How hard I try to see it! I can't.

[Relative]

Hello, like on most science forums , I am unable to find an ask questions section. I presume this section is it.

 

 

I am trying hard to see current science the way it says things are, but I can just not see it.

 

 

If I only ask questions, then hopefully, no one will ask for maths, that I see has irrelevant when it is about thought.

 

 

My first question, is this the right place for questions?

[Ophiolite]

You can ask questions in most parts of the forum. The precise place depends upon the subject of your question.

 

If you want to know what is meant by electronegativity you would place your question in the chemistry sub-forum. If you were curious about volcanoes, your question would go in Earth Science. If it was about the decline of amphibians, then place the question in Biology.

[swansont]

 

My first question, is this the right place for questions?

 

This is the science education section, so it's the right place for questions on science education. If you have a question on e.g. quantum theory, you would ask it in the quantum theory section within physics. If you have an organic chemistry question, ask it in the organic chem section of chemistry. etc. etc.

[Phi for All]

I am trying hard to see current science the way it says things are, but I can just not see it.

Science has so many branches, each with it's own pursuits. "Current science" isn't really something you can "see" in an overview. I think of science knowledge like a jigsaw puzzle with very tiny pieces, cut into the skin of a huge onion. It's puzzle all the way down, with multiple layers and interconnecting pieces. Just looking at it without really digging deep doesn't give you an adequate picture.

 

If I only ask questions, then hopefully, no one will ask for maths, that I see has irrelevant when it is about thought.

Math is a more precise language for science. It gives us more information we can do more with. Your thoughts (words) say "a vast amount", while math says "10²⁴". Words can be interpreted differently, but math has no such ambiguity.

[swansont]

If you are asking questions math may not be required of you, but it's likely to be part of the answer.

[Relative]

Can anyone suggest a decent science forum/site, where I am aloud to ask questions, where any of my misguided thoughts can be corrected, where it is not our way or the high way?

 

I might as well give up now, people are correct, I should of listened when they said science has become a religion and preached rather than spoke about.

 

I am not surprised science has nothing in x amount of years.

 

From an outsiders perspective, all science forums are preaching their bible at me, can none of the human race think for themselves any more.

 

You are not here to educate people but to force the book on them. And you wonder why the interest in science around the world is falling.

 

PFFF, I give you 100% logic, it is not me been stupid.

 

OH well , any suggestions where i might find some real people?

Every single time, my thread is closed, for asking questions, and saying my thoughts.

[Ophiolite]

Every single time, my thread is closed, for asking questions, and saying my thoughts.

The moderators will correct me if the following statement is inaccurate.

 

Your threads have never been closed for asking questions. Never.

 

Your threads have been closed because, when you have been given answers, your response has been "Well, I don't believe that". In essence you have asserted that your ignorance is more reliable than conventional knowledge. If you truly believe that then you may be correct in one thing: science is not for you.

 

I am not surprised science has nothing in x amount of years

 

I considered taking a tiny slice of the vast field of science, such as the mineralogy of the mantle, and showing you, with scores of citations, just how much had been learned, then asking you to scale that up to include all science.

 

I considered that, but I've decided on a different response: bollocks.

[Relative]

The moderators will correct me if the following statement is inaccurate.

 

Your threads have never been closed for asking questions. Never.

 

Your threads have been closed because, when you have been given answers, your response has been "Well, I don't believe that". In essence you have asserted that your ignorance is more reliable than conventional knowledge. If you truly believe that then you may be correct in one thing: science is not for you.

 

 

I considered taking a tiny slice of the vast field of science, such as the mineralogy of the mantle, and showing you, with scores of citations, just how much had been learned, then asking you to scale that up to include all science.

 

I considered that, but I've decided on a different response: bollocks.

What you do not understand is after several years I have learnt a lot of current science, I understand already your answers, you are not discussing what I am asking.

 

I already stated that everything I say is asking questions, I am questioning your logic, not the science books.

 

I give you 100% factual and you still quote the book back. I know the book and I am telling science some of it I deem wrong, and no one wants to listen and discuss it.

