« first day (1939 days earlier)      last day (2983 days later) » 

5:00 PM
this would be how one can reconcile the ball giving a curved path in the corotating frame , but a straight line in the rotating frame
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ Heh
 
@Secret How does the "distance form a curve"?
What is "curved path information" and why does it need to be "retrieved"?
 
Distance from curve is the inf of distances to each point on the curve.
 
e.g. consider separation between red and black ball:

Note how it starts out far away, then became the shortest midway through the rotation, ad then became large again
 
@ArtOfCode he never talks when you guys are around ;-)
 
5:03 PM
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ nah, I'm engaging
 
this is where the curved information from the corotating frame is hidden in the rotating frame
 
@0celo7 Does she know already?
@Secret You haven't answered the question what "curved information" is.
Giving an example does not absolve you from the necessity to define what you are talking about
 
@0celo7 go ahead it's your time and energy
Good luck with the SO thing.
 
I am trying to say how we knew in the rotating frame, the ball travels in a straight line (top panal) but in the corotating frame (thus the disk is non rotating in this frame) the ball travel in a curved path

What I am trying to say up there is how can an observer see something curving in the rotating frame (and how it can see something straight in the corotating frame, thus reconciling and rationalising why it looks curved in one frame, but not in the other frame
 
@user36790 : er, no. He died before I was born.
 
user116211
5:07 PM
O.O
 
and thus the curived path can be described as due to a geometric effect, which manifest as a fictious force
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ : who, me? I don't care who's around.
 
user116211
@JohnDuffield: Your doppleganger
 
user116211
John Duffield (born June 1939) is the founder of Jupiter Fund Management, one of the largest fund managers operating in London. == Career == Born the son of a Doctor and educated at Harrow School, Duffield went into investment management and, having become manager of his wife's estates, moved to Switzerland as a tax exile. He founded Jupiter Asset Management in 1985. After selling Jupiter Asset Management to Commerzbank, he founded New Star Asset Management in 2001. == Family == He was married to Vivien Clore but was divorced from her in 1976; they had one son and one daughter. He now has a long...
 
@Secret You "reconcile" and "rationalise" that by just observing that doing the coordinate transformation into the moving frame changes the form of Newton's law such that the fictitious force appears. I'm not sure why you think saying anything more is necessary.
 
5:09 PM
@user36790 The only way to not see those questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over again is to get a consensus to close and delete them without mercy.
If the posters get what they want--even just a a taste of it in the comments--they will keep coming back.
 
@JohnDuffield then why do you keep calling them around?
 
This site either has to accept them or decide that it doesn't want to be that site.
 
@Secret : those frames don't actually exist. The ball moves towards the edge of the disc, and the disc is rotating. That's it. Its path might look straight if you're spinning with the disk, but it isn't. It's curved.
 
And if it goes with not being that site, it has to be ready for the complaints and the endless whinging.
 
user116211
@dmckee I do implement my privilege every day.
 
5:11 PM
Sure. But a few dozen high rep user using their close powers are not enough. You need a consensus.
 
@dmckee If only "the site" were an entity that could actually make such a decision :P
 
@ACuriousMind In that case, I kinda visualise the coordinate transformation as a side effect of my understanding, but it does helps giving an intuition on how it looks curve in one frame but straight in another. I do recall some people did ask that question when they do first year rotationa mechanics
 
It might be too late for that consensus, however.
 
user116211
@dmckee Agreed
 
Eternal September never ends
 
5:12 PM
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ : I haven't called anybody around. User36970 flagged something, and ArtofCode popped in.
 
user116211
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ What?
 
and thus the reconcilation is that when plotting the snapshots of the rotating disk against time, you would end up with a curve in both graphs
 
@JohnDuffield so you have NEVER called a mod in here?
 
@ACuriousMind does she know what?
 
Wait, you can call the mods?
 
