physica

The problem is that I-try doesn't really understand what science is. A classic example between the difference between science and philosophy was quantum entanglement. There was a problem. Experimentally they couldn't work out if the act of measurement caused the 2 particles to spin in opposite direction. Because of this it was also hard to determine if there was entanglement or that the particles were already opposite the time there were separated like gloves. Because they couldn't develop and experiment with testable predictions the whole thing got put down to philosophy not science. It came back into science when Bell The problem is I-try's waffle is that it offers no testable predictions. In fact the building blocks of the theory offer no predictions so we can't even tell if it is consistent with previous experiments.

I think crackpots are attracted to physics because they are not challenged by the average member of the public when physics is brought up. I was in medical research and worked in the hospital. I went back to university to study physics. I still work in the hospital one day a week to pay bills but at work people have this unrealistic respect for me because I study physics. I get the sense that they will believe anything I say about physics. Most of them go "wow I was terrible at maths" or "i got biology at school but I found physics really hard". Once met this girl who started telling me that she was working on a project that transported artists minds forward in time, they would then come back to the present and paint what they see. I looked at her with confusion and she said flippantly "oh it's all to do with quantum mechanics". You should have seen the horror on this girls face when I told her I study physics so I'd be interested in hearing what facilitates this. Crackpots are not interested in science otherwise they would actually learn science. They like the admiration of others thinking that they're smart. Over time they may delude themselves into thinking that they know what they're talking about but I think (like the girl I met) that many crackpots use physics to fob off the general member of the public when they ask questions.

popcorn, you were making it out to be revolutionary and amazing. In your status updates you were hinting at the Turing test. At the start of this post your were going on about how you came up with the concept when you were a kid as if you were a child genius. The average smart phone has better comprehension of what I've said compared to your program. This is similar to when you were saying that philosophy grads can ace working in any field and when you were asking people on this forum to take you under their wing for graduate study. The problem with you is that you know so little that you think that your half-baked amateur attempts at things are cutting edge. Then you think you're extremely smart because it's taken you a couple of weeks/months to bash whatever it is you've done together as opposed to real professionals and scientists who take years developing something. If you spent the amount of time you've spent trying to trick people into thinking that you're really smart into actually learning something, you may come up with something cutting edge one day. The problem with this is that it takes time and patience. You will get stuff wrong and it's not a huge ego massage to be learning something that loads of people already know. You may just see this as a personal attack but I'm trying to get you to stop wasting your time and actually do something constructive. No one here is buying it, your huge negative rep should have already told you that no one here is buys your narcissistic waffle. You have to ask yourself, are you actually interested in science or are you simply using this as a vehicle to get praise and attention? If you're truly interested in science then use your time effectively and actually learn what's already known. This forum is amazing and will help you along the way. There are some really clever people here who will help you no matter how mundane your question is. It's irritating to see you waste their time on nonsense.

Most of the conversations I had with it didn't make sense. I kept repeating generic statements.

I agree don't waste your time strange. This guy has put me on ignore so he doesn't see my posts and accused me of giving him negative votes even though it was multiple people (confirmed by a mod) he still stands to his religion. You can see in this thread here, he actively takes steps not to learn anything. If he doesn't understand it then his religion dictates that it must be wrong as opposed to him. Poorly written pointless waffle that doesn't really mean anything. If TAR wrote more concisely he wouldn't confuse himself and other as much.

oh my god relative. Have you not learnt??!!!! You failed to get your head round a block sliding down a slope so you've gone back to thinking about how the universe is proof of perceptual motion???!!!!

I did look at the video and also briefly looked at the others he's hosted. It's interesting that he's disabled comments and ratings on all his videos. He also thinks that Lorentz transformations have no physical meaning. It's also interesting how the author of the video doesn't give an explanation as to why GPS works either if he thinks Einstein's theory is flawed. All the video tells me it that the author of the video can't do basic maths and doesn't understand physics.

Cladking this is so much waffle. The more that's written the more meanings can be drawn from it. This is why multiple conversations keep springing up. Simply google writing concisely. You'll see that people who really know what they're talking about sum up a point in 5 lines. Politicians generally waffle... doesn't that tell you something? Einstein said: if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it.

Are you doing this now?...That would explain a lot. This is very basic. If I say a box is heavy what does that mean? I could be really weak, I could be really strong. Words are subjective, that's why serious scientists have at least some form of mathematical ability. There is it's called math I think the main problem is that you have a very poor waffle kind of style. I suggest bullet pointing, if your bullet points become too long you're drifting from the subject. We're having to try and work out what you say. When you get into academia it's considered skillful to sum things up in less words. Strange is very good at it. Some judges apologize for not having enough time to write a shorter judicial opinion.

I think Tar's problem here is that he isn't using maths. Now this isn't the end of the world but words have multiple meanings making it harder to communicate. Combine that with Tar's waffle style of writing and you get a lengthy post that's fairly useless.

I did a government funded degree and work in accident and emergency doing 12 hour shifts. I hate hospital trades but it's funding my physics degree tution, feeding me and paying my rent and I have absolutely no debt. Using one career to finance another happens. There are plenty big players who used other professions to finance their dream. My hero is Thomas Sowell, he grew up in a poor neighborhood and joined the marines, then went to college at 25 whilst working, he then went to Harvard and graduated in economics. Then got a phd and has written loads of books, he is a senior fellow at the Hover institute and some of his writings and essays get read out in congress. Getting a bit of life education never hurts anyone Luckly we now have the internet and there's websites like this that will support you and give you guidance on the way.

Don't worry I can already see this... I think most people can considering that you're not willing to concede that most of your previous posts have been blown away by you exposing your own double standard.

