I wonder whether people are able to figure out any new science after now?

[Windevoid]

We've basically had the same tech for 20 years or longer, just smaller.

 

And why don't they understand my claims? They make perfect sense to me.

 

Especially electrons in electricity. A piece of plastic or a balloon can stick to or repel something easily for a minute or so, but a battery that can power a lightbulb for a day and a half doesn't attract or repel anything? How does this make sense?

[Bignose]

We've basically had the same tech for 20 years or longer, just smaller.

then what the hell have the journals been publishing the last 20 years?!?!?!?!?

 

Your claims aren't understandable because they predict things that are contrary to things that are already known. I can claim that 'the sky is striped red & brown', that 'air is really a liquid', and that 'an invisible dinosaur lives in my garage' all make sense to me -- but that doesn't make them so.

 

Instead of sitting around and pontificating random questions, why don't you spend some time learning about how science is actually conducted? You could include in that a review of the current electrical theory. It's really smashingly successful, you know. It's created the computer and the Internet you used to post your message, as just a few of it's successes.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bignose

[Windevoid]

I still think I am right some way or other. It just doesn't seem to fit together in the normal physics.

[ACG52]

You are not right in any way at all.

[Windevoid]

_{Even if it somehow is true, I feel like I am the only person that sees that the normal theory seems contradictory with itself.}

I tried watching YouTube lectures on electricity, but they still didn't make sense.

[Bignose]

I still think I am right some way or other.

Then why does it make predictions that are contrary to what is known?

 

Windevoid, I can think that when I drop a lead weight that it will float up all I want. But I cannot deny that here on earth, it falls down. Every time. I can't base any further ideas on 'lead falls up' once it falls down. And there is no point in trying to insist that I am right that lead falls up.

 

Again, why don't you take some of this energy you are putting into stubbornness and learn about what the current theory says? What do you think is in there that is going to scare you so much? What is stopping you? I just don't understand this reluctance to learn about what our current theory says. At the barest minimum, if you truly believe your idea is so much better, you still need to learn the current theory so you can demonstrate exactly where it is wrong.

[Windevoid]

Then why does it make predictions that are contrary to what is known?

 

Windevoid, I can think that when I drop a lead weight that it will float up all I want. But I cannot deny that here on earth, it falls down. Every time. I can't base any further ideas on 'lead falls up' once it falls down. And there is no point in trying to insist that I am right that lead falls up.

 

Again, why don't you take some of this energy you are putting into stubbornness and learn about what the current theory says? What do you think is in there that is going to scare you so much? What is stopping you? I just don't understand this reluctance to learn about what our current theory says. At the barest minimum, if you truly believe your idea is so much better, you still need to learn the current theory so you can demonstrate exactly where it is wrong.

 

 

Then why does it make predictions that are contrary to what is known?

 

Windevoid, I can think that when I drop a lead weight that it will float up all I want. But I cannot deny that here on earth, it falls down. Every time. I can't base any further ideas on 'lead falls up' once it falls down. And there is no point in trying to insist that I am right that lead falls up.

 

Again, why don't you take some of this energy you are putting into stubbornness and learn about what the current theory says? What do you think is in there that is going to scare you so much? What is stopping you? I just don't understand this reluctance to learn about what our current theory says. At the barest minimum, if you truly believe your idea is so much better, you still need to learn the current theory so you can demonstrate exactly where it is wrong.

I tried watching YouTube lectures on electricity, but they still didn't make sense.

[Bignose]

I tried watching YouTube lectures on electricity, but they still didn't make sense.

I don't know what to tell you except that it isn't the easiest subject to learn. There are other ways of learning it than just YouTube videos.

[WWLabRat]

I don't know what to tell you except that it isn't the easiest subject to learn. There are other ways of learning it than just YouTube videos.

 

A bit of advice for Windevoid on behalf of Bomani D'Mite Armah:

 

 

Read a book! Read a book! Read a m********* book!

Read a book! Read a book! Read a m********* book!

Read a book! Read a book! Read a m********* book!

Read a book! Read a book! Read a m********* book!

 

But in all seriousness, Bignose is absolutely right. There's so many ways to learn new things. There's picking up a book, asking questions (sans trolling) on forums like this, auditing classes at a local college/university, attend lectures and conferences for various career fields, and once again, because it's the most important one, read a book. There's a wealth of knowledge out there to be had if you actually try to look.

 

We've basically had the same tech for 20 years or longer, just smaller.

 

And why don't they understand my claims? They make perfect sense to me.

 

Especially electrons in electricity. A piece of plastic or a balloon can stick to or repel something easily for a minute or so, but a battery that can power a lightbulb for a day and a half doesn't attract or repel anything? How does this make sense?

 

First of all, science is the only field that will continue to learn new things, endlessly. How can I make such a statement? Because other than religion, all other fields rely on finding from scientific discoveries.