5:15 PM
@dmckee You already wrote "In the mean time, I'm a little confused that I seem to be accused simultaneously of over-moderating and of letting all the crap in. " back then. Consensus is impossible on this issue.
@0celo7 It's a pun on the meaning of "engage" :P
 
@BernardMeurer Mod flag. Same effect.
 
@BernardMeurer sure, by flag
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ : I've flagged some comments some time. Not that many. No big deal.
 
@ACuriousMind what
 
Oh boy @0celo7 you be doomed dawg
 
5:17 PM
@0celo7 It is implied that I took "I am engaging" to mean that you are getting engaged.
 
Oh, I forgot I said that.
 
Anybody want to talk about physics? Maybe somebody wants to talk about time?
 
Not a big deal for YOU @JohnDuffield but you are not in here as much as those who you flag
 
@ACuriousMind Well, on the whole I have simple resigned myself to this being a site that supports pop-sci questions. The thing I want to know now is "Is the user base going to support them, or is it going to cater to them?"
 
No, she doesn't know.
 
5:18 PM
I've no interest in the latter case.
 
And I don't have the money for that either.
 
@BernardMeurer what
 
So (at least for newtonian time) the straight line counterpart in the corotating frame is hidden in the t direction, and the curved counterpart in the rotating frame is hidden in both the spatial and time directions
thus makes it a nice analogy to changing inertial frames
@Acuriousmind for the rotational case. Hence reconcile them both into one single picture
 
@JohnDuffield thanks for posting your answer BTW.
 
5:20 PM
@dmckee It's catering to them. 95% of our hot network questions are questions that are some combination of elementary, boring and not about physics.
 
(Not sure if it hodls for relativitiscs conditions though
 
I note it has attracted downvotes, though none of them are mine.
 
@JohnRennie : my pleasure.
 
I would say that I'm not convinced your approach is operationally useful. That is, leaving aside the philosophy, if I want to actually calculate stuff then treating time just as a coordinate seems the way to go.
I tend to a pragmatic stance in these matters, and I am always interested to formulate ideas ina way that is easy for me to calculate with.
 
@JohnDuffield Not with you, John. And it's your own fault. Like every other philosopher, you insist that only your phrasology can every be correct. Like a politician you regularly dodge every hard question put to you and instead answer the one you wanted to be asked then declare victory. You insist that as long as a single statement in your posts are defensible people shouldn't down vote the whole thing. And so.
6
All this gives people the ammunition to judge your posts just as rigidly as you debate and the result is that anything you offer that actually has value gets lost in the well earned hail of downvotes.
3
On top of which you still can't offer any predictions of your own.
2
 
5:25 PM
All I'm saying @JohnDuffield is show a little respect to the people who spend more time in this room than you before getting all hyper sensitive and calling in the mods with your flags.
 
@JohnRennie : it's the empirical approach, and it's useful because when you understand time you understand that the speed of light really does vary, then you understand gravity as per Einstein, then you get a new appreciation of black holes and maybe even the early universe. IMHO one thing follows from another, and everything is much simpler. And it all starts with time.
 
@JohnDuffield You just gotta chill dude
 
@ACuriousMind So in the end, I am describing the same thing that we obtained from the change of coordinates. However I am not sure if this t,x,y diagram illustration on why is one path curved and another path straight would be too redundant or misleading in terms of teaching students on the intuition (we can simply just give them the equations, but we need to flesh it out to allow them to develop an intuition, as dmckee reminds us a professor understand princples, not formula)
 
I fundamentally disagree. Experience tells me that if i'm trying to explain relativity (either flavour) to someone then the invariance of the interval is the key idea that will make their lightbulb go on.
3
And the whole point of this is that time is just a contribution to the line element just like the spatial coordinates.
 
Just like Einstein did.
:-)
 
5:29 PM
^^^ Indeed, invariants. The power of symmetry is worth much more than any philosphical waffling.
 
Invariants and symmetry both, though symmetry can stretch inexperienced brains
 
Philosophical waffling? Sounds tasty
 
@JohnRennie : I take a pragmatic stance too, and that starts with saying what is this clock actually doing? That approach doesn't lead to saying time is a coordinate. A coordinate is an abstract thing that doesn't actually exist. However time does. Time exists like heat exists. A hundred years will kill you just as surely as a hundred degrees C.
 
Relativity confused me with all those weird gedanken experiments and seemingly unmotivated transformations and "paradoxes" until someone wrote down $\mathrm{d}s^2$ and explained to me what it is.
 
@JohnDuffield It's ticking, duuh
 
5:31 PM
@ACuriousMind Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecisely!!!
 
@JohnDuffield Tell that to the 112-year old ;)
 
Whoever first thought a light clock was a good way to teach relativity really needs to put up against a wall somewhere
 
After that, I had one of the strongest "Why the heck didn't anyone tell me this before?" feeling I've ever had. It's like they try to make it seem as different from classical mechanics as possible on purpose.
 
@JohnDuffield 100 years will kill you? Take this then
Jeanne Louise Calment (French pronunciation: ​[ʒan lwiz kalmɑ̃]; 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997) was a French supercentenarian who has the longest confirmed human lifespan on record, living to the age of 7009386419680000000♠122 years, 164 days. She lived in Arles, France, for her entire life, outliving both her daughter and grandson by several decades. Calment became especially well known from the age of 113, when the centenary of Vincent van Gogh's visit brought reporters to Arles. Her lifespan has been thoroughly documented by scientific study. == Early life == Calment was born in Arles on...
 
@ACuriousMind really? I still have no clue what it is
 
5:33 PM
@0celo7 The thing left invariant by the Lorentz transformations.
 
It should have been taught in high school
 
@ACuriousMind I know the basic definitions of relativity.
 
The cylinder plot I have a few posts back illustates nicely how motion is relative (in seom sense)

For example, in an inertial frame having one thing travelling in a curve path wrt another which travels in a straight path must corresponds to the same thing travelling in a straight line and the other thing travelling in a curved path in the frame where the other object is nonrotating
 
But that doesn't mean anything to me
 
@0celo7 When will you learn to ask the question you actually want to ask? :P
 
5:34 PM
Physically
 
@0celo7 The period of time experiences by on object in uniform motion between the end-points (at least when the endpoints are time-like separated).
Otherwise it is the distance between them in a frame where they are co-moving.
 
But if just looking at the frames as an animation, it might be not quite clear what is the straight line counterpart of the red dot's motion in the corotating frame
 
@JohnRennie : IMHO the invariance of the interval is absolutely not the way to explain relativity. The line element is an abstract thing. IMHO trying to explain real things that do exist in terms of abstract things that don't exist is the wrong approach. Space and motion are real. The thing that underlies the invariant interval is the light path length, and it isn't zero.
 
Emphasing the invariance of the interval works i.e. students get it. If you want them ever to have an intuiotive grasp of GR that's the way to go.
 
Have you read Relatively The general and special theory by Einstein @JohnDuffield
 
5:37 PM
It isn't going to work for joe Public, but then that isn't the target audience.
 
@ACuriousMind about the same time I stop trolling, figure out how to integrate on Lorentz manifolds, get a Nobel prize, get 10k rep
All things that will never happen
:(
 
@JohnDuffield The entire point of theoretical physics is to explain "real" things with "abstract" things. Abstraction is what makes physics not just a bunch of observations.
 
@0celo7 You gotta go for the NEGOK
 
@0celo7 speaking of rep, 200,000 isn't looking that far away these days :-)
 
NEGOK: A Nobel, an Emmy, a Grammy, and Oscar and the Kentucky Derby
 
5:38 PM
@0celo7 Ahhhhh. But seriously, 10k rep is easy. Just answer one question a day for a couple of years. It doesn't even have to be a deep question or a really great answer.
 
Abstraction is what generates new theories, gives new predictions, and has shown its usefulness time and time again in the last hundred years.
2
 
@dmckee Just answer lots and lots of questions and hope one of them gets on the hot questions list.
 