 

If I am wrong, I admit I am wrong, but burden of proof lies with science, not me has a beginner in comparison to most on forums.

 

So where can I go to discuss these thoughts, I am not waiting 15 years like Faraday when I know I am logical thinking, and my logic is generally flawless.

 

And no I am not arrogant, I want to help science.

I am a bit eccentric if that helps.

[Phi for All]

So where can I go to discuss these thoughts, I am not waiting 15 years like Faraday when I know I am logical thinking, and my logic is generally flawless.

 

What you do is not discussion. You're not having a conversation if you ask questions and then don't listen to the answers.

 

In my years here, I've seen a lot of people do the same thing. You think mainstream science is hidebound to their textbooks, the same books you rejected when you were in school. You've found some inconsistencies which have caused you to question the whole of science rather than question your own skills. You hear phrases like "think outside the box" but don't realize that you need to know the box very well before you can be effective thinking outside it.

 

In answer to your question though, you could probably find a site where somebody will just agree with everything you're saying. I think this is what you're looking for, since you reject mainstream answers. You're guilty of "my way or the highway", but you don't have the benefit of thousands of scientists working in reality to support you. Your best bet, for the way you practice science, is to start a blog. That way you can turn off the comments and nobody will try to show you where you're wrong.

[Relative]

 

What you do is not discussion. You're not having a conversation if you ask questions and then don't listen to the answers.

 

In my years here, I've seen a lot of people do the same thing. You think mainstream science is hidebound to their textbooks, the same books you rejected when you were in school. You've found some inconsistencies which have caused you to question the whole of science rather than question your own skills. You hear phrases like "think outside the box" but don't realize that you need to know the box very well before you can be effective thinking outside it.

 

In answer to your question though, you could probably find a site where somebody will just agree with everything you're saying. I think this is what you're looking for, since you reject mainstream answers. You're guilty of "my way or the highway", but you don't have the benefit of thousands of scientists working in reality to support you. Your best bet, for the way you practice science, is to start a blog. That way you can turn off the comments and nobody will try to show you where you're wrong.

Firstly , I do have a blog.

 

Secondly I am not looking for people to agree with me, I am looking at the inconsistencies, and asking about those inconsistencies.

Discussing why we have them, and whether they have any bearing on the subject matter.

 

I listen to your answers, it is your answers that lead me to further believe in the inconsistencies.

 

Example - I asked what affects does altitude have on the Caesium clock?

 

Strange answered - his answer coincided with my own thought, that altitude through less gravity allows the Caesium to output at a faster rate.

 

 

''You think mainstream science is hidebound to their textbooks, the same books you rejected when you were in school''

 

I do not think all science is wrong, and I can not remember and did very little science in school.

 

I did not like attending school.

 

And I do not think hidebound to their text books, but more instant excepting what's in them books without question.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Relative

[Phi for All]

And I do not think hidebound to their text books, but more instant excepting what's in them books without question.

 

You're actually very close to an understanding here, if you can focus on this part right here for a while. Please bear with me.

 

The folks here who DID enjoy school, who studied a LOT of science as well as the methodology used, they picked up something that you didn't (I'm sorry, but it's true). They learned along the way how to spot what deserves to be questioned and what can be accepted.

 

Science knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skin of an onion and all it's layers. It's very intricate but the more you study one area, the more likely other areas will make more sense. The other aspect you're ignoring is that many people here don't "instantly accept" what's in the books; they learn what the book says, they learn it thoroughly, and then they perform experiments to see if it supports what the books say.

 

You have this idea in your head that people who study science just absorb knowledge without questioning it. There are probably people like this but not the majority. This is something you keep telling yourself to make all your questioning seem legitimate. You believe you are The Skeptic, not easily swayed or fooled because of your mighty logic. This is a very strong image, but it makes you question everything, and that's not really sustainable, is it? You're questioning people who test these principles every day, but you're really just a very interested amateur (like a lot of us!) who has latched onto specific pieces of science without an adequate framework of study to support you. That means things aren't going to make as much sense to you as they do to people who studied lots of science in school.

