tessel@tum.bot
Jun24-04, 06:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Jim Jastrzebski claimed (in s.a.r.):\n\n> For a long time I wanted to know what is a mechanism of energy\n> conservation in a free fall. It seemed that the simplest way of finding\n> an answer was to ask someone on sci.physics.research but when I did by\n> posting a question "where the kinetic energy of a falling brick is\n> coming from", I was told by several serious scientists (I presume) that\n> energy is not conserved in gravity, which I had a hard time to believe.\n\nI don\'t recall this thread, but this claim cannot be completely correct.\n\nThe scientific issues here are substantial and very interesting; alas,\nwhile I could attempt to discuss them, I have not been successful in the\npast in trying to explain anything I know about math/physics to this\nparticular poster, nor has he been conspicuously grateful for my past\nattempts. It appears that others may have had similar experiences. So I\nwon\'t try again now; rather, let me just mention one recent textbook which\nI like very much:\n\nauthor = {Sean Carroll},\ntitle = {Spacetime and geometry: an introduction to general relativity},\npublisher = {Addison-Wesley},\nyear = 2004}\n\nThis book offers a particularly readable discussion of the issues which\nthe OP has trouble understanding. These -are- challenging, but they are\nby no means impossible to master, so I\'d highly encourage interested\nreaders to look into them--- there is much more to say, but Carroll\'s book\nshould be an excellent place to start.\n\n> Furthermore, Prof. Baez who is a moderator in sci.physics.research\n> kicked me out of it\n\nThis is factually incorrect: Baez is -not- a moderator of s.p.r. and has\nnot been for some time. And of course noone can be "kicked out" of any\nmoderated newsgroup.\n\nI am not myself a moderator, but I have heard that some people habitually\nengage in various types of deplorable behavior, such as repeatedly\nsubmitting a contentless posting rejected by one moderator in hopes\n(apparently) that another moderator will pass it, perhaps by accident. I\ndon\'t know if the OP is one of these, but I can certainly imagine that\nrepeated offenses might elicit a strongly worded request to\n"cease-and-desist", which some recipients might perhaps misinterpret as\nsome kind of "lifetime ban". (There is of course no such thing, much as I\nsometimes wish there were.)\n\nThe s.p.r. moderators are unpaid, overworked, and all too often their work\ngoes without thanks, or even worse, result in manifestly unfair/inaccurate\n-complaints- in other forums. I expect that the majority of participants\nin s.p.r. have a much more positive impression of their effort, as I do,\nand are grateful for it.\n\n"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Jim Jastrzebski claimed (in s.a.r.):
> For a long time I wanted to know what is a mechanism of energy
> conservation in a free fall. It seemed that the simplest way of finding
> an answer was to ask someone on sci.physics.research but when I did by
> posting a question "where the kinetic energy of a falling brick is
> coming from", I was told by several serious scientists (I presume) that
> energy is not conserved in gravity, which I had a hard time to believe.
I don't recall this thread, but this claim cannot be completely correct.
The scientific issues here are substantial and very interesting; alas,
while I could attempt to discuss them, I have not been successful in the
past in trying to explain anything I know about math/physics to this
particular poster, nor has he been conspicuously grateful for my past
attempts. It appears that others may have had similar experiences. So I
won't try again now; rather, let me just mention one recent textbook which
I like very much:
author = {Sean Carroll},
title = {Spacetime and geometry: an introduction to general relativity},
publisher = {Addison-Wesley},
year = 2004}
This book offers a particularly readable discussion of the issues which
the OP has trouble understanding. These -are- challenging, but they are
by no means impossible to master, so I'd highly encourage interested
readers to look into them--- there is much more to say, but Carroll's book
should be an excellent place to start.
> Furthermore, Prof. Baez who is a moderator in sci.physics.research
> kicked me out of it
This is factually incorrect: Baez is -not- a moderator of s.p.r. and has
not been for some time. And of course noone can be "kicked out" of any
moderated newsgroup.
I am not myself a moderator, but I have heard that some people habitually
engage in various types of deplorable behavior, such as repeatedly
submitting a contentless posting rejected by one moderator in hopes
(apparently) that another moderator will pass it, perhaps by accident. I
don't know if the OP is one of these, but I can certainly imagine that
repeated offenses might elicit a strongly worded request to
"cease-and-desist", which some recipients might perhaps misinterpret as
some kind of "lifetime ban". (There is of course no such thing, much as I
sometimes wish there were.)
The s.p.r. moderators are unpaid, overworked, and all too often their work
goes without thanks, or even worse, result in manifestly unfair/inaccurate
-complaints- in other forums. I expect that the majority of participants
in s.p.r. have a much more positive impression of their effort, as I do,
and are grateful for it.
"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)
> For a long time I wanted to know what is a mechanism of energy
> conservation in a free fall. It seemed that the simplest way of finding
> an answer was to ask someone on sci.physics.research but when I did by
> posting a question "where the kinetic energy of a falling brick is
> coming from", I was told by several serious scientists (I presume) that
> energy is not conserved in gravity, which I had a hard time to believe.
I don't recall this thread, but this claim cannot be completely correct.
The scientific issues here are substantial and very interesting; alas,
while I could attempt to discuss them, I have not been successful in the
past in trying to explain anything I know about math/physics to this
particular poster, nor has he been conspicuously grateful for my past
attempts. It appears that others may have had similar experiences. So I
won't try again now; rather, let me just mention one recent textbook which
I like very much:
author = {Sean Carroll},
title = {Spacetime and geometry: an introduction to general relativity},
publisher = {Addison-Wesley},
year = 2004}
This book offers a particularly readable discussion of the issues which
the OP has trouble understanding. These -are- challenging, but they are
by no means impossible to master, so I'd highly encourage interested
readers to look into them--- there is much more to say, but Carroll's book
should be an excellent place to start.
> Furthermore, Prof. Baez who is a moderator in sci.physics.research
> kicked me out of it
This is factually incorrect: Baez is -not- a moderator of s.p.r. and has
not been for some time. And of course noone can be "kicked out" of any
moderated newsgroup.
I am not myself a moderator, but I have heard that some people habitually
engage in various types of deplorable behavior, such as repeatedly
submitting a contentless posting rejected by one moderator in hopes
(apparently) that another moderator will pass it, perhaps by accident. I
don't know if the OP is one of these, but I can certainly imagine that
repeated offenses might elicit a strongly worded request to
"cease-and-desist", which some recipients might perhaps misinterpret as
some kind of "lifetime ban". (There is of course no such thing, much as I
sometimes wish there were.)
The s.p.r. moderators are unpaid, overworked, and all too often their work
goes without thanks, or even worse, result in manifestly unfair/inaccurate
-complaints- in other forums. I expect that the majority of participants
in s.p.r. have a much more positive impression of their effort, as I do,
and are grateful for it.
"T. Essel" (hiding somewhere in cyberspace)