Very nice.

[Alex]

Hello ReactOS,


I am not sure if this is an appropriate place to write, but someone
with the name Physicus has banned me from the #reactos channel,
because he doesn't know physics and is ignorant enough.

Ok, you want to stay ignorant - it's your life choice.

But what right does he have to ban me from _reactos_ channel?

So now I can't develop for ROS, just because one guy is closed-minded
about his view of physics?!!

Is it how you treat people around here? No wonder you have such a
small number of developers...


Human stupidity and arrogance has certainly no limits...

-- 
Best regards,
 Alex                          mailto:[e-mail]

[KJK::Hyperion]

Alex wrote:
>   I am not sure if this is an appropriate place to
> write, but someone
>  with the name Physicus has banned me from the #reactos channel,
>  because he doesn't know physics and is ignorant enough. 
You are unbanned. Bans in anger on #reactos are never permanent, they
should instead be taken as a recommendation to never bring the argument
up again

[Kamil Hornícek]

More patches, less drama.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex" <care2debug(a)gmail.com>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:26 AM
Subject: [ros-dev] Very nice.


>   Hello ReactOS,
>  
>  
>  I am not sure if this is an appropriate place to write, but someone
>  with the name Physicus has banned me from the #reactos channel,
>  because he doesn't know physics and is ignorant enough.
>  
>  Ok, you want to stay ignorant - it's your life choice.
>  
>  But what right does he have to ban me from _reactos_ channel?
>  
>  So now I can't develop for ROS, just because one guy is closed-minded
>  about his view of physics?!!
>  
>  Is it how you treat people around here? No wonder you have such a
>  small number of developers...
>  
>  
>  Human stupidity and arrogance has certainly no limits...
>  
>  -- 
>  Best regards,
>  Alex                          mailto:[e-mail]
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  
>

[Timo Kreuzer]

You obviously don't know physics. Even though it was already quite
obvious that you are a smartass I tried to explain it to you, but you
ignored it and the way you anwered was reason enough to kick-ban you.

[01:11]    care2debug: Physicus: that's wikipedia. And more probably
your explanation is worng.
[01:11]    care2debug: Physicus: There is no centrifugal force in the
universe. It's just an abstraction,.
[01:12]    care2debug: Physicus: do you have a physics degree? I wonder
how one can make such blunders who is not in the 7th grade :)

The ban was to make you think about your behaviour. Please learn the
stuff (there is a centrifugal force, it is only existant in the rotating
reference system and not in an inertial system and it's a pseudo-force,
but that doesn't make it non-existant, learn about what a force is at
all) and learn to be less of a smartass. Your ban has already been removed

Thanks,
Timo


Alex wrote:
>   Hello ReactOS,
>
>
>  I am not sure if this is an appropriate place to write, but someone
>  with the name Physicus has banned me from the #reactos channel,
>  because he doesn't know physics and is ignorant enough.
>
>  Ok, you want to stay ignorant - it's your life choice.
>
>  But what right does he have to ban me from _reactos_ channel?
>
>  So now I can't develop for ROS, just because one guy is closed-minded
>  about his view of physics?!!
>
>  Is it how you treat people around here? No wonder you have such a
>  small number of developers...
>
>
>  Human stupidity and arrogance has certainly no limits...
>
>

[Alex]

Hello Timo,

Thursday, July 16, 2009, 4:09:30 AM, you wrote:

>   [01:12]    care2debug: Physicus: do you have a physics
> degree? I wonder
>  how one can make such blunders who is not in the 7th grade :) 
Oops, that didn't sound very well, I agree, even if it was not meant
as a serious remark (see the smile). Heat of the discussion, I suppose.

For that I apologize.

But I still don't think banning was an appropriate solution. You could
ignore me, you could tell me to STFU, anything.