Einstein believed that invariance was the way to go @JohnDuffield
 
@dmckee I wrote 5 answers yesterday, got together 1/10th the rep that ACM got for one line
 
ACM is a poet
 
5:39 PM
Well, answering the right question is better still, but it takes luck or seer-sight.
 
And I wish I could answer that Lorentz integration question.
 
@0celo7 which question?
 
@JohnRennie On mobile, can't link.
 
@JohnRennie : I suspect it was Einstein. And I'm confident that it's the correct way to explain special relativity, because of the wave nature of matter. The Lorentz factor is just Pythagoras's theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, the height gives you the Lorentz factor, and we use a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
 
5:40 PM
@0celo7 For a I guy who claims to be an engineer in the making you sure stake out a lot of problems that look like math dissertation to me.
 
There's a subtlety about picking the normal vector when doing the divergence theorem on a Lorentzian manifold
 
thus changing rotational frames can be illsutraetd by rotating each slice of the cylinder so that it matches the configuration in the other clydiner diagram
Here by rotating the circular slice( which corresponds to the snapshots) anticlockwise, you can get the diagram that corresponds to the corotating frame
 
@JohnDuffield the thing is that ight now your surrounded by physicists all of whom have learned or are learning relativity, and we all say we find invariance of the interval easier.
There's experimental evidence for you.
 
And then projecting the clyinder down in the time direaction, one can get the trajectories formed by the objects in those rotating frames
 
It's too bad the book loses its effectiveness in translation :(
 
5:43 PM
@Secret I hate to tell you this, but that diagram really isn't that deep. Every working physicist has a more complete understanding of non-inertial reference frames than the one conveyed by just that image.
 
@JohnRennie : I disagree that the invariance of the interval is central. I think space and motion are central. Maybe if Minkowski had lived longer, you would too.
 
Of course, if it is the thing that gets you over the hump, than great! But everyone finds a different road over that hump.
 
@JohnDuffield You can talk all you want, you're not changing the fact that a "light clock" doesn't lead you to generalize the interval to non-Minkowski metrics. You're not changing the fact that invariance and unitarity together almost uniquely determine the very essence of a quantum field theory. It's symmetry all the way down.
 
@dmckee so you mean there are more complicated cases that cannot be convey by the concept used to construct that diagram?
 
And other very simple cases. A stopping car, for instance, is a straight-line non-inertial reference frame.
 
5:45 PM
@JohnDuffield We are talking at cross purposes. My concern is the best way to learn to use GR to describe reality. And understanding the invariance of the interval is that way.
And all the GR heads I know agree that's the way they understood it.
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ : yes, I've read Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
 
I appreciate you're taking a certain philosophical position, but what I'm saying is that it's not a useful one.
 
@JohnDuffield what did you think?
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ it takes time to figure out the best way to explain something to newbies. We've had 100 years to experiment with different ways of explaining GR, and as a result we're a lot better at it than Einstein was.
That's not to say current physicists are any better or smarter than Einstein, just that collectively we've been practising for a lot longer.
 
@ACuriousMind : no , the point of theoretical physics is to explain real things, full stop. Explaining something that does exist by saying it consists of something that does not exist is no explanation at all.
 
5:51 PM
@JohnDuffield that's a straw man argument. Abstraction is a useful tool in the construction of a model to explain real things.
It's a tool not an end in itself (unless you're a mathematician of course).
Your position is that it's not a useful tool, what we're saying is that it's an astonishingly useful tool.
 
@dmckee : but I can explain things. And I do not insist that only my phraseology is correct. I point to the empirical evidence, and I refer to Einstein. What's not to like?
 