This statement is fairly useless. So what if you've thought about something. Exams show us every year that there are people out there who think about stuff and still don't understand it. This isn't relevant. I know phd electrical engineers and phd computer scientists who openly admit that they don't understand quantum physics. I've pointed this out before, you have the amazing ability to waffle on and write 500 words on a point that could be made in 50. Also you're over confident at comprehending things. The way that you write gives the impression that you think that life experience and anecdotal tales gives you the wisdom to understand philosophy and quantum physics. I'm sitting exams at the end of this academic year in quantum wave theory and I don't know how I'd comprehend it without maths. What quantum mechanics does is incorporate probability with mechanics. You need a firm grounding of these two, then concepts like observing a particle and Schrodinger's cat won't seem so mystical. This is a long standing problem he did this with Zeno's paradox a while ago.

Manage to ignore the point completely. You're doing an amazing job of living up to your double standards and completely ignoring things that are inconvenient to you. I'm sorry that you find the truth hurtful... would explain your reasoning though. Your post isn't surprising. You've not made a solid point in the whole thread and your reasoning is so poor that you've tied your own noose by exposing your own double standard. It's so obvious that you only have two options left: admit that you're logic is flawed and that you have exposed your own double standard or play the victim card. You've decided to hide under the last rock and play the victim card. quote where I have been unreasonable and state why Hey guess what when you can't do that simply stick your head in the sand that also works.

wow you guys have some patience. Bignose and strange have repeated themselves a few times. It's a shame that the other two don't seem to be comprehending it. Anyhow this is a prime example of how good the science forum is at hearing people out. This is simple dodging. Phi has given lengthy well thought out posts and you fob us off with this instead of conceding that he has a good point. Even if we take this insult at face value what you're saying is that you'd just walk away and ignore when he complains that you didn't properly study his idea and refrain from reasoning with him. After this statement you don't have a leg to stand on when commenting about how others hear out ideas. This is quite amusing, your reasoning is so limited that even your cheap fob off tactic discredits your previous statements.

We will still need doctors but the skill level required will be reduced. Like in all professions there is a boom and a bust. Now in the UK as long as you get over 50% in any degree (including arts degrees) you can get into medical school and become a jr doctor in 4 years. What people fail to grasp usually is that a doctor's training is very general. They aren't a master of anything but they know a little about everything related to medicine. In the UK anyway the training is very vocational. As technology advances and more is known the role of the doctor's knowledge becomes less important. When my seniors were training a heart attack was a couple of days bed rest, there was no distinctive test. Now the testing for the biomarker troponin is becoming more and more sensitive. No matter what the clinician thinks if the person has a positive trop they will be coming in and getting the approved acs protocol medication. This is why I've gone back to university to study physics. If i see a patient with chest pain I type in chest pain on the computer and a printer prints out barcodes, I take the blood and stick the barcodes on the vials and send it to the lab. If someone couldn't do an adequate job in a hospital with 2 months on the job training I'd get them tested for learning difficulties. Although this isn't good for doctors' and nurses' ego or pay it's good in general. Patients get more standardized care healthcare becomes cheaper and more accessible.

Show me evidence where this site does a poor job of hearing out a new idea.

This just shows your limited knowledge of physics. The maths does a lot more than simply describe. Manipulation of the equation will tell you more. The mathematical curl an equation will tell you if there's rotation. Differentiating an equation with respect to time will give us points where there's no rate of change or tell us that there is never any rate of change. I can't visualize 4 dimensions but thanks to math i can describe them. give a 2 year old a drum and he will bang on it happily, give a professional drum player a drum and he will ask you what style and beat you want give someone with low knowledge of physics an equation and they will happily use it to put numbers in to get numbers out with a little algebraic manipulation to make something the subject. Give someone who knows physics an equation and they will want to know context, parameters and will ask you what you're trying to derive. In my experience people who don't really understand maths don't understand the nuances that maths brings.

I think I get it. Combining both your posts a conservative field is when it doesn't matter what path the particle takes. If there is no sources or sinks in the field then it wont matter what path the particle takes..... is this train of thought in the right direction?

I've been reading up on the concept of an electrostatic field. They say that if the mathematics of the field results in the curl=0. From what I gather this means that the field cannot be rotated. Does the curl=0 also indicate that it's conservative? If so how?

This is where we get into definitions. From my point of view if you try to look into physics and further the understanding of physics then you're a physicist. If you use physics to explain something like biology it doesn't mean you're a physicist. Sure scientists cross disciplines but you're a scientist of the field you are trying to further the understanding of. If not I may as well say I was a linguist for using words in my study of physics. This adds nothing. Your whole contribution to this thread has been nothing.

I don't really understand the point of this post. Also you'd be wrong to consider yourself as a physicist, you're a neuroscientist. You apply physics to understand the brain. Electrical engineers apply physics to create machines. Physicists use maths to understand and formulate laws of physics but that doesn't mean they're mathematicians. I use Euler's formula to get a general solution to a differential equation with imaginary numbers in quantum wave theory. This helps be understand quantum wave theory but I don't understand or know the proof behind Euler's formula. I'd have to be very stupid and arrogant to go around classifying myself as a mathematician. It goes the other way. We use physics to understand vascular pressure difference. Surgeons don't really understand the physics behind it but i'd prefer a surgeon operating on me to a physicist. If we follow your logic all the way through: you use words to read up on the brain and to write up your report... does that mean you're a linguist as well??? You use maths to quantify experiments and express measurements....does that mean you're a mathematician as well??? You use computers to process and present data.... does that mean you're a computer scientist as well????

Stop muttering and stuttering and show us some proof!!!

This is more a question of power and intellect as opposed to free will.

HAHA yeah I bet popcorn was written in the 1980s. This would explain the posts.