intentionally distorting arguments

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, John Denker wrote:

> b) From the modern-physics point of view, the electrostatic force between
> charged objects is not a "direct" force.  What happens is that object "A"
> emits a virtual photon, which is absorbed by object "B".  But in the
> nonrelativistic limit it is a good approximation to say there is a force
> between "A" and "B".

I totally agree.  This is obvious to any physics-person.


> In many situations, emphasizing the indirect nature of such a force
> decreases rather than increases the clarity of the discussion.

Obvious.

> Real physicists speak of a force between "A" and "B" mediated by "C" all
> the time.  You might as well get used to it.


You have changed my original meaning.  In my previous message, "A" was a
force-pair. "B" was another force pair.  "C" was the non-existant
force-pair which is made unnecessary because of the presence of
force-pairs "A" and "B."

I agree that multiple substances can mediate force-exchange between
objects.  It is obvious, basic physics.  No arguments there.  However, if
we stop talking about objects "A" and "B", and instead discuss force-pairs
"A" and "B", then we have a very large argument indeed.


> The key idea is to recognize situations where the force at "A" and the
> force at "B" are necessarily equal, within some satisfactory degree of
> approximation.

In my earlier message, the "force at A" is a force-pair.  The "force at B"
is a second force-pair.  They are not two objects, and they are not two
ends of a single Newtonian force-pair.  If you do not understand this
point, or if you do not believe *ME* when I reiterate it, then you'd be
well advised to seek the advice of others in whom you trust, and who are
extremely well-aquainted with Newtonian Mechanics.

I say again: if you insist that there is a force-pair "C" between a
high-flying airplane and the earth, then you blatantly violate Newton's
laws in no uncertain terms.

On a much more serious note...

In my earlier message, "C" is not the air. "A" and "B" are not the bird
and the cage-bottom.

To me it is inconceivable that a science-person would suddenly redefine
my earlier labling so that it applies to objects rather than to
force-pairs.

Might this be this an accidental misunderstanding on John's part?  A
simple error that any of us could make?  I sadly must say no.  John has
used just this type of "debating tactic" repeatedly in the past.  Also, in
my experience on the internet I find that it is a common "debating tactic"
used on the newsgroups: confuse your opponent and make them concede the
battle.

It is clear to me that this "debating tactic" is is the main reason why
our long-running "airfoil" debate is so profoundly confusing.  The
"airfoils" topic is not *inherently* confusing at all.  It is confusing
because John Denker is actively sowing confusion in order to defeat his
opponents.  Having observed John do such things before on many occasions,
it is my judgement that this is not just an innocent misunderstanding on
his part, it is no accident.  I do not make this accusation lightly, and I
know that evidence of this continuing behavior is easily seen in the
phys-L archives once you know what to look for.


Since I earlier used "A" and "B" to refer to force-pairs, and since John
Denker has suddenly started using "A" and "B" to refer to objects, I must
conclude that John Denker is trying to distort my arguments in order to
win the debate.


Do any others on phys-L agree with my assesment?  This is very important.
I am accusing John Denker of a grevious scientific sin.  Please refer to
my message below, and you will see the sudden change in meaning of "A",
"B", and "C" between that message and the one above.

Is all this an innocent mistake on John's part?  If you believe so, then
we can go back into the phys-L archives and I can show you quite a number
of other such "mistakes."  When it is a repeated event, it no longer
becomes so "innocent."  In addition, it is a common strategy used on the
newsgroups, and its presence is quite obvious to those who've had to deal
with it in the past.  This sort of "innocent mistake" is used all the time
in newsgroup battles.  When its victims complain, the perpetrator can say
"oh, I just made an innocent mistake that even you could make."

Phys-L is NOT the newsgroups.  This sort of "debating tactic" is abhorrant
when it crops up in a discussion of science.  Science is not about keeping
our opponents confused and off-balance, and preventing them from clearly
seeing the flaws in our arguments.  Science is about getting to the bottom
of things.  John Denker's behavior shows that this is not his goal.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L