So you disagree with his opinion that SR & GR can be taught in the same course to high schoolers? @JohnRennie
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ I think I can teach final year school children how to do calculations with a metric. Assuming they have a good grasp of calculus. Teaching them to derive the field equations requires maths they won't meet for several years.
And if all you're doing is working with a metric then GR really isn't that much harder than SR.
 
user116211
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ Never, the high school time is to emphasize on electromagnetism and multivariable calculus.
 
user116211
Differential equations
 
5:55 PM
@JohnDuffield With that attitude, we would still be staring at the particle zoo of hundreds of weird particles with seemingly no rhyme or reason. We would never have predicted the Higgs, never conjectured the strong force because we'd have never developed gauge theories. We would not understand the power of the principle of extremal action becaues the action isn't "real".
 
@user36790 Classical electrodynamics - ugh :-(
 
Indeed. @JohnRennie
 
@dmckee : no, I do not dodge questions, or answer the question I wanted to be asked . I answer the question I was asked, step by step, with supporting references, and that "well earned hail of downvotes" is not warranted at all. As for predictions, I'm not the one saying Einstein was wrong.
 
user116211
@JohnRennie why? Don't you think it should be studied rigorously?
 
@user36790 Damn foreigners and their schools that have, like, standards of basic mastery and stuff!
 
5:56 PM
@user36790 yes, you need a sound grasp of classical electrodynamics if you're serious about taking physics further. It's just that, well, I hated it.
 
user116211
O.O
 
A thousand questions asking you to calculate some field in some stupidly contrived geometry
 
user116211
@JohnRennie: If you want to become mad, then study thermodynamics, right?
 
Learning classical electrodynamics was a form of intellectual torture
 
@dmckee I'm a math student, you know
 
user116211
5:58 PM
@JohnRennie Yes, yes; method of images and all that
 
@JohnDuffield The list goes on. You're demonstrably fundamentally wrong about how modern physics works. Your position might have been viable at the beginning of the last century (but even then Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics and classical field theory had paved the way for modelling "real" things with "abstract" things!), but it is just wrong today.
 
user116211
@JohnRennie Black and white Jackson's book; urg
 
@JohnRennie If you know the proof of the Gauss theorem on spacelike/timelike hyper surfaces I'd love to see it
 
@user36790 if you are trying to convince me that electrodynamics is fun you are wasting both our time :-)
 
user116211
@JohnRennie /:
 
user116211
5:59 PM
@JohnRennie What topic you liked the most?
 
@JohnRennie Yeah, ED is just solving PDEs with boundary conditions on some level. But it, too, is fundamentally about symmetry: It is the first, and most straightforward incarnation of the gauge principle.
 
Honestly I can't remember that much of what I did at school. After all, it was 40 years ago :-)
 
user116211
@JohnRennie hahahaha
 
user116211
@JohnRennie If you were the syllabus-maker; what did you want to stress on?
 
@JohnRennie : the invariance of the interval is there in Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformation, but the subject matter is light moving through space.
 
6:02 PM
@ACuriousMind you shouldn't take my ranting too seriously. Actually my poor grasp of electrodynamics is a considerable hindrance and restricts what i can answer on the SE.
 
Well, I hated my ED course too ;)
 
user116211
@ACuriousMind: What did you like the most at high school?
 
I only began to appreciate it when I began with QFT.
 
@JohnDuffield you said you read the book, so how did Einstein himself define the time between events?
 
@user36790 Maths, physics and philosophy; I didn't really dislike anything but sports
 
user116211
6:04 PM
@ACuriousMind oh!
 
user116211
@ACuriousMind Was philosophy mandatory?
 
@dmckee It can be done, but as you mentioned, it is unsure if it is any more illuminating than just working out the coordinate transformations

For example
 
@user36790 You have to take either philosophy or religion.
 
@ACuriousMind Wow we had to take religion or non-denominational religion
 
user116211
@ACuriousMind Here, in Ind, you've to take either Psychology or Statistics.
 
6:06 PM
@ACuriousMind : the light clock does lead to an understanding of gravity, see for example this answer. I'm afraid a metric is another abstract thing.
 
@user36790 you have
You don't contract in that sentence.
 
user116211
@0celo7 Stats
 
What?
I said "you've" is not correct, just a friendly tip
 
and I guess that would take account of all newtonian accelerations since they are all just combination of linear and angular accelerations?
 
user116211
@0celo7 Nit picking.
 
