Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnPost by Odd BodkinPost by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnPost by Odd BodkinPost by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnPost by Odd Bodkin- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over
a region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else]
mean[s] something else it's obviously mistaken.
IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.
No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.
Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have
managed to form an opinion of your own.
I happen to agree with them.
I do not think that you actually know what you are agreeing with.
Well, I quoted what they actually said. Now, if you think that they
actually MEANT something different than what they actually said, then I
congratulate you on your ability to telepathically divine their true
thoughts, especially from the ones that are dead.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnPost by Odd BodkinI don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say.
True, but at some point you should be able to formulate an opinion of your
own, that is, show that you have understood what you are quoting. So far,
nothing.
I have formulated an opinion, as I've said. And I've stated my opinion
AS WELL AS quoting physicists who have explained it in a very similar
way. You can (or maybe you can't) look back in the posting history to
see what I've said about events other than the quoted statements.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnPost by Odd BodkinI also think that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion
that is different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.
It is interesting that you keep repeating the same ad-hominem argument,
mentioning that I am a “Web engineer”, which is true (I am actually a long-
time software engineer with a specialty in Web-related development). Why do
you think that is important? Do you think that it does not take much to be
a (Web) software engineer, and a successful one at that? And do you think
it is easy to get that certification?
I didn't say that being a web engineer was easy or not an
accomplishment. Being an architect also requires a great deal of work
but it does not confer expertise in vascular surgery. Being an
accomplished opera singer does not confer expertise in encryption
methods. Being an accomplished web engineer does not confer expertise in
anything other than web engineering. Being an avid Star Trek fan doesn't
confer expertise in anything other than the television show, and
certainly not in physics.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnJust like you (or so you claim, given that you may even be posting under a
fake name – “Odd” is an odd first name to begin with – I have no way to
verify what you said, while you have the possibilty to verify my CV), I have
completed studies at a university (two, actually).
That's fine. I wasn't aware that the newsgroup needed to be a
credential-based pissing contest. I'm happy to refer to the words and
work of physicists as being the state of art about physics.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnHowever, different from you, apparently, I have not only the theoretical
knowledge but the practical experience (more than a decade) in my field
(computer science).
Very good, and I have theoretical and practical experience in
mathematics, philosophy, woodworking, and billiards. Congratulations all
around.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnYou are not a physicist either, you said you are not even a scientist (by
which you are saying that you do not consider yourself a scientist; another
matter on which we are different); you are, by your signature, a “maker of
fine toys, tools, tables”. By that, there is no good reason for you to
believe that your understanding of physics is in any way better than mine
(or anyone elses).
Well, there's the fact that my understanding of things is consistent
with what physicists have written and your understanding of things is
not consistent with what physicists have written. That being said, your
experience and training in computer science is completely irrelevant to
the mix, as is my experience and training in mathematics, philosophy,
woodworking, and billiards.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnReading books written by physicicts does not make you
one. There is equally a chance that you misunderstood.
I don't think it's really difficult to understand the plain English that
the physicists have taken care to use to explain the concepts.
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnThere is equally a
chance that you have a collection of books, and read a selection from it,
that is not representative of the field.
So I think a little more humility on your part is indicated, lest you do not
want to come off as a wannabe.
I really don't give a flying fuck how I come off to you. Your opinion of
me is completely insignificant. You've not exhibited one lick of the
humility that you are prescribing to others. Your ability to form and
express an opinion ABOUT PHYSICS based on your theoretical training and
practice as a computer scientist is as useful and compelling as your
ability to count to 200 without missing a number. Had you come in
yourself with the attitude, "Hey, you're right, all these physicists say
something completely different than what I'm saying, so maybe I'm not on
track after all," you wouldn't have gotten the reaction you've gotten so
far.
Bluster, bluff, and improvisational imposterism is a good strategy if
you are SURE you are among people who are just as amateurish as yourself
and who won't bother to check out what you're saying. But try to pull
that off in a venue where your audience WILL check out what you're
saying, and you'll only come off as an ass. In the end, it's always
going to come down to what physicists say.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables