Leaderboard

Ignorance is a state we should be trying to correct constantly. Accumulated human knowledge is immense. Why are you making it about you personally? You're blaming yourself for not having something, thinking of yourself as an "idiot" for not understanding everything, and I think this is a problem. It makes you think of learning as "correcting your deficit", or "judging your capabilities" instead of "becoming even smarter" or "learning something new". You're a human, you have an amazing capacity to learn, and many tools that give knowledge deeper meaning and application. Nobody is exposing your ignorance when they teach you something, they're exposing your capacity to learn.

Well they would be wrong about this, but it would certainly be different from the gravity we experience. Several comments about dimensiosn. Firstly obviously a space on n dimensions cannot support an object of higher ( >n) dimensions. But there is a huge amount of established theory for objects of lesser dimension than n embedded in n (or more) dimensions. So for example in one dimension there are only lines and in two dimensions there are only surfaces. But there are also lines in two dimensions And there are lines and surfaces in three dimensions and so on. Another thing about dimensions are the properties and actions that are possible depend upon the number of dimensions. Rotations are impossible in one dimension. They are incomplete but possible in two dimensions. By incomplete I mean that you need a third dimension to fully describe them. Rotations are complete in three dimensions. By this I mean that you do not need another dimension to describe them every rotational axis is available in three dimensions. You do not need a fourth dimension for rotations. In fact rotations in the fourth dimension come in pairs. Similarly comments apply to curves since they are related to rotations. No curves are possible in one dimension, One curvature is available in two dimensions Two curvatures are available in three dimensions. I do not know of any truly one dimensional objects (except abstract ones) in two or more simensions but a shadow can be a truly two dimensional object in 3 dimensions, although the 2D surface may be a very complicated shape. They a

I suppose one should really be mindful of the familiarity of the listener to a particular style of delivery and adjust accordingly. Because it is not his intention to instill negativity from his responses, but yet he does, and he wishes to hear other peoples experience about it.

Very similar feeling here. If nothing else, forums like these help me keep working on it and adding consistency to a building that's bound to end up failing. It's like taking a look into a room that you haven't visited for a long time. I hope that something called wisdom emerges finally. Sometimes I feel that flexibility does the job much better --where I stand now-- than rigidity. Something like collagen for my aging cells?

Perhaps some academics fall into the trap of expecting too much of themselves and feel they shouldn't come up short in their area of interest in a discussion. My thoughts generally on this:Those who never made a mistake, never made anything. If we are talking to people who expose gaps in our knowledge, they are the ones to be held onto for more. It's all about how it's delivered. I'm not in this category, but if one has a pHD I suppose some people assume one has very extensive knowledge of a a subject, but it's actually only in the basics. As one rises through academia, specialistion increases depth at the expense of breadth. We can't know everything.

You are right Lorentz Jr, this is the main error in my calculations. There´s a gamma factor of proportionality in the transform between frames but there's also the translation of the moving frame. That was my big error. And everybody is right. I apologize for my error. I apologize Genady for not agreeing with you before. I couldn't see it. My error, my fault. I could see it applying the Lorentz's transform at the initial instant. It's all about relativity of simultaneity, something I didn't consider in the problem...

I thought this line, in a Washington Post article on polar vortexes and weather, was amusing... "A sudden stratospheric warming ensues when air temperatures in the stratosphere rapidly increase. " And illustrates one of the problems with science journalism when the writer is trying too hard to explain everything clearly. Still, a bit surprised an editor didn't catch the redundancy. Or maybe tautology is the word.

Is “not playing golf” learned? Is “not collecting stamps” learned? Is “not playing the guitar” learned? Is “not believing in Zeus” learned? If not, then why would “not believing in the current flavor-of-the-day god(s) that happen to be popular” be learned? Autodidact So, against religion, not just secular? It’s not hard to understand why 😲

Wise words. But what if you don't understand how the listener may interpret the style? Bear in mind that within a group focussed on the sciences, there is the possibility of interacting with some ASD spectrum affected indivividuals who really have a difficulty in comprehending the POV of others.

Working with youngsters gives you the plasticity of some kind of psychological amoeba. Your environment --as I see from your last post-- has been completely different. In my own words: From:

Yes, it doesn't bother me too much either. I lived in The Hague for a few years and came to appreciate Dutch directness. I also rowed for many years and am used to being coached, and then there is choral singing, in which coaching can also be fairly direct! I find your posts clear, knowledgeable and informative. And indeed, I think we are all here to learn, not just to pontificate.

Yes exactly. In fact one reason I hang out in these places in my retirement is to repoint the brickwork and replace loose roof tiles.

As are all reactions. How should I know? It depends on the Dutch poster, their fluency, their degree and manner of bluntness. If you don't fully understand what they mean, it would be wise to ask for clarification before concluding, but sometimes we are unwise and respond emotionally - in any language. Academic Nirvana?

For what it's worth, although there's some considerable overlap in our areas of interest, I've learnt to think very carefully before I post anything that may contradict something you've posted. Hey, none of us are perfect! But if we work together as a team and respect each other's core disciplines we have a chance of getting close to a viable conclusion.

Seth. LOL! Yes, analogously, it's like a triangle rising to an infinitesimally narrow peak... at the top one approaches total ignorance.

I really like this! The ultimate goal of an education system is to teach you everything there is to know about nothing! Yes. it's a reductio ad absurdum but it's also very funny.

I think it is disconcerting to find that something you thought you knew is wrong, especially when it relates to a subject area that you regard as your citadel of knowledge, i.e. helps to define your self-image. I'm now old enough to tread increasingly carefully, even there, as I'm finding a false memories sometimes catching me out. This is a phenomenon I expect to become more pronounced in the years to come. But taking exposure of error or ignorance as a deliberate attempt to belittle is something else. Normally I think most of us can tell whether someone is just correcting us or whether they are using it as an excuse to indulge in patronising or point-scoring. But perhaps some are over-sensitive and imagine negative motives when there are none.

How so? My attitude towards my dislikes should change? For who and for what reason? What do you mean my attitude towards my dislikes anyway??? I have stated what I dislike and I have also stated that I don't know the root cause of my dislikes, and I'm open to gaining an understanding of this. What is wrong with this attitude? Are you saying I should change my dislikes to likes, to make someone else feel more comfortable, or conform to modern culture or trend? That would be just silly, and hypocritical.

There is no known physical mechanism that can “shield” gravity in this way, so no reflection - in the sense that term is used for light e.g. - can happen. It is, however, possible to deflect gravitational waves, i.e. change their principle direction of propagation via interaction with background curvature, or other gravitational waves. Yes they can, and in full theory of GR that is a highly non-linear process (but linear approximations can sometimes be used to describe this). Yes, the Einstein equations emit solutions - both in vacuum and in so-called null dusts - which can be physically interpreted as the equivalent of standing waves. I don’t know about the amplification bit, since this is a non-linear situation, so one would have to run the maths on it. This should theoretically be possible I think, though again, one would have to do the maths (which wouldn’t be trivial at all) to be absolutely sure. I don’t understand this question…can you explain further?

No one seems to want to address the logical inconsistencies of the argument being presented by some. Homosexuals cannot help liking who, and what, they like; they are born that way, and conversion therapy does not work. Heterosexuals like who, and what, they do because of learned behavior, and being reasonong beings, can change their likes and dislikes. Can INow, or Phi, please explain this line of reasoning to me as I do not understand it. One of the above, bolded statements must be false.

I've forgotten the original topic, but perhaps this is relevant: Q. What is the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean? A. Donald Trump never had a garbanzo bean on his face. Stupid joke, right? It's funny partly for the wordplay, partly because it references Trump's alleged activity at a Moscow hotel, and partly because there are cultural stereotypes about the decadence of the rich. It's partly driven by the same notion of excess that informs the classic joke that's been around since the seventeenth century usually called "The Aristocrats." I won't tell it (it's filthy), and you've all probably heard it. Both jokes, and others like them, assume that certain sexual acts between people that are less "proper" or "normal" than others are a sort of degradation. The ordinary person, bound by middle-class morality, is invited to look down on this degradation and enjoy a laugh. Maybe some homophobia (and this would definitely be in the category of learned) is a result of social stratification - there's a sort of middling mainstream where you don't have much power, so historically the options for feeling okay with your lot were to look up at the powerful and see their excess and corruption, and look down on groups that have been downtrodden, judged as lazier or deviant or just stupid (or various combinations of those). Classes of people in the middle were in the least secure position, so there developed ways to punch up AND punch down. I don't know, just playing around with this, and dinner beckons (would you believe chickpeas are involved?)

The first. And if it is on television I'll watch it like I'd watch any scene. I think I'd only frown at the thought of doing it myself. I agree the second behavior certainly sounds like prejudice. Thinking back in time to my youth, I believe I used to have a bit of a reaction to the sight of two men kissing. I also heard and told homophobic jokes, although I didn't really give them much thought. I mean it wasn't mean from my perspective, just a stupid joke, kind of like we'd tell Polish, or blonde jokes. It was only after gaining some maturity that I realized what the jokes were really saying. It is quite likely that my earlier strong-ish reaction to two men kissing was a learned behavior that went away with my youth.

“Orion’s Belt is a big waist of space.” Terrible joke. Only three stars. 😂

Yes this is the right place to ask and a very good question. As you are probably aware there is a tie up or connection between electricity and magnetism. Each of them on their own can produce a static field of their own kind. Note I say static. That is a static electric charge has a static filed around it and a static magnet has a static magnetic field around it. The connection comes when we introduce motion. On their own a moving charge or magnet means a moving field, still just a single electrical or magnetic field on its own. But in the right circumstances a moving electric or magnetic field is a changing field which can induce a sympathetically changing magnetic or electric field in free space or suitable materials. In turn the varying magnetic or electric field induces a varying electric or magnetic field. The result is called an electromagnetic field. Ther is no such thing a a static electromagnetic field. The best way to illustrate and explain further is to use the mechanism of operation of an aerial or antenna. I will need to draw a diagram but will post this first to be going on with.