 

How did I do? I'm really hoping I said this in a way that will resonate without seeming condescending. You're obviously smart, but you're just as obviously frustrated with certain aspects of your studies.

[Relative]

 

You're actually very close to an understanding here, if you can focus on this part right here for a while. Please bear with me.

 

The folks here who DID enjoy school, who studied a LOT of science as well as the methodology used, they picked up something that you didn't (I'm sorry, but it's true). They learned along the way how to spot what deserves to be questioned and what can be accepted.

 

Science knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skin of an onion and all it's layers. It's very intricate but the more you study one area, the more likely other areas will make more sense. The other aspect you're ignoring is that many people here don't "instantly accept" what's in the books; they learn what the book says, they learn it thoroughly, and then they perform experiments to see if it supports what the books say.

 

You have this idea in your head that people who study science just absorb knowledge without questioning it. There are probably people like this but not the majority. This is something you keep telling yourself to make all your questioning seem legitimate. You believe you are The Skeptic, not easily swayed or fooled because of your mighty logic. This is a very strong image, but it makes you question everything, and that's not really sustainable, is it? You're questioning people who test these principles every day, but you're really just a very interested amateur (like a lot of us!) who has latched onto specific pieces of science without an adequate framework of study to support you. That means things aren't going to make as much sense to you as they do to people who studied lots of science in school. Does that make sense?

You should do Psychology. Yes , your post makes sense, but in your thinking did you consider the Honey and Mumford different styles of learning?.

 

My style is a mixture of the styles but mainly the style of a Theorist.

 

Theorist - ''These learners like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to engage in the learning process. Prefer to analyse and synthesise, drawing new information into a systematic and logical 'theory'.''

 

So when considering posts for closure, should this not be accounted for?

 

That some people have not got a stereotypical learning style?

 

If I see an inconsistency I need to know why. How can I move on, when I have started with the basics and the beginning, and see inconsistencies?

 

And I applaud you, this has been a good forum, other forums have banned me and for what, trying to understand and learn!.

''Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesize. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If its logical its good." Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.''

 

 

This is me.

[swansont]

Can anyone suggest a decent science forum/site, where I am aloud to ask questions, where any of my misguided thoughts can be corrected, where it is not our way or the high way?

 

I might as well give up now, people are correct, I should of listened when they said science has become a religion and preached rather than spoke about.

 

That's the mantra of people don't actually understand science. People have tried to correct your misguided thoughts, and you have rejected the corrections out of hand.

 

I am not surprised science has nothing in x amount of years.

 

And such a statement is not surprising from people who have not taken the time or effort to look at all that's happened. I went to a conference a few weeks ago so I know better, and I can't quantify for you how wrong this claim is. I did hear a Nobel laureate say how this is an exciting time to be doing atomic physics, a sentiment pretty much the opposite of what you've expressed here. (unless you have the trivial solution of x=0 or a negative value)

[Phi for All]

This is me.

 

Or what you want to be you, or what could be you if you put in the kind of effort others have.

 

You're not there, and won't ever be until you go back and study mainstream science until you know enough to be a theorist. You don't have the basic knowledge it takes to "assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories". In fact, you reject many of those coherent theories, theories that have proven worthy countless times, but don't make sense to you because your studies of them are incomplete.

 

A theorist asks themselves, "How does this fit with that?", but they have to know this and that very, very well before they can begin to use their theorist powers effectively. You have the drive, maybe the mindset, but you got lazy with the schoolwork (assumption based on "I did not like attending school"). You don't have the core knowledge of the methodology and how it's used to build upon what we know, to strengthen it.

 

Your frustration comes from trying to disprove certain principles without trying to understand them first. You look at something you don't understand and you assume the knowledge is wrong. Worse, you're convinced this makes you some kind of Galileo being persecuted by an angry church. You assume some kind of out-of-the-box solution is necessary before you question whether your own understanding may be flawed. This is definitely not what a theorist would do.

[Ophiolite]

What you do not understand is after several years I have learnt a lot of current science, I understand already your answers, you are not discussing what I am asking.

There is little or no evidence in your posts that you actually do understand what you are being told.