6:08 PM
@user36790 Fine
You know better than me
 
You could say "you've got to take..."
 
you've is acceptable English, as in you've been framed.
 
user116211
4
A: Is it correct to shorten "you have" to "you've"?

TomYes, I suppose you can shorten you have to you've. The possible situations are as follows: You've been to that place. You've got to go there. You've got a car. You've a car. You've to go there.

 
@JohnRennie : I disagree that the invariance of the interval is the best way to learn to use GR to describe reality. The reality is that the speed of light up near the ceiling is faster than the speed of light down near the floor. And if all your GR heads think otherwise, they're all wrong. You will agree with me on this when you understand that time is a measure of local motion rather than a coordinate.
 
6:10 PM
@JohnRennie not in that context
Holy crap did no one read what I wrote
 
"You've to take" is not correct
"You've got to take" or "you have to take" is correct
 
@JohnDuffield another straw man argument. We GR heads are perfectly capable of calculating the coordinate velocity of light at the top and bottom of a room. Why do you imply we can't?
 
@JohnRennie : not many people understand electrodynamics.
 
2 mins ago, by Sᴋᴜʟʟ ᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ
You could say "you've got to take..."
 
user116211
6:11 PM
@0celo7 the rationale?
 
@user36790 no clue
 
@JohnDuffield I never denied a metric is an abstract thing. And responding with a post that demonstrates you don't understand that the Ricci tensor of GR is not the curvature of a Riemannian manifold, but that of a Lorentzian is not helping your case.
 
It's one of thise things that you just have to learn
 
@JohnRennie : it isn't the "coordinate velocity of light". It's the speed of light:
 
user116211
@0celo7 O.O
 
6:13 PM
@0celo7 Yeah, it's "non-denominational religion" in the lower grades. Philosophy only appears in grades 11-13 at most schools.
 
@ACuriousMind Why are you talking to JD?
 
user116211
Thanks, I didn't know that.
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ these
 
6:13 PM
@ACuriousMind : a tensor is another abstract thing. It's just a matrix.
 
@ACuriousMind Ah. I left well before that.
 
@JohnDuffield it's a geometrical object that can be represented as a matrix ...
 
@JohnDuffield So?
 
@JohnRennie : it doesn't exist. It's an abstraction. Yes abstract things can be useful, but do not think of them as real things. OK I have to go I'm afraid. Time for tea.
 
Oh well. As a meeting of minds went that was something of a non-meeting.
 
6:16 PM
@JohnDuffield You're really not understanding that no one denies those are abstract things, are you?
 
@ACuriousMind I do.
@JohnRennie So about the Gauss theorem...
Maybe ACM can link you to our discussion about it
I'm on mobile.
 
@JohnRennie It made still more sense than some of the other conversations in this room though... ;)
 
@0celo7 no I don't know how to prove the gauss theorem in a Lorentzian manifold. And I have absolutely no interested in proving it. I would sooner spend my time sticking a red hot knitting needle through both testicles.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

Thus it basically end up very similar to the relativistic point of view for non inertial frames

though if the amount of context covered is identical, then I guess then it is not very illuminating after all
 
@John Rennie : you know that the speed of light varies with gravitational potential. You said so here. Face up to the fact that optical clocks go slower when they're lower because light goes slower, not time. Now I really must go.
 
6:19 PM
@JohnRennie uhhhh
 
@JohnDuffield the coordinate speed of light varies with gravitational potential. The local speed of light is always c. Always!
 
@JohnRennie why are you not interested in proving it
@JohnRennie Don't bother telling him that
Ask chat regulars, I've told him that for months to no avail
 
@0celo7 really? Our minds are further apart than I thought.
 
He lives for controversy.
 
@JohnRennie He thinks some coordinates are "unphysical". There's no point in using the word coordinates because he doesn't accept that spacetime is a manifold on which you can choose whatever coordinates you like.
 
