um...yes?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeggings >> ^residue:
nice jeggings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeggings >> ^residue:

nice jeggings

Aw, gee. Now we've bonded. This is how I make all my friends. VS definitely one of the friendlier places on the net. That's why I gave you a rationale/weak apology for calling you a cunt!

And I think the best answer to your question about what explanation I would prefer is: a vague 2D force diagram sort of explanation with words and gestures if a graphic overlay is out of the question.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Ok, tempers can rise. I just don't like being called a cunt, especially when I can't see any reason for the increased anger. And I'm also used to VideoSift being a more friendly corner of the internet than many others. From your second comment on my profile I see that you have deeper reasons than I thought, but I believe you misunderstand my intentions, as I have partially explained below.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Ok, tempers can rise. I just don't like being called a cunt, especially when I can't see any reason for the increased anger. And I'm also used to VideoSift being a more friendly corner of the internet than many others. From your second comment on my profile I see that you have deeper reasons than I thought, but I believe you misunderstand my intentions, as I have partially explained below.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Well, excuse me then for not intuitively knowing the extent of your physics knowledge before engaging in a discussion. It doesn't mean I should have to receive petty insults. I actually agree that his way was not necessarily the best way to describe it to a layman. But in the comment I replied to first you insinuate that the physicist feels like he is talking to a child, and I only pointed out that it could be the case that he actually thinks that way himself about the problem. Your personal understanding of the experiment had nothing to do with it.

Communicating physics without using physics speech is damn hard, especially since different audiences react differently to the same presentation. You cannot always know what will enlighten and what will confuse. And in any audience there will be some for whom the description is too complicated and some for whom it will be too simple. If someone perceives the presenter as condescending because he would have preferred a higher-level description for himself, that's hardly the presenters fault.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
You're being double-condescending whether you mean to or not. That's why.

When I complain about something, that doesn't mean I need you to back me up a few steps and explain why something is the way that it is. You seem to assume I don't understand what I'm seeing and that really pisses me off.

I understand why the physicist might use such language (from his POV - that of someone with a complete understanding - it seems like a suitably complete analogue for the interaction of the elements in the system). But from a practical point of view it just confuses laymen who end up trying to figure out where the "mind" of the slinky fits into the thing.

A physics explanation I would prefer would leave out such mind/will/consciousness analogues and just describe what was happening, PHYSICALLY, in the system. I.E. never tell me that electrons WANT to move from one place to another. I know what it's supposed to mean because I'm not a complete amateur in physics... but to a real layman, it's confusing as shit, trust me.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Here's an example: My friend was talking to me about Hellboy 2 and he said "I think it's a good metaphor." to which I said "A metaphor for what? Power? I like my metaphors a bit less obvious." (the plot hinges on a talisman which controls an unbeatable army... can't think of a more boring/lazy "metaphor" for the seeking/abuse of power.

He then wasted a great deal of energy trying to "explain" to me what a metaphor is, as if a lack of knowledge were the root of my complaint. And the really irritating part is he just persisted in trying to explain metaphors to me even after I broke down why it was a shitty and lazy metaphor. Much like you're doing now in continuing to offer me an explanation ("what form of explanation would you prefer? I'll be happy to oblige." ... I don't know dipshit, ask the pekople who don't understand it!). I still get annoyed when I think about the conversation, which was more than three years ago, because I am a neurotic mess and an assface.

The above described incident is basically the same deal as we've got going. A complaint will often stem from understanding, not a lack of understanding. To assume it stems from a lack of understanding is condescending and just irritating.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

You're being double-condescending whether you mean to or not. That's why.

When I complain about something, that doesn't mean I need you to back me up a few steps and explain why something is the way that it is. You seem to assume I don't understand what I'm seeing and that really pisses me off.

I understand why the physicist might use such language (from his POV - that of someone with a complete understanding - it seems like a suitably complete analogue for the interaction of the elements in the system). But from a practical point of view it just confuses laymen who end up trying to figure out where the "mind" of the slinky fits into the thing.