 

Also, to say that we have had the same technology for 20 years is the same as saying that for the majority of my life nothing new has been discovered. Do you know that in order for someone to obtain their PhD, they have to have original research? Do you really think that with all the doctors (not necessarily just dental or medical) in the world that none of them have made a breakthrough in 20 years? You're forgetting stem cells, discovery of a planet that has two suns, functional robotic limbs... What about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? That was built in 1998, only 15 years ago.

 

If you need to see new tech that's coming out all the time, check out the technology section of cnn.com. There's new articles on there all the time pointing out new discoveries.

[Windevoid]

Maybe a picture or a few would help.

 

A bit of advice for Windevoid on behalf of Bomani D'Mite Armah:

 

 

But in all seriousness, Bignose is absolutely right. There's so many ways to learn new things. There's picking up a book, asking questions (sans trolling) on forums like this, auditing classes at a local college/university, attend lectures and conferences for various career fields, and once again, because it's the most important one, read a book. There's a wealth of knowledge out there to be had if you actually try to look.

 

 

First of all, science is the only field that will continue to learn new things, endlessly. How can I make such a statement? Because other than religion, all other fields rely on finding from scientific discoveries.

 

Also, to say that we have had the same technology for 20 years is the same as saying that for the majority of my life nothing new has been discovered. Do you know that in order for someone to obtain their PhD, they have to have original research? Do you really think that with all the doctors (not necessarily just dental or medical) in the world that none of them have made a breakthrough in 20 years? You're forgetting stem cells, discovery of a planet that has two suns, functional robotic limbs... What about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? That was built in 1998, only 15 years ago.

 

If you need to see new tech that's coming out all the time, check out the technology section of cnn.com. There's new articles on there all the time pointing out new discoveries.

Reading my college textbook led to the same problems, still.

[WWLabRat]

Not sure I get why you would need a picture...

 

Try learning other things then. Maybe, and I don't mean this as an insult, although it may come out that way, but maybe you don't have the comprehension needed for a complete understanding of electricity. Electricity is a lot more intricate than just plugging something into the wall and it turns on. As with most things in science, there's a lot of math involved. You have to be able to calculate resistance, ohms, know and understand the difference between AC and DC, understand the flow of electrons through a metal, know why you can run electricity through metals but have difficulty when trying to do the same through nonmetals, etc. Again, try auditing a class at your local college. Or, if you have the time to be able to do that, apply for college and use grants to be able to pay for it so that you can take the time you're putting towards an audit and apply that time to a degree.

[Windevoid]

Maybe a picture or a few would help.

[WWLabRat]

 

...In my defense, you never said of what the picture was to be... If you're going to ask for a picture, it'd be helpful to know what you need to see.

[ajb]

The best thing you can do is sign up to some physics courses. These can be at your local college or online. I think they will help you.

[Delta1212]

First off, a lot of commercially available technology is the smaller, lighter, faster, more economically viable version of something that existed 20 years ago in some form. But not everything and even then you're comparing apples to oranges. Just because new technology isn't sitting in your house right now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is a lot of new stuff out there that is in the same position much household tech today was in 10 or 20 years ago: Big, slow, clunky and not economically viable as a commercial product.

 

There have still been major advances in robotics, nano-technology, metamaterials, and brain-computer interfaces to name a very small subset of advancing fields of technology that have developed greatly in just the last few years, let alone decades, that I happen to be interested in and thus aware of.

 

In the last week, a pair of researchers successfully managed to test a system that allowed one of them to think about moving his finger and cause the finger of the other researcher in another building to move. Please tell me that the technology to do this existed 20 years ago.

[Phi for All]

I still think I am right some way or other. It just doesn't seem to fit together in the normal physics.

_{Even if it somehow is true, I feel like I am the only person that sees that the normal theory seems contradictory with itself.}

 

This is one way of thinking. It's been a very BAD way of thinking for you, in terms of 1) comprehension, 2) feeding your natural enthusiasm for learning and 3) allowing you to build a solid foundational understanding of what you're studying. It's not working the way you might want it to, but because you're stuck in this methodology you've chosen (electricity is wrong! science is wrong!), you're going to probably defend it because change is difficult.

 

Another way to think is that maybe you've missed some important data, something that causes you to misinterpret, for instance, the relationship between electrostatic fields and electric currents. It' very common for things not to make sense when your study of it is incomplete.

 

You need to resolve your issues with the theories, and you have lots of people telling you why your concerns aren't valid. This approach you're taking is wasting your time. Unless you start with the basics and see where you went wrong, and most importantly embrace where you may be wrong and be willing to listen, you're just going to continue handicapping your education.

 

Physics doesn't always have to be intuitive or make sense. What's important is that it works, and works so well and so consistently that we can predict what will happen in a given situation. That's what mainstream theories do, and if you feel you're the only one who feels they're contradictory, I suggest that the problem most probably isn't with the way everyone else is thinking.

 

Nothing personal, focusing on ideas, processes and behavior here.