6:23 PM
@JohnRennie what did you reply to there
 
user54412
@dmckee I think I've developed a bit of that sight actually. I'll try to only use my powers for good morally neutral self-interest.
 
7 mins ago, by John Rennie
Oh well. As a meeting of minds went that was something of a non-meeting.
 
I always see people getting banned for saying that @JohnDuffield is crazy; I'm starting to feel it's unjustifiable
 
Mobile chat is terrible.
 
It really is
 
6:25 PM
@JohnRennie If that last message is at me, I don't get it
If it isn't, uh
 
@BernardMeurer I'd be caustious about using words like crazy. At the end of the day we all agree that what matters is correctly describing reality, and the difference lies in our views on the best way to do that in an elegant manner.
It's just that only one person supports JD's view :-)
 
@JohnRennie The issue is not on his views, but rather on how he deals with others' views
 
John's actually fairly polite (well, usually)
 
And a master strawman
 
There definitely are much worse people with...non-standard views.
 
user54412
6:28 PM
@user36790 You can only contract have an an auxiliary verb. Same with would: "(I would / I'd) go to the store." "(I would / I'd) that the store were nearby."
 
I'm sure you @BernardMeurer can choose a more politically correct word than "crazy" :P
 
@0celo7 sorry I guess it was a bit confusing. What I meant was that if JD really disagrees with the distinction between coordinate and local velocity of light then his and my views on physics are even further apart than I thought.
 
@Sᴋᴜʟʟᴘᴇᴛʀᴏʟ Then I wouldn't be quoting what actually does happen. I apologize anyhow tho :)
 
user54412
@user36790 Or at least that rule works 90% of the time. You still can say "I've a book in my hands" though it sounds a little... Shakespearean or something.
 
@BernardMeurer I hate the straw man argument. It's such an intellectually dishonest way to behave.
 
6:30 PM
@ChrisWhite What about "I'd rather you didn't" ;)
 
@JohnRennie oh
 
@JohnRennie It really is one of the worst the be honest. Logical falacies in general just piss me off; they're just such a strong indicative that you don't even know what you're saying
 
user54412
@ACuriousMind I'd argue that "would rather" is a compound verb ;)
 
@BernardMeurer though to be fair to JD I don't think it's a cynical tactic, I suspect he really doesn't understand what I mean and genuinely thinks his straw man is a valid representation of my views.
 
user116211
@ChrisWhite Thanks a lot!
 
6:33 PM
@JohnRennie The worst thing about the straw man is the fact that it's unintelligible from just an honest mistake
 
@ChrisWhite "I've no clue"
 
@BernardMeurer which is why it's such a popular gambit of course. And it works. Just watch any two politicians arguing :-)
 
@ChrisWhite ...that doesn't make "would" an auxiliary verb there, does it?
 
Would've, could've, should've
 
6:36 PM
@JohnRennie I only watch politicians when I want to empty my mind
 
user116211
@BernardMeurer Have you seen Trump?
 
user116211
His pumpkin red face!!
 
@user36790 Yeah he's funny
 
@user36790 Of all the things, you choose his appearance to pick on? That's never a good thing to do, regardless of the target.
 
@user36790 Trump is a very clever man and you underestimate him at your peril. He knows exactly who his supporters are and how to please them.
 
user116211
6:41 PM
@ACuriousMind He is alcoholic; and that's why his face is red.
 
He isn't the first person in history to have this skill, and it has to be said that it often doesn't end well.
 
user116211
@JohnRennie He beat Mao, Stalin and of course Mr. Hitler.
 
user116211
He knows clearly he can't even win so why is he doing these crackpots?
 
@user36790 Claiming someone to have a psychological illness is also never a good thing to do.
 
user116211
@ACuriousMind I'm not claiming; there is proof; want to hear?
 
6:43 PM
@user36790 I'm not going to draw comparisons between Trump and Hitler because it's a basically facile thing to do. All I'm saying is that it's a dangerous path he's treading.
 