>   The ban was to make you think about your behaviour.
> Please learn the
>  stuff (there is a centrifugal force, it is only existant in the rotating
>  reference system and not in an inertial system and it's a pseudo-force,
>  but that doesn't make it non-existant, learn about what a force is at
>  all) and learn to be less of a smartass. Your ban has already been removed 
I see that you agree that this is a pseudo-force. But since this list
is not related to physics I will not continue this discussion here.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alex                            mailto:[e-mail]

[Alex Ionescu]

You can create physical apartuses (aparatii?) that demonstrate the  
existence of pseudo-forces, so they do "exist". The term "pseudo"  
doesn't mean "non-existent".

Hell, go up a building and drop a heavy object in a perfect straight  
line. It'll land a bit east because of circular motion forces that are  
"pseudo".

On 15-Jul-09, at 5:22 PM, Alex wrote:

>   Hello Timo,
>
>  Thursday, July 16, 2009, 4:09:30 AM, you wrote:
>
> >   [01:12]    care2debug: Physicus: do you have a
> > physics degree? I  
> >  wonder
> >  how one can make such blunders who is not in the 7th grade :) 
>  Oops, that didn't sound very well, I agree, even if it was not meant
>  as a serious remark (see the smile). Heat of the discussion, I  
>  suppose.
>
>  For that I apologize.
>
>  But I still don't think banning was an appropriate solution. You could
>  ignore me, you could tell me to STFU, anything.
>
> >   The ban was to make you think about your
> > behaviour. Please learn the
> >  stuff (there is a centrifugal force, it is only existant in the  
> >  rotating
> >  reference system and not in an inertial system and it's a pseudo- 
> >  force,
> >  but that doesn't make it non-existant, learn about what a force is at
> >  all) and learn to be less of a smartass. Your ban has already been  
> >  removed 
>  I see that you agree that this is a pseudo-force. But since this list
>  is not related to physics I will not continue this discussion here.
>
>  -- 
>  Best regards,
>  Alex                            mailto:[e-mail]
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Dmitry Gorbachev]

I think you should first discuss at #philosophy, what does it mean "to
exist". As some philosophers claimed, the universe does not exist.

[Aleksey Bragin]

Reality is a matrix....

On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Dmitry Gorbachev wrote:

>   I think you should first discuss at #philosophy, what
> does it mean "to
>  exist". As some philosophers claimed, the universe does not exist.

[WaxDragon]

This is the most action ros-dev has had in while!

On Jul 16, 2009 2:57 PM, "Aleksey Bragin" <aleksey(a)reactos.org> wrote:

Reality is a matrix....

On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Dmitry Gorbachev wrote: > I think you should
first discuss at #philos...

[Jose Catena]

I also think it may be not a good idea to discuss physics here. But since
this is going on anyway, I think I may help to find an agreement and end
this. Please forgive me and skip the rest of this post if you aren't
interested.
I think everyone participating in the discussion knew what the centrifugal
force is, and all the confusion could be explained by assumptions on what
the 'real' definition is, since the natural language adjective is ambiguous
as a scientific definition. Perhaps this happened with more than one word.
It is not important if we name a force 'real' or 'abstract', as long as
we
understand what it actually is and agree on definition of 'real', what is
not obvious as proven in the discussion.
Forces are vectors (forget for now that 'vector' is in itself an
abstraction). For analysis, many times natural forces are expressed as sum
of vectors. Of course this makes another abstraction, every time we apply
math we are abstracting in some way. Although it is also a valid meaning of
'real' something that can be demonstrated mathematically.
Instead of centrifugal force, I'll put an example that I think is pretty
useful to show the conflict: the force the air causes to a wing moving on
it. The 'real' or single force vector is not useful for understanding or
analysis, so we always express it as a sum of two vectors: 'lift' and
'drag'. I never hear of anyone saying that these are not real since their
effect is demonstrable, while most people would consider the single natural
force an abstraction, since it is demonstrated and understood as the sum of
the two calculable components lift and drag.
Furthermore, we often consider how a sum of forces are applied to an object,
while at the end, only the sum is what matters to the effect produced, and
in this case we might say this sum is an abstraction while the components
are 'real' or not (they may be also abstracted components of a real
force)...
You see how assuming the meaning of words may be so confusing in science.
As I see it, the problem in the discussion can be solved by delimiting the
meaning of 'real', or much better, avoiding this ambiguous adjective in
favor of a more explicit one. Indeed the centrifugal force is not directly
caused in the nature, so if we say 'real' means a direct representation of
something that physically exist, it is not 'real'. But we may also say that
'real' means it can be demonstrated mathematically, and then the centrifugal
force is certainly 'real', as would 'lift' and 'drag' in a wing.
Both are
valid meanings of 'real' in different scopes (physical existence vs.
scientifically demonstrable).
Something that unfortunately happens too often. In any kind of discussion,
people should try to understand each other's reasoning instead of
nit-picking on definitions to discredit them. It is different than an
exhaustive essay where the author should be careful to clear any ambiguity.
We couldn't speak if we had to be scientifically accurate in every word.
Sorry for the long and off topic post, I advised to skip it if no
interest... ;-)

