| | |  | This is the Conversation Forum for Inertia Equals Gravity
I must strenuously object! >> | |
| | | Subject: Congratulations - Your Entry has been Picked for the Edited Guide!
Posted Jul 5, 2003 by FordsTowel
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
21
  | | Hi Flu, Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your reply was thoughtful and somewhat well reasoned regarding my belief that I know Einstein's mind. I certainly do not consider myself the final arbiter of his feelings; I'm not channeling him, that's for sure.
However, the same reasoning makes me reiterate that your statement was 'In his mind at least, they were the same force.' If he never actually used those words, then the phrase 'the same force' would be a misrepresentation. His suggestions of the forces unity is still less than equality, and the phrasing makes it sound like a paraphrasing. It would be more accurate to simply use the term 'equivalent', rather than 'the same force'.
People tend to believe and repeat what they read, especially when it resides in a such a well-written, overall factual and commendable article. (Read the guide discussion on the myth that people only use 10% of their brain. It is a great example of how a possibly careless misrepresentation of a study's outcome can lead to mass mythologies.) It would be a pity if people started prattling on about Einstein believing that Inertia and Gravity were the same force, if this is not precisely what he said.
Your article would be improved by the sentence's modification or deletion. You've put too much effort into it to allow a stigma of sloppiness to fall upon it. I didn't see anything else to indicate that you don't entirely respect the subject and the personages you were honoring with it.
PS: I'm not trying to be a bad guy here. I really am supportive of not only your work, but the overall value of the Guide itself. If my objection seems picky, it is only because I am passionate about the subject.
Remember Einstein's story about his 'cosmological constant' theory. He was so intent on believing that his preferred assumption, that the universe is stable, be true that he introduced that which he later called the worst mistake of his life. Once the red shift proved that the universe is an expanding one, he wanted to take it out. But, once the concept was entered into the physics' world stream of consciousness, it could not be removed. Don't do something that cannot be removed, unless it is absolutely correct.
|
|  |
| | | Subject: Congratulations - Your Entry has been Picked for the Edited Guide!
Posted Jul 5, 2003 by FordsTowel
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
23
| | Hi again, Flu,
I don't know if you may consider this germaine to our convesation, but I am currently enaged in another thread that stemmed from another nice Guide Entry on the phrase Tanstaafl. On the very off-chance that you are not familiar with the acronym, it stands for 'Their Ain't no such thing as a free lunch'.
The researcher attributes its origin to a brilliantly written Robert Heinlin sci-fi novel 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'. The researcher may be right, but far too much of the discussion has revolved around people trying to prove that they could get fed a lunch that cost them nothing. Kind of like trying to prove that a stitch in time doesn't save exactly nine stitches, don't you think?
Just an example of how literal minded, and doggedly linear-thinking many people are. I propose this as an example of why we must so carefully and astiduously select our words, so as not to add to the aggregate confusion out there.
Your friend in h2g2
|
| | | Subject: Congratulations - Your Entry has been Picked for the Edited Guide!
Posted Jul 6, 2003 by perfectfluid
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
24
| | Bad guy, FT? Never for a moment! I am grateful for your attention.
The issue now seems to be what Einstein actually said more than what he felt. You've convinced me that utterances, however one chooses to interpret them, cannot be treated loosly, so I've made a slight alteration to the 2nd sentence of the relevant section. This should at least cover me on the 'channeling' and 'sloppiness' chagres.
Now for the linguistics. My dictionary gives its 1st definition for 'unity' as the state of being one single entity; oneness. Other definitions follow which may be more consistent with your position, so we must turn to the context of Einstein's phrase, 'the unity of their nature' to get his meaning. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, he is hoping that equivalence (numerical equality of inertia and gravity) might be explained by... equivalence? I don't think so. It is the 1st definition that fits. Anything else becomes a meaningless redundancy.
English, not being his native language, Einstein the intellectual, may be forgiven for using the more artful literary style of an earlier era rather than expressing himself in a more vulgar fashion.
Suggesting that the quote may have been paraphrased is a weak fall-back position and places the burden on you to produce the 'correct' version.
