Comment: Further defense against personal attacks.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Why do you have to be such a dick? (see in situ)

Further defense against personal attacks.

"Instead, you chose to jump on the fact that I used a different word."

Granted: some people read too much in between the lines, whereby a person will perceive wrongly that the person writing the words intended to "jump on" something, or any other example of an error in communicating intended meaning.

In fact: I want to know more about the reasons for using the word Energy instead of using the word Power and if there is negative (as in "Why do you have to be such a Dick?") connotation for someone asking for clarification, then I want to know (I am curious to know) why there is negative connotation to curiosity.

Energy, as far as I've been told: "cannot be created nor destroyed", and therefore I prefer to use the word power when explaining how Political Economy works.

As in: Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

The sentence is an accurate sentence but there is a qualifier that makes the sentence more powerful, or more able to convey accurate meaning, but then the sentence begins to lose power since the sentence is already larger than a sound bite, so the sentence is often too much work for the reader.

Productive power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power (deflation or monetary appreciation) increases because productive power reduces the cost of production.

To me that has to be understood before anyone can dive into the productively powerful work of understanding Political Economy since the role of MONEY becomes so obviously important once it is understood to be, in fact, and in accurately measurable fact: power.

Money is power - or it isn't money.

The word energy does not fit, for more reason than I can come up with on my own; hence my curiosity to know why someone else takes out the word power and puts in the word energy.

For such things I am a Dick - apparently.

"You "cut off" the very instructions you later requested. I'm done. Go research both how to fix things and how to communicate without pissing people off. bye bye."

I once had a very hard time finding anyone who has an interest in comparing viewpoints competitively, and I had developed a "thick shin" as a result. Now more and more people actually listen when I speak, and if I am speaking in front of an audience, such as the speaking done during my Campaign for Congress in 1996, the people listening included people who feed back positive, but qualified, feedback concerning what I have to say, and the way I say what I have to say.

I no longer see much use in having someone shoot me with another Parthian Arrow - but that does not stop the arrows from being shot.

As to the cutting off of the words, the principle of expedience was working in more ways than one on my end, since I had other things to do, and since Forum Text can be set aside and returned to in due time.

I do want to know what this means:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

I have similar ideas concerning workable methods that work toward producing power in abundance. I don't know how energy can be produced into abundance since, again, I've been taught that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and energy merely changes form: or so the story goes. I don't see how force can be made into abundance but I can guess, and even agree, if there is entered into the perspective a concept called "velocity" as in monetary velocity, but that term is probably too misleading to be of any good, unless those working this angle understand the meaning meant by the term monetary velocity.

Too much force can be very bad, but too much productive power isn't very bad, it is potentially productive, and if the power is used to destroy, then it becomes force in that way.

Those are my thoughts, as I begin to look back into the text recorded on this forum to find out what the following words mean:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

"This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight."

Sometimes I have a harder time dealing with the often case of having to be on the receiving end of a Character Assassin who deputizes themselves, volunteering, and then executing the assassinations of characters where it is my character being assassinated. Sometimes it is easy to take, other times it is less easy to take, but it happens a lot, and so often does it happen, often enough, I have now a thick skin, more or less, and I try to "nip it in the bud".

Perhaps there is a new way of measuring the law of diminishing returns involved.

"In a scientific discussion with technical details, accuracy is a necessity but in a casual conversation, many conversational shortcuts are taken to facilitate interest in place of boredom. It is this reason that I did take minimal offense to you saying that you chose your words carefully. By you saying that, you are telling me that I am trying to change the question, which I was not. I was clarifying it to a root issue (for MY accuracy's sake) without actually mentioning that you had used the wrong term."

I am still looking for the meaning of this:

"This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight."

I am looking for the meaning of that because I am curious about what that means - exactly.

"So, hopefully that will show you that I was not fostering a hit piece."

Examples of a hit piece (character assassination):

1.
"This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight."
2.
"Why do you have to be such a dick?"
3.
"Go research both how to fix things and how to communicate without pissing people off. bye bye"

All responsibility is now charged to my account. This is familiar territory.

But, I am still curious about the meaning of this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

I want to know what that means.