 

 

I already stated that everything I say is asking questions, I am questioning your logic, not the science books.

 

I give you 100% factual and you still quote the book back. I know the book and I am telling science some of it I deem wrong, and no one wants to listen and discuss it.

Your logic is flawed. Your facts are often the antithesis of facts. You lack the knowledge and the understanding to have the right to deem science wrong. The person not listening here is you.

 

 

 

If I am wrong, I admit I am wrong, but burden of proof lies with science, not me has a beginner in comparison to most on forums.

The proof lies in the textbooks and more pertinently in the research papers. The proof is there validated by multiple experiments, from differing perspectives, by varied researchers and integrated into other well validated concepts, all tied together with a solid theoretical underpinning. The areas of uncertainty and of ignorance are also well defined.

 

Because you have not accessed this information - I see no evidence that you have done so - you do not have the background to recognise when you are wrong, nor the humility to accept it when you are told that you are.

 

And no I am not arrogant, I want to help science.

I am a bit eccentric if that helps.

So how, exactly did you acquire the scientific knowledge you claim to have? That might help us to understand your position more clearly. For example, which textbooks did you study in order to acquire your knowledge of general and special relativity? Which papers did you find especially illuminating on these topics?

 

Ignore the rest of my post, by all means, but please respond to the above.

[Strange]

If I see an inconsistency I need to know why. How can I move on, when I have started with the basics and the beginning, and see inconsistencies?

 

You will never move on while you continue to assume that any such inconsistency is with ideas that have been developed and tested by hundreds, maybe thousands, of people over decades or centuries. Instead, you need to consider that the inconsistency may be with the way you learn half facts and try to put them together in meaningless ways.

 

And I applaud you, this has been a good forum, other forums have banned me and for what, trying to understand and learn!.

 

You have never been banned for trying to understand. You show little evidence of attempting to understand anything. You have been banned for being disruptive and insulting when people continue trying to educate you.

Can anyone suggest a decent science forum/site, where I am aloud to ask questions, where any of my misguided thoughts can be corrected, where it is not our way or the high way?

 

This forum was started by someone, like you, who was continually rejecting scientific answers:

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/

 

You clearly don't want to know what science says (I'm not sure why you keep asking). So perhaps you want some crackpot, pseudoscience forum where people talk nonsense:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/index.php

 

Or maybe something more extreme:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com

 

 

You are not here to educate people but to force the book on them.

 

What is it with the ignorant and their hatred of books? Have they become symbols of those who are willing to work hard and learn?

 

People here are not just parroting what they find in books. There are people here who do the research that gets written in the books. Even those of us with limited science knowledge have often recreated many of the basic experiments that led to current scientific theories. This is why we accept science because we have tested it ourselves. What have you done? Said "I don't understand it so it must be wrong." (And then you claim not to be arrogant. Pffft.)

I give you 100% factual and you still quote the book back.

 

Your "100% factual" is typically 33% wrong, 33% made up and 33% misunderstanding.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Strange

[Relative]

''So how, exactly did you acquire the scientific knowledge you claim to have? That might help us to understand your position more clearly. For example, which textbooks did you study in order to acquire your knowledge of general and special relativity? Which papers did you find especially illuminating on these topics?

Ignore the rest of my post, by all means, but please respond to the above.''

I never claimed to know everything or anything. My current knowledge comes from a huge science book called the internet.

My current knowledge also comes from science forums and provided answers.

I have watched many documentaries and explanatory videos.

And I do not even want anyone to agree with me, but simply answer my questions like I stated.

Although my questions may come across has statements they are not.

I am confused about one or two of the science subjects, I ask about them and get the thread closed.

I never reach a conclusion so am stuck in ground hog day.

 

Please educate me,

 

Forgive me if in some way I am been real stupid here.

 

In the video link it explains time dilation. how do we get the stationary observer? how would you know who was stationary?

 

Why would the beam of light all of a sudden become angled?

 

I can not understand it because it is contradictory of itself.

 

Is this video even correct, is this good education or bad education?

[Ophiolite]

 

I never claimed to know everything or anything.

