Re: misconception bu omission

["Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@velocity.net>]

Ludwig,
I am surprised to see the butchering in your copy of my post; my
list-received copy did not have them.  I am using Outlook Express of MSIE4
and have it set to send in Plain Text; nor did I use any special characters.
It looks like the equal signs terminating the 3rd and 5th lines indicate
word wrapping within a word!  The only other butchering is the text
"blas=E9" (5th line), which should read "blase".  Did others get these
butcherings on this post?

The exponential models of radioactive decay and capacitor discharge predict
infinite lifetimes.  There is always charge left; there is always un-decayed
matter left.  We know that is not so! I cannot imagine presenting this model
without a full discussion of the logical origins, implications, etc of this
absurd mathematical statement.  Can we (should we) use a better model? . . .
etc.

-Bob

Bob Sciamanda   sciamanda@edinboro.edu
Dept of Physics   trebor@velocity.net
Edinboro Univ of PA  http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/home.html
Edinboro, PA   (814)838-7185
-----Original Message-----
From: LUDWIK KOWALSKI <KOWALSKIL@alpha.montclair.edu>
To: phys-L@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-L@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Date: Monday, February 16, 1998 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: misconception bu omission


> > Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:25:07 -0500
> > From: Bob Sciamanda <trebor@velocity.net>
> > Subject: Misconception by omission
>
> (This, by the way, is an example a butchered text; see below)
>
> I can follow Dave's example and say, "look in the archives, about two
> years ago" because this did come up. But knowing how busy people are
> I will be willing to summarize the essence of what was stated. But my
> time is also valuable. So please explain clearly what bothers you about
> the exponential models and what is so absurd about them. Perhaps I do not
> understand you and what I am about ready to type will be a waste of time.
>
>                                                         Ludwik Kowalski
> Bob's message, untouched, follows the asterisks.
> **********************************************************************
> I have yet to notice (i have not made a systematic search) a text which
> analyzes - or even notices - the patently absurd assertion of our
> exponential models of capacitive discharge, radioactive transmutation, et=
> c.
> It is a real eye opener to even the most blas=E9 students, and a hard hit=
> ting
> lesson in the nature of our models and their usefulness, as opposed to
> philosophical "truthfulness".
>
> Looking at a wider context, perhaps more misconceptions (and just lacuna)
> are wrought by omission, than by overt commission.
>
> -Bob