Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TByte on June 10, 2011 at 1:29am

Equilibrium does not exclusively equal a resting state at the bottom of the arc.

Uhmm...with the exception of a pendulum on a rigid rod which could, theoretically, come to equillibrium at the top of the system, you are completely wrong on this.  Equilibrium in a pendulum by definition means a resting state at the bottom of the arc.  These are the only two possible equilibrium states.

"A perpetual oscillation is one form of equilibrium."

Incorrect.  It is not in any way equilibrium.  It is what is known as a steady state.  They are not the same thing.

You also badly misinterpreted what I said earlier.  I said that a spring and a continually flowing fluid represent energy injected into the system.

Actually, I chose to ignore what you said earlier because it too, was wrong, and I did not want to raise your hackles further.  But since you bring it up, a spring does NOT represent energy injected into the system.  I don't think you understand the concept of energy.  Neither the spring nor gravity contribute any energy whatsoever to they pendulum.  None.  In no way can they be said to "power" the system. Ask any physicist whether a gravity adds energy to a pendulum, and I guarantee 100% that they will say no.

More support from the wikipedia article:

"When released, the restoring force combined with the pendulum's mass causes it to oscillate about the equilibrium position"

THE equilibrium position.  Not "one of the equilibrium positions". Nowhere does the article use the term equilibrium to describe anything other than the pendulum at rest at the bottom of the arc.

And then, of course, there is the wikipedia article on equilibrium which simply defines it thus:  "Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced."

As you (should) know from physics, when competing influences are balanced there is can be NO acceleration.  The absolute ONLY state of a classic pendulum where there is no acceleration is at the bottom of the arc.

"You've also missed a lot of the precise wording in that article, and more to the point, you've missed where words are missing."

I've missed where words were missing?  You are getting desperate.  Why don't you go back to the wikipedia article to "correct" it, and see what happens to your edits....

Permalink Reply by Dustin Williams on June 10, 2011 at 2:11am

Let me try again to bridge the sides of this pointless argument who are yelling past each other:

1. When a pendulum is resting there is no energy in the system. If you lift one side your energy is inputed into the system and converted to potential energy as you pull against gravity, magnetic forces, a spring, or what ever other force is acting on the system.

2. When you let go of it the potential energy is converted to inertia due to the draw of the eternal force.

3. When it passes the balance point the inertia is converted back to potential energy.

4. Small amounts of energy are lost to friction during all points of the process which giving it enough time will draw all of the energy out of the system until it stops at the balance point.

The external force does not add any energy to the system. It's only added when an external agent inputs energy to raise the pendulum to one side against the draw of the external force. The only removal of energy from the system is due to friction.

If you are trying to stop the cultural pendulum swing then you aren't gravity since that force (in this scenario) is required for the system to work, you are trying to play the role of friction.

As a warning to friction agents, you can expect a lot of heat from both sides and don't apply too much friction or you just might catch fire.

Permalink Reply by Dustin Williams on June 6, 2011 at 10:56pm

TByte, thanks for getting my name right half of the time...

If you made a statement like you propose in an appropriate context, then you probably would have gotten an angry response from a woman or two, just as Sandy got an angry response from you. Again, if it were used in an appropriate context then I would have probably stood up for you in the discussion. Of course I also might not have since I was socialized to think that men can fend for themselves and women need protection.

Sandy's comment did not make me feel any shame or guilt on behalf of my gender. It was made in the context of a story about women in Indonesia who think they have to be completely submissive to their husbands and who think they are commanded by Allah to do so. I feel no guilt for the attitudes and opinions of people who are slaves of Islam half way around the world. I feel sorry for them, but I don't feel guilty because their men are religiously justified assholes.

Women need more access to health care assistance considering the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant and are often left caring for the child alone. Due to anatomy, women are also significantly more susceptible STIs and are more likely to have greater complications if the infection goes untreated.

You are right that there is still some affirmative action that favors women over men. That is an unjust and unfair to men. Of course, considering the fact that men make more money than women in the same job, often have an easier time getting promoted, and are more likely to be taken seriously by their superiors, some leveling of the playing field is warranted.

What has happened in education, where there has been such a drive to help young women go to college and gain advanced degrees, has resulted in men being a minority in most universities, and some some cases a very small minority. I'm glad that so many women are getting an education, but now young men need to be pushed to succeed.

As far as your sugar coating of male stereotypes, it's not very useful. A lot of guys are great, but there are also quite a few who are selfish assholes. That's not to say that all women are perfect...

All that being said, Sandy's statement was pretty innocent, I think you're just being a bit too sensitive.

