PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > Or else what?   It's a lie that after I explain where you've gone wrong
> > that you will be convinced of the error of your ways, so why should I
> > bother?.
>
> Sorry, Tom, it's just that I'm not satisfied with an explanation of
> where I've gone wrong if the explanation is full of holes and
> inconsistencies, which is why I press. Too bad that you're giving up.
>
>
What makes you think I'm giving up?
>
>
> On the other hand, I think this has been a useful exercise, with much
> learned, including:
> 1) If you're going to state or interpret what somebody like Newton or
> Einstein wrote, it's always good to have read what they actually wrote,
> as well as what has been written about what they said.
>
>
CRAP
>
>
> 2) Reading four lines from what Newton or Einstein said is no
> substitute for reading the whole piece, and can lead to confusion or
> apparent inconsistencies.
>
>
CRAP
>
>
> 3) The language of physics is precise, and it gets more precise over
> time with topics that are better understood. Sometimes the language is
> fuzzy when the ideas are new, but the terms become more clearly and
> distinctly defined with time.
> 
>
CRAP