Martin Gardner, the author of the book from which the quote was taken devotes at least two pages to making the point that Einstein believed gravity and inertia are the same force, so it is not just me prattling on. The book is in its 2nd revised edition, and there has been no storm of protest over his assertion. If future generations are left misguided, there will be more learned men to blame than I.
I don't think I've gone too far wrong on this one, but I fully expect to in the future, so I'm depending on you to be there when it happens.
Is there a smiley for a handshake? Or should we keep beating this horse into pulp?
Thanks for the Transtaafl lesson. It's a good one to hold close.
|
| | | Subject: Congratulations - Your Entry has been Picked for the Edited Guide!
Posted Jul 6, 2003 by FordsTowel
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
25
| | 
In lieu of a handshake smiley, may I offer this sign of peace?
I would find the unwarranted punishment of any randomly nearby equus to be even more unpalatable than a disagreement on phrasing. I was certainly prepared simply to agree-to-disagree.
I may have forgotten the reference to Martin Gardner in your piece. It sounds as if this is a book that I should have already read. [It did occur to me, though, that if one has to take two pages making such a simple point, that the very fact one has to work that hard at it should bring closer scrutiny to the final observation. People trying hard to 'prove a point', have an exasperating tendency to include only those facts that support their position.]
Our languages certainly do get tricky. I have been burned many times by assuming someone has actually meant what they had actually said. Often, what folks say does not make precise use of dictionary definitions. Oh, but it were not so. This may be all the more reason to restrict oneself to direct quotes when possible. It at least eliminates the potential of 'charges' and places the requirement of exactness in speech back on the quotee. [My dictionary doesn't really contain the word 'quotee'; see what I mean.]
I rather like the term 'numerical equality'. It makes it clear that the results of equations 6x7 and 21+21 are equal, but maybe not equivalent, whereas equilateral triangles are always equivalent, but not necessarily equal.
This is not meant to extend the controversy, but I wonder what dictionary you used. I only ask because - in the sciences - words are often appropriated for specialized, within-the-field use, that may have no bearing on the day-to-day meaning of the words [such as the names of quarks]. If there is a good physics lexicon, I'd like to add it to my collection.
Sadly, we can be assured that future generations will always be misguided, on a myriad of subjects, by someones. All we can do is be on guard using critical thinking skills. Pity we have not yet developed technologies to do this, though I understand that there is an electric monk in the design stage.
Once again, , and thank you for being a good-natured researcher. Please feel free to comment most exactingly on my poor entries [though they are not likely to have been of such a challenging calibre].
|
| | | Subject: Congratulations - Your Entry has been Picked for the Edited Guide!
Posted Jul 6, 2003 by perfectfluid
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
26
| | Hi FT,
Since you asked, my dictionary is The Random House College Dictionary, an ordinary desk-top reference tool printed in 1986, I think.
I'm afraid I have misled you (my careless use of words again) about the effort expended by M. Gardner regarding equivalence. He merely takes 'equality' for granted as he explains its role in Einstein's development of GR. It's not an issue for him, and certainly not a polemic.
Now that the hound is about to allow the hare a breather, I'll be glad to relax and have a look at your own Entries.
|
| | | Subject: Congratulations - Your Entry has been Picked for the Edited Guide!
Posted Jul 8, 2003 by FordsTowel
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
27
| | Egad! Not that! Anything but that!!
Actually, I am always open to opinions, suggestions, or criticisms of my work. I may have already mentioned that the topics I might tackle are not likely to reach the technical level of yours. I admire what you've accomplished.
My first entry, now past Peer Review, was:
'Some Tips on Making Stage Props'
A straighforward and useful (I hope) piece.
My new entries are a 6 part series, tongue-in-cheek, now in Peer Review.
The titles of the pieces all begin with:
'Wilderness Survival on Earth'
I hope you enjoy any that you care to take the time to read.
PS: If M. Gardner did just make that assumptive leap, you know what they say about assuming.
|
|
|
   
 
Conversation list
Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click on the relevant button to alert our Moderation Team. |
Home