A physics explanation I would prefer would leave out such mind/will/consciousness analogues and just describe what was happening, PHYSICALLY, in the system. I.E. never tell me that electrons WANT to move from one place to another. I know what it's supposed to mean because I'm not a complete amateur in physics... but to a real layman, it's confusing as shit, trust me.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Video: cool
Explanation: weak
Tennis analogy: false

Better explanation: Initially, gravity is pulling the whole thing downward while the hand pulls the top upward and the rest of the slinky pulls itself upward and downward creating a balance. Then the old dude lets go of the top. The force pulling up on the bottom still exists, but it is now balanced by accelerating the top downwards faster than just gravity (notice how the slinky slows down as it collapses and loses force. As long as the coils are still taut, the upward force pulling the bottom of the spring up is the same. The top is now falling (being pulled down, actually) instead of pulling the old dude's hand, but the force in the spring is the same.

My guess is that a solid object dropped from the height of the middle of the slinky would hit the ground at the same time as the slinky did. But is that the middle point of a slinky stretched like this one (the top is stretched more than the bottom), or the same middle as when it's all neutral.

Tennis: With all the flex in a tennis racquet's webbing, the the player may feel the ball while it's still on the racquet, before the webbing shoots the ball back out again, but certainly long before it gets to the net.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ7prb43Lk (watch the vibrations in the racquet)

Explain why you're being a cunt.

>> ^Ornthoron:

It was not my intention to be condescending, only to explain why the physicist uses the words he does. Tell me then: What kind of explanation would you prefer? I'll do my best to oblige you.
>> ^budzos:
Now you're being condescending. "It gets the information and knows to fall" is nonsensical handwavy shite that doesn't really explain anything to a layman.

It was not my intention to be condescending, only to explain why the physicist uses the words he does. Tell me then: What kind of explanation would you prefer? I'll do my best to oblige you.

>> ^budzos:

Now you're being condescending. "It gets the information and knows to fall" is nonsensical handwavy shite that doesn't really explain anything to a layman.

Now you're being condescending. "It gets the information and knows to fall" is nonsensical handwavy shite that doesn't really explain anything to a layman.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Peroxide:
"It" doesn't "get" any information...

I found this really damn irritating, too. Why must so many physics explanations ascribe will/consciousness to the objects in question? It comes off as condescending to me, like the physicist feels as though he's talking to a child.

Calm down, it's only a visualization technique. It's the way most physicists actually think about the problem too, even though the actual physical processes are far more complicated. The reason we do that is because it is easier, and it works.
Physics, with all the underlying jumping and jittering of atoms and molecules, is hard. Most physics phenomena are impossible to describe starting from the underlying quantum field theory. That's why we describe the world using other concepts such as temperature, pressure, and elasticity. They explain the world at higher level in the hierarchy, but that doesn't make them any less real. In the same vein, propagation of information is a useful concept for explaining many phenomena, but that doesn't mean we ascribe any consciousness to the object in question.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's the Looney Tunes Effect. A character that runs off a cliff will not fall until he realizes he's only standing on air.

Yes! Just like Roger Rabbit can only escape from the handcuffs when it's funny to do so.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^Peroxide:
"It" doesn't "get" any information...

I found this really damn irritating, too. Why must so many physics explanations ascribe will/consciousness to the objects in question? It comes off as condescending to me, like the physicist feels as though he's talking to a child.


Calm down, it's only a visualization technique. It's the way most physicists actually think about the problem too, even though the actual physical processes are far more complicated. The reason we do that is because it is easier, and it works.

Physics, with all the underlying jumping and jittering of atoms and molecules, is hard. Most physics phenomena are impossible to describe starting from the underlying quantum field theory. That's why we describe the world using other concepts such as temperature, pressure, and elasticity. They explain the world at higher level in the hierarchy, but that doesn't make them any less real. In the same vein, propagation of information is a useful concept for explaining many phenomena, but that doesn't mean we ascribe any consciousness to the object in question.