through any at all. I am curious, though: If you despise philosophy, why did you attempt to use it in defense of your argument back in May? (And no, you'll have to dig it up yourself. If you can't find it then you obviously don't want to find it.)

Can't flunk sometime you don't take in the first place. It is like the household garbage. You don't like to deal with it, but you have to get dirty sometimes.

Howl? No. Just a sly wink to the gallery.

Negligible current may be disregarded for purposes of circuit analysis, troubleshooting, and design. (Yes. I just agreed with you. Take a few seconds to adjust if you need them. Rest assured we'll be locking horns again after the parenthesis.) Your nonsense back in May had nothing whatsoever to do with circuit analysis, troubleshooting, or design.

What nonsense was that?

You were talking about whether or not E was equal to I divided by R. (Again, do your own digging. PROVE you didn't say it.)

Hm, I think not. It is you who make the claim, so it should be you who should at least provide the references. I divided by R? You sure I said that, and it was me?

Studiot correctly criticized your claim re: detectability/existence. You have since (and to your credit) modified your claim. It is still a bad claim in the context of last May's discussion of course. (No. Look it up yourself.)

No, you made the proclamation, so you should at least provide the references.

Then you have my pity.

I can't buy anything with it.

I agree. (Okay, take a breath again. Wait for the parenthesis...) The movement of the posts and the veracity of Steve's perspective both have another cause. I won't bother telling you what that cause is. You wouldn't listen, and I'm tired of typing the same phrases over again.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

DING - another point for me...

Not really.

DING - another point for me...

You probably think so.

DING - a third point. You also misspelled "judgment" twice.

Now you are being picky. There is a lot of misspelling in these threads. What does it mean other than I get careless sometimes as does everyone, and that this forum does not have a spell checker?

Again, I can do naught but offer my pity.

Alms would be more useful, even if not needed.

Me too. Alas, I cannot match every "Nuh-Uh" with the requisite "Nyu-Huh" as I could when a wee lad. I envy you your capacity to keep up such vernal endeavor.

I got lots of time on my hands since I retired.

Ratch