Permalink Reply by TByte on June 6, 2011 at 11:39pm

"Sandy's comment did not make me feel any shame or guilt on behalf of my gender. "And yet you felt compelled to reply, and tell her that not all men treat women with disrespect.  Why did you feel the need to post a response if you did not feel a need to redeem your gender?  Why did you feel the need to post a serious response if Sandy's post was meant in jest?"It was made in the context of a story about women in Indonesia who think they have to be completely submissive to their husbands and who think they are commanded by Allah to do so."Sandy did not ask whether female submission was the only thing that makes Indonesion men happy, or keeps Islamist societies afloat.  Her comment was aimed at the male gender as a whole.  It was aimed at you, and it was aimed at me, and it was aimed at our sons.
"Women need more access to health care assistance considering the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant and are often left caring for the child alone. "Are you not aware that women outlive men?Are you not aware that mortality rates for testicular cancer are even with mortality rates for breast cancer, yet breast cancer recieves THREE TIMES the funding?Are you not aware that in very many cases, women end up caring for children alone because they actively exclude the fathers from their children's lives?
"considering the fact that men make more money than women in the same job, often have an easier time getting promoted, and are more likely to be taken seriously by their superiors, some leveling of the playing field is warranted."Are you aware that all studies that examine the causes of the wage disparity between men and women have shown that this is due to choices made by women in their careers, and not by systematic discrimination?  Are you aware that a recent study showed that unmarried professional women without children earned 8 percent MORE than their unmarried professional childless male colleagues?  The wage gap is a complete myth, and you have been fed a line.
If I am being sensitive, it is because I have witnessed the effects of statements such as Sandy's first-hand.  I have walked into a family court room and had to deal with the assumption that I was a self-centered dead-beat father who's only goal was to avoid supporting his children.  I've been presumed guilty in courtrooms, and I've seen how men are presumed guilty within society as a whole.  Posts such as Sandy's contribute to this.

Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin Dustin.

(Just trying to increase my overall accuracy rate....)

Permalink Reply by Dustin Williams on June 7, 2011 at 12:45am

My initial comment to Sandy's post was not meant to make men look better, it was my own commentary on the absurdity of the Obedient Wives Club.

Yes, a lot of good men do get a bad rap, but it's not because of statements about the absurdity of the views of a few Indonesian women. I'm sorry that you lost your custody battle, but just because the courts and your ex-wife screwed you over doesn't mean you have to take it out on all women.

As far as the studies you mention, I'm not familiar with them. Could you provide links?

Permalink Reply by TByte on June 7, 2011 at 6:34am

I didn't lose my custody battle.

I won, but only after the mother demonstrated complete irresponsibility did I get primary custody of my children.  And then I was STILL ordered to pay child support to my non-custodial ex-wife who had the children about 30% of the time, because she was voluntarily unemployed.  It took five years, two trips to the court of appeals, and $80,000 to get that reversed.

The studies are available by google searching, and I have also posted them on Atheist Nexus before in the Atheist Feminist forum.  I don't have time to dig them up right now.  If you are unable to find them in a search, let me know and I will retrieve them for you.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on June 6, 2011 at 9:37pm

How long have you been on AN?  How many of Sandy's posts have you read?

Permalink Reply by TByte on June 6, 2011 at 10:35pm

Sandy, admittedly, is usually pretty balanced in her comments.

I will say, I think she may have been unaware of the subtle implications of her post.

I respect Sandy, based upon the other exchanges we have had, but I will still call her out when she posts something which is demeaning to men.  I trust she, and others, would do the same were I to post something demeaning to women.

Permalink Reply by Rob van Senten on June 7, 2011 at 4:40am

I think she may have been unaware of the subtle implications of her post.

 

You are free to think that, but it is an assumption on you part, you can attempt to show that it might be a somewhat reasonable assumption but you do not know this. 

 

I will still call her out when she posts something which is demeaning to men.

 

Please do so, I do see a lot of sexism going around in everyday life and what can be frustrating to me is that it's not okay to make sexist jokes about women, but that it is often quite okay to make sexist jokes about men. Personally, I would like to see that all kinds of horribly offensive jokes are considered to be ok, regardless of who might be offended and to what degree.

 

I do feel however that this is more then just a pet peeve to you and that you are emotionally involved in this subject, all perfectly fine to me, but it does seem though you are taking your assumptions at least one step too far. You can also point out your problems and opinions in regards to the subject or Sandy's post without making assumptions as to the motivation of the people involved, it will generally improve the atmosphere of the discussion.

Permalink Reply by TByte on June 7, 2011 at 6:43am

Rob, where in my original post did I make assumptions regarding Sandy's motivation?
"But I also have to say, Sandy, that your post if pretty offensive. I don't feel that I should have to be put into the position of defending my gender. I'm sure you would be offended if I posted an article about gold-digging women with a comment such as 'Just wondering, but is sponging off of men the only thing that women want and keeps societies afloat'? Gross gender generalizations and exaggeration of stereotypes are divisive, demeaning, and intellectually shallow regardless of their target."
I simply requested that she consider whether she would be offended by a similar comment regarding women before she posts things like that again. It looks to me like I made my point in exactly the manner you have requested. I'm starting to think that everybody ELSE here is over-reacting to my comment.
And by the way, up to this point NOBODY on this thread has had the courage to answer my questions.

Permalink Reply by Sandy on June 7, 2011 at 7:17am

I notice, TByte, that during your long-winded "argument" on the AN News wall, TNT666 called you out as actually being Bruce Lindemann, the guy who was accused of being a troll on the Feminist Atheists forum a few months ago. I thought she was wrong, as initially your posts didn't come across the same as Bruce's but now I'm beginning to wonder. Bruce used to make the same sorts of accusations - "nobody's answered my questions" - "you're all over-reacting to innocent-little-me." "women have everything their own way, and it's so unfair to men" ad nauseam.

If you are Bruce, and you're only keeping this thread alive to feed a deep need for attention, please stop. You're sucking my time.

Permalink Reply by TByte on June 7, 2011 at 7:25am

Yes, that is me. And I'll point out (as you should have read in the thread) that TNT666 was admonished by the forum moderator that revealing a member's name without their consent is a violation of site rules.
Care to post you last name, Sandy? If not, then please refresh yourself on forum rules.
Accusing me of having a deep need for attention is a cheap and shallow dodge. You are well aware that I post only when particular issues are raised. Why don't you try actually answering my questions rather than trying to excuse away my motivations?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page