Why would you even say this?

 

Firstly, no one has accused you of claiming to know everything, so why mention this. You make no mention of your inability to score below par at Augusta, but you didn't mention that, or need to mention that, since no one accused you of making such a claim. So, I am left wondering if you actually properly comprehend what people have been saying. Please address this point.

 

Secondly, you most certainly have claimed to know some things. Therefore your claim "I never claimed to know....anything" is patently false. Why make an unnecessary claim and a false claim in the same sentence?

 

 

'My current knowledge comes from a huge science book called the internet.

There is your problem right there. While there is an enormous amount of value on the internet, there is also a great deal of dross. Distinguishing between the two requires a level of knowledge derived by more formal means than surfing that huge science book. If you are serious about learning this stuff you have do serious study using proper resources. There are several here who can recommend appropriate textbooks to study.

 

Note that these will be proper textbooks, not the watered down pop science variety. They will require major effort to understand and absorb.

 

 

I have watched many documentaries and explanatory videos.

The primary function of a documentary is entertainment. Typical documentaries contain less than a dozen key facts. A textbook will contain that many on a page. There are some good videos, but unless they are delivered by a recognised authority I would steer well clear of them, at least until you have learned enough to make a critical evaluation of their worth. You are far short of that point right now.

 

 

Although my questions may come across has statements they are not.

Then phrase them as frigging questions and you won't come under attack for them.

I am confused about one or two of the science subjects, I ask about them and get the thread closed.

Because you make outrageous claims that you are right, science is wrong, we are hidebound followers of textbooks, we can't think for ourselves, and other similar nonsense.

I never reach a conclusion so am stuck in ground hog day.

Then start doing some serious study and abandon this random access to pop-science and the Discovery Channel. That's not science, that's low grade mental masturbation.

 

i may look at the video later, but to repeat: videos are generally not the way to learn science.

 

 

 

 

Please educate me,

 

Forgive me if in some way I am been real stupid here.

Everyone has been trying to educate you. You have been resisting.

 

The fact that you recognise that you may have been a dick is a very positive sign.

 

 

In the video link it explains time dilation. how do we get the stationary observer? how would you know who was stationary?

 

Why would the beam of light all of a sudden become angled?

 

I can not understand it because it is contradictory of itself.

 

Is this video even correct, is this good education or bad education?

I know I do not know enough relativity to comment accurately on the video, so I'll leave that to someone else, though I may still look at it. But I repeat, this is not the way to properly learn science, though such videos, if they are of good quality, can complement a more formal approach.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Strange]

I am confused about one or two of the science subjects, I ask about them and get the thread closed.

 

Do you really believe this? Are you completely unaware of all the times you simply reject explanations simply because you don't understand them, or because you think something you have made up is better?

 

In the video link it explains time dilation. how do we get the stationary observer? how would you know who was stationary?

 

This is really important. Really, really important.

 

There is no (single) stationary observer. Any observer can be taken as stationary (as long as they are not accelerating) and everyone else moving relative to them.

 

Why would the beam of light all of a sudden become angled?

 

I assume because the observer is moving relative to it (I haven't watched the video*). Imagine someone bouncing a ball across the width of a moving train carriage. For the person on the train, the ball goes backwards and forwards at right angles to the wall, but for someone stationary on the platform, the ball will do a zig zag path (because the train is moving).

 

* Because it is a video.

 

I can not understand it because it is contradictory of itself.

 

No. No. No. It appears contradictory to you because you don't understand it. Stop putting yourself at the center of the universe and assuming that you are correct and everything else is wrong.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Strange

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Please avoid the unrelated discussion on specific physics questions. Such questions are not on topic and from what I can tell, were already addressed in a previous (and now closed) thread.

[Relative]

!

Moderator Note

Please avoid the unrelated discussion on specific physics questions. Such questions are not on topic and from what I can tell, were already addressed in a previous (and now closed) thread.

I have took your thoughts on board and I thank you, Ok, I will go back to the beginning and re-learn.

 

Where do you suggest I begin and what subject should I first be focusing on?

Basic science where would I begin?