Jose Catena
DIGIWAVES S.L.

[Alexandru Lovin]

More cowbell!!!

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Jose Catena <jc1(a)diwaves.com> wrote:

>   I also think it may be not a good idea to discuss
> physics here. But since
>  this is going on anyway, I think I may help to find an agreement and end
>  this. Please forgive me and skip the rest of this post if you aren't
>  interested.
>  I think everyone participating in the discussion knew what the centrifugal
>  force is, and all the confusion could be explained by assumptions on what
>  the 'real' definition is, since the natural language adjective is ambiguous
>  as a scientific definition. Perhaps this happened with more than one word.
>  It is not important if we name a force 'real' or 'abstract', as long as
> we
>  understand what it actually is and agree on definition of 'real', what is
>  not obvious as proven in the discussion.
>  Forces are vectors (forget for now that 'vector' is in itself an
>  abstraction). For analysis, many times natural forces are expressed as sum
>  of vectors. Of course this makes another abstraction, every time we apply
>  math we are abstracting in some way. Although it is also a valid meaning of
>  'real' something that can be demonstrated mathematically.
>  Instead of centrifugal force, I'll put an example that I think is pretty
>  useful to show the conflict: the force the air causes to a wing moving on
>  it. The 'real' or single force vector is not useful for understanding or
>  analysis, so we always express it as a sum of two vectors: 'lift' and
>  'drag'. I never hear of anyone saying that these are not real since their
>  effect is demonstrable, while most people would consider the single natural
>  force an abstraction, since it is demonstrated and understood as the sum of
>  the two calculable components lift and drag.
>  Furthermore, we often consider how a sum of forces are applied to an
>  object,
>  while at the end, only the sum is what matters to the effect produced, and
>  in this case we might say this sum is an abstraction while the components
>  are 'real' or not (they may be also abstracted components of a real
>  force)...
>  You see how assuming the meaning of words may be so confusing in science.
>  As I see it, the problem in the discussion can be solved by delimiting the
>  meaning of 'real', or much better, avoiding this ambiguous adjective in
>  favor of a more explicit one. Indeed the centrifugal force is not directly
>  caused in the nature, so if we say 'real' means a direct representation of
>  something that physically exist, it is not 'real'. But we may also say that
>  'real' means it can be demonstrated mathematically, and then the
>  centrifugal
>  force is certainly 'real', as would 'lift' and 'drag' in a wing.
> Both are
>  valid meanings of 'real' in different scopes (physical existence vs.
>  scientifically demonstrable).
>  Something that unfortunately happens too often. In any kind of discussion,
>  people should try to understand each other's reasoning instead of
>  nit-picking on definitions to discredit them. It is different than an
>  exhaustive essay where the author should be careful to clear any ambiguity.
>  We couldn't speak if we had to be scientifically accurate in every word.
>  Sorry for the long and off topic post, I advised to skip it if no
>  interest... ;-)
>
>  Jose Catena
>  DIGIWAVES S.L.
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  


-- 
Alex Lovin - www.erasereality.3x.ro