I read this:

"You "cut off" the very instructions you later requested."

I'm going back to that published text to find the meaning of this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

No answer to that yet but I found this:

"Regarding the 'tunnel effect'. That, again, was a case of brevity that you misunderstood."

Actually I reported, in fact, that I did not understand the meaning of the term, and in fact I asked for clarification as to the meaning you intend with that word - in fact - and I can easily cut and paste my actual words published as they were published exactly.

My defense against your twisting my words would probably cause more character assassination on your part to be invented, produced, and executed upon me, but you already shot the Parthian Arrow, so, you are done, but that does not mean that I am done defending myself, and I am still curious about this:

"Regarding the 'tunnel effect'. That, again, was a case of brevity that you misunderstood."

So I read on.

"I had explained that friction (and thus wasted power) would be increased. When I referenced it later, I was still in the same context of that topic so I simply put an arbitrary label on that explanation."

An "arbitrary label" was a fear I had in wasting my time looking for a non-arbitrary label for "Tunnel Effect", so my guess was correct?

No need wasting my time with arbitrary labels.

"This is a common practice in casual and even non-critical scientific conversations. It is also common practice to confront someone on correcting words as accusing them of misunderstanding the original statement. This is seen a argumentative sarcasm and is viewed as arrogant, regardless of intent."

I was not volunteering to go off on a wild goose chase in the effort to chase down Tunnel Effect, which it turns out to be an "arbitrary label", so it is a good thing that I didn't spend much time chasing down that wild goose, or that "arbitrary label".

I did ask.

Now I'm still curious about this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

"That is what your response came off as. Either way, there is no scientific 'tunnel effect' to my knowledge unless the science community has recently held a conference on my recent post. (that was a joke JICYWW)"

I am the dick here, so no, I was not wondering. I think the topic is serious, and worthy of serious effort.

I'd like to know what the following means:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

I can look further.

"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."

If I had said that then you could quote where I said that, but since I did not say that, you can't. No one I know says such things, except you, as you then place what you said onto my character as you assassinate my character. That is called a Straw Man argument.

What I did say was this:

_________________________________
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
________________________________

Gravity is a constant rate of acceleration and it can be measured exactly that way as a rate of acceleration, or constant, and it can be said to be a FORCE, as in The Force of Gravity. There is no way to Force a given mass on a vector perpendicular to the Force of gravity. That is what I meant.

I did not mean this:

"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."

What I meant was that an angle that is parallel to The Force of Gravity, such as a tunnel going straight through the center of the Earth, where a massive object is "dropped" the force of Gravity will accelerate the mass at the rate that The Force of Gravity accelerates the mass that is "dropped" down the hole.

If the hole is very wide, and if the object is smaller than the hole, then it is possible (in theory if not practically possible) that the object never contacts the sides of the tunnel, and that leaves the factor of air resistance to be the one remaining factor of FORCE that resists The Force of Gravity, so the mass slows down.

If the mass is a pancake, or a sunny side up chicken egg cooked with the yolk still runny, then hitting the sides is not good, and air resistance on that mass is much greater than if the mass in question where an object of measure that is measured with high sectional density such as an arrow, and if the arrow shape is very dense material then the amount of air resistance FORCE is reduced further.

I did not get into those accurate measures since the concept of a Gravity Train could include the concept of producing and maintaining a vacuum in the tunnel.

You said this:

"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."

I did not say that.

I said this:
________________________________
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
________________________________

I meant that there are many angles in between perpendicular and parallel relative to the gravity vector of The Force of Gravity (which is a constant rate of acceleration) and if a ball is on a flat surface and the flat surface is perpendicular to the gravity vector then the ball does not roll uphill, and the ball does not roll downhill. If the plane, or the road, or the flat surface that the ball is not rolling on because it is perpendicular to the flat surface, tilted, inclined, or no longer perpendicular to the gravity vector then the ball rolls down hill. If the angle is shallow and the mass is massive, a massive ball, or a pancake, or a sunny side up egg, then the constant Force of Gravity is measurably less able to force the pancake, or the low mass ball, or the high mass ball, to roll on a shallow angle, the rate of acceleration of the pancake is less at that shallow angle - a function of geometry, and friction.