@user36790 No. It's irrelevant. Attacking someone for such a thing perpetuates the myth that "sane" people don't act like that.
 
user116211
O.o
 
And it is very important to realize that the most sane and normal people in the world can do horrible, irrational, insane things.
 
@ACuriousMind Good thing I never pretended to be sane
 
user116211
Everyone is insane to some extent.
 
6:44 PM
Sane? But we're physicists!
 
Anyway, I have to go read some science fiction. I suppose that will be a change from discussing science fiction with JD :-)
 
user116211
@JohnRennie: :D
 
@JohnRennie What path would that be?
 
user116211
6:47 PM
@ACuriousMind: Bye.
 
user116211
And so to others ;D
 
@0celo7 Since you asked (you may regret asking :-):
Most people don't understand how the world works.
 
@JohnRennie Smooth
 
@JohnRennie It doesn't help that the Democrats have been making fun of the segment of the populace he draws that support from for decades and the Republican party leadership simply takes them for granted because where else are they going to go.
 
So wehn they lose their job, get a pay cut, can't afford helathcare, etc, etc they can't understand why it's happening and tey get angry
 
6:49 PM
So they have a vast reservoir of grudge available to be tapped.
 
You say to those people, trust me, I'll build a wall to keep all Mexicans out and all your troubles will go away.
 
@JohnRennie Yeah, and those are big structural changes. Hard to pin down and probably impossible to stop or reverse.
 
So the angry people vote you into office, and of course thir troubles don't go away because no single leader can control global circumstances
Now they're angry with you
Assuming you don't want to be tarred and feathered you have to find someone else for those angry people to blame.
Typically you choose a minority who can't fight back - historically Jews have been a popular target.
 
That's the pattern.
 
but the problems still don't go away and everyone is even angrier, so you have to get more extreme
and more extreme
Now do you see why it's a dangerous path?
 
6:53 PM
@JohnRennie I'm not voting for Trump because I'm angry.
I'm voting for Trump because there's reason for unskilled immigration in a welfare state.
No reason.
 
I can't comment about the US economic situation because i don't know enough about it.
In the UK immigrants make a net contribution to the economy
i.e. the average Brit enjoys a higher standard of living than they would if immigration was stopped
However that's the average, and there isn't really an average Brit. There are some who've done better than average and some who've done worse than average
 
I'd like to draw attention to this post:
4
Q: Brownian motion moving nano/micro coils inside a magnetic field

pZombieFollowing experimental setup. We take copper coils which are small enough to be subject to brownian motion. We combine those coils with some other material to make them about as heavy as the liquid we submerge them in (same weight per volume) so they would neither all gather up at the top nor bo...

because the accepted answer misses a major point.
 
And the ones who have done worse than average are angry
Which is where we came in
 
Hopefully someone will write a better answer than mine and/or the one I think is essentially wrong.
@0celo7 Wait, what?
 
@DanielSank it's probably about time we got back to talking about physics :-)
 
6:57 PM
Are you a one-issue voter?
 
@0celo7 So you're voting for someone who displays racism, sexism, exceptionalism and nationalism on an almost daily basis?
 
@DanielSank Me?
 
@ACuriousMind Let's try to keep this rational and level headed. I'd like to understand this for real.
@JohnRennie Yes.
ACK no!
@JohnRennie no not you.
 
Phew! :-)
 
@ACuriousMind Racism? Sexism?
 
6:58 PM
@0celo7 Ignore that.
Answer my question.
 
@ACuriousMind What's exceptionalism? Sounds like flattery
 
The other two are real downsides, Trump is not perfect.
@DanielSank No.
 
user54412
It always confused me that both sides of so many issues debate them on economic grounds. "too many immigrants drain the economy" "immigrants make us wealthier" "drugs should be taxed" "drugs make people unproductive." If we're going to make laws saying things are wrong or right shouldn't we give it more thought than "GDP says so"?
 
@ChrisWhite Honestly, there are good arguments in either direction.
 

« first day (1939 days earlier)      last day (2983 days later) »