Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fdarkangel's critique of the word type

  1. Mar 14, 2005 #1
    you sound too confident.
    i guess, in order to categorize "things" into types, there must be a real difference (i hope you're not too pedantic and understand what i mean with "difference": an inequality between terms).
    please go ahead and explain how your list of energy types are inequal; enlighten me.

    edit: and if possible, could you add definitions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 14, 2005 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have no idea what you're asking. The difference between say, chemical potential energy and gravitational potential energy shouldn't need to be explained.

    - Warren
     
  4. Mar 14, 2005 #3
    i can see that.
    then can you simply explain why i'm incorrect?
     
  5. Mar 14, 2005 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You told hexhunter that he was using the word "type" inappropriately. The fact is that every physicist uses the word "type" in exactly the way he used it. Since the meaning of words are essentially decided by consensus, he (and you) should use the terms physicists already use. The word "type" is perfectly acceptable.

    - Warren
     
  6. Mar 14, 2005 #5
    at this point, i'd like to remind how misused terms can cause deep misunderstandings.

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

    oh, and btw, i remember my modern physics teacher emphasizing that the term "energy-type" causes such misunderstanings among students.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2005
  7. Mar 14, 2005 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  8. Mar 14, 2005 #7
    i'm trying to remind something.
    but this discussion is getting away from it's origin. i just would like to suggest that, as an admin, please consider twice before starting such discussions.
     
  9. Mar 14, 2005 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    fdarkangel,

    Now you're going to give me administrative advice? If I remember properly, you began this discussion with post #2.

    - Warren
     
  10. Mar 14, 2005 #9
    Wait you mean...chroot is hexhunter :surprised :wink:
     
  11. Mar 14, 2005 #10
    i had started to gain impression that you're a pretty presumptuous character. i was not willing to say this explictly, but you're forcing me to say this.
    i was trying to remind you humility, not to give an "administrative advice". but you threw away humility twice.

    i still think that saying "types of energy" causes deep misunderstading, because i think a standard mp teacher with professor degree has a better understanding on this topic.

    this discussion is leading to no-good, please let's not say anything more that is outside of the scope of original discussion.
     
  12. Mar 14, 2005 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    fdarkangel,

    You've yet to explain why you dislike the word "type" in this context, beyond parroting what your modern physics professor has said. He seems to have some pet peeve with the word, and instead prefers the word "role," which, to me, makes even less sense. Energy does not have a purpose, and assigning an animistic "role" to energy is ridiculous.

    Since you want to throw credentials into the mix, I'd like to remind you I've more education than you. Enjoy your lower-division physics coursework.

    - Warren
     
  13. Mar 14, 2005 #12
    so, you prefer to insist on such time-waste. then so shall it be.

    if you stop insuting and emphasizing how "great" you are, i'll point you to the post #7. 1st, a parrot does not know what it's "parroting". 2nd, you're yet to explain the source of posts such as post #1. as maybe you can tell about differences between those types, "energy types". and maybe, it'll reveal who's the true parrot.

    i'm not english, nor american. i'm not sure that the word "role" is the best word in english, it's just the word i could find in english.

    btw, can you define "purpose"?

    i never intend to do such things. i mentioned the credentials in order to emphasize that you're not the most valuable person on the topic i've ever talked to.
     
  14. Mar 14, 2005 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I answered your question -- the difference between different types of energy is obvious.
    Exactly my point. That's why I used the word 'parrot,' after all.
    Kinetic and potential energy are physically distinct; if you really need me to explain the distinction, I'm not going to bother.
    Perhaps that's entire problem, then -- a language barrier. You seem to feel quite comfortable in telling me (a native english speaker) the best word to use in my language, when you're unsure of your own english vocabulary. I don't know what your native language is, but I would not even venture to suggest that your choice of words in that language is wrong.

    Perhaps the english word 'type' means something to you that it does not mean to me due to the translation. The bottom line is that the word 'type' (or its synonym, 'form') is used by virtually all english speakers in this context, and we all know what it means.
    Neither are you, of course.

    - Warren
     
  15. Mar 14, 2005 #14
    when will you give up trying to show the statements that i haven't said as if i said?

    i was not telling what the true term is. i was telling what the wrong term is. you may speak english well, but you're either a bad reader, or you try to show people that you're right with imaginary events.

    you obviously won't bother. because you know that if you try to describe, both'll end up with the same thing, and you'll lose your precious "distinction", your whole arguement.

    at least, you seem to know yourself well.

    and you're telling that form and type are synomous. what kind of native english speaker are you? someone who doesn't know the meaning of what s/he's saying? wait, this reminds me a definition...

    btw, the word i was looking for is "form", thanks.

    if i'm a parrot, you're discussing with my modern physics teacher, not me. and your "Neither are you, of course" statement disappers.
    else, you're a parrot, and a liar (would you want me to look up dictionary for the word "liar"?).
    in both cases, you lack humility, which makes a knowledgedable person valuable.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Fdarkangel's critique of the word type
  1. Critique of Logic (Replies: 6)

  2. Energy types (Replies: 44)

  3. Types of pressure (Replies: 1)

Loading...