A ball, or pancake, or sunny side up egg, on a very efficient bearing surface, instead of a rough surface, reduces friction, but the geometric angle relative to the gravity vector remains a constant geometric reduction in the rate of acceleration resulting from The Force of Gravity working on the mass at that angle made by that flat bearing surface.

Then there are magnetic bearing surfaces to consider.

Here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train

Friction at a shallow angle where The Force of Gravity is constant but divided by the geometric angle off the gravity vector, can be reduced to a minimum in many ways.

You said this:

"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."

I did not say that.

I said this:
________________________________
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
________________________________

If the tunnel is straight down through a gravity field (on a small planet, or impractically done on The Earth) the mass being accelerated by The Force of Gravity can be kept off the sides of the tunnel completely; but the angles that are practical are shallow (not parallel) relative to The Force of Gravity, and as the angle moves off of parallel and as the angle moves closer to parallel (where no acceleration is possible from The Force of Gravity) there is an increase in the accurate measure of the force that arrests acceleration known as friction, and that is a function of geometry, as my words intended to mean.

My words intended to mean what my words intended to mean, your words are not my words.

These:

"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."

Those are your words, not mine.

Back to working to find the meaning of this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

I find this instead:

"Whatever you can do in a tunnel, you can do to surface transportation so saying that it could be placed in an evacuated tube or similar is beside the point."

I did nothing in a tunnel. The point I made (not the point you are making) was that The Force of Gravity is used in the design of a Gravity Train, as explained by those who know what they are talking about.

I'll keep looking for the meaning of this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

I found this:

"In both cases, whatever friction you have acting to slow the train (by air, wheels or magnetics) will increase linearly (at least) with speed. In doing so, you will lose more total momentum by any method to increase speed and this will have to be made up in order to return to the surface at the other end. Traveling through a Gravity Train tunnel qualifies as such a method."

Air resistance increases square with velocity, or so I'm told. These are things commonly known by many people. It is reasonable to me, accurately measurable. The Gravity Train employs The Force of Gravity. The non-Gravity Train (if it has to go downhill) employes The Force of Gravity, or brakes are used to arrest a train that is not designed to go past a designed top speed. Trains, even now, or so I am told, employ regenerative braking to be used to recharge batteries.

Back to looking for this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

"Since you'll probably argue this point, I will present 3 such cases."

I don't argue if by argue you mean something other than discussion; as what I do is I offer a competitive perspective: discussion.

"Short distance: If we use a tunnel of 1-20 miles, we can see the following parameters. The angle of descent into the tunnel will be insignificant and gains from this venture will be indistinguishable from friction. Comparing these non-existent gains against the cost of digging a 20 mile tunnel is a no-brainer, i.e. ludicrous."

I agree that your hit piece above is ludicrously ambiguous.

"This is not a critique of you suggesting it but of the promoters actually thinking it may be worthwhile. Again, it certainly is not a hit piece for me to have stated as such."

I offer a competitive perspective that suggests that your ludicrously ambiguous hit piece on a Gravity Train is understood by me to be exactly that, and no more.

I'll keep looking for this:

"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."

"Let's see if I can suggest a way you could agree with for doing that which would also be much much much cheaper than both a Gravity Train (GT) or current methods."

Lets

"Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them."

I think the Sky Train is competitive.

I was looking for this:

"Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them."

I did not find it.

I have my own ideas concerning how people can increase total productive power.

Here is a short list:

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to be mislead by criminals)

I have many ways to convey how Liberty works so as to allow people to do what they normally do, which is to make more out of less, and if people are allowed to do what they normally do they do make more out of less, and once that goes on for any length of time there is more to use in making more out of less much like the reverse of air resistance.

A Solar Panel can illustrate the point.

I was hoping to find this:

"Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them."

I did not find that, so I am left with my own competitive viewpoints on how to increase total productive power.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Since the Parthian Arrow was shot I have no reason to edit the above defense against further character assassination, but if anyone wants to know my competitive viewpoint on making power abundant just ask a direct question and I can reply with a competitive answer.

Joe