Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson  It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Aaron |
Hi all
I think there's a lot more in this statement than Fredrick was prepared to allow. Most of the pictures on the site have a high entertainment value but add little to understanding. As you know (Fredrick and Pat), I have been seeking to find common ground between some of the shapes you use and the structure of particles. What I find missing is the concise use of illustration to clarify the point being made.
Fredrick - your attempted put down of Aaron's very valid point was not worthy of one so thoughtful.
regards
Felix