Fdarkangel's critique of the word type

[fdarkangel]

fdarkangel,

You are incorrect. It is perfectly acceptable to call chemical potential, gravitational potential, sound, heat, etc. "types" of energy.

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.

 

[chroot]

you sound too confident.
i guess, in order to categorize "things", 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.

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

 

[fdarkangel]

I have no idea what you're asking.

i can see that.
then can you simply explain why I'm incorrect?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[fdarkangel]

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

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.

 

[chroot]

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

Are you... trying to teach me something?

- Warren

 

[fdarkangel]

Are you... trying to teach me something?

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.

 

[chroot]

fdarkangel,

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

- Warren

 

[Davorak]

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.

Wait you mean...chroot is hexhunter

 

[fdarkangel]

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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[fdarkangel]

so, you prefer to insist on such time-waste. then so shall it be.

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.

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"?

Since you want to throw credentials into the mix, I'd like to remind you I've more education than you.

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.

 

[chroot]

if you stop insuting and emphasizing how "great" you are, i'll point you to the post #7.

I answered your question -- the difference between different types of energy is obvious.

1st, a parrot does not know what it's "parroting".

Exactly my point. That's why I used the word 'parrot,' after all.

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.

Kinetic and potential energy are physically distinct; if you really need me to explain the distinction, I'm not going to bother.

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.

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.

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.

Neither are you, of course.

- Warren

 

[fdarkangel]

when will you give up trying to show the statements that i haven't said as if i said?

You seem to feel quite comfortable in telling me (a native english speaker) the best word to use in my language

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.

Kinetic and potential energy are physically distinct; if you really need me to explain the distinction, I'm not going to bother.

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.

Exactly my point. That's why I used the word 'parrot,' after all.

at least, you seem to know yourself well.

type /taıp/ noun, verb
noun
1 [C] ~ (of sth) a class or group of people or things that share particular qualities or features and are part of a larger group; a kind or sort

form /f{O}{:}m; AmE f{O}{:}rm/ noun, verb
noun

WAY STH IS / LOOKS|
2 [C, U] the particular way sth is, seems, looks or is presented

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.