Jump to content

Iwonderaboutthings

Senior Members
  • Posts

    353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iwonderaboutthings

  1. I think you may not fully understand what I am talking about here and may just be trying to further aggravate the situation by " saying I am being silly " So if I am being silly, what is the whole point of copyright laws? Why do big Corporations Patent their inventions created by scientist??? Its called ownership of the inventor and protection of theft Einstein's original contribution (E=mc^2)is actually derived by simply substituting the speed of light ©into a Newtonian equation: E=mv^2 I took this off the internet, however, it should be to no surprise, FACE IT! Your great scientists took ideas from each other and have GREAT REPUTATIONS! What about WOMEN SCIENTIST, WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT THEIR FAME, IS SCIENCE LIKE RELIGION>>>?? MALE DOMINANCE OVER FEMALES???? LOOKS LIKE IT TO ME! AGAIN, POLITICS ALWAYS PLAYS THE ROLE TO MAKE OTHERS LOOK BAD IN THE PUBLIC'S EYES... LOGIC THEN, WHY PLACE THE BAD REPUTATION IN RED IN MY PROFILE SO OTHERS CAN SEE IT???? I DON'T MIND BEING TOLD I AM WRONG HOW ELSE WOULD I LEARN ANYTHING, ITS SHOWING OTHERS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE FEEL, WHICH IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS. DO YOU HAVE ANY BLACK PEOPLE WORKING FOR YOU, JUST A QUESTION?? I Hate Waiting On Black People https://www.facebook.com/IHateWaitingOnBlackPeople Which Race Hates Blacks The Most? http://racerules.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/which-race-treats-blacks-the-worst/ The social construction of stupid black people http://www.maroney.org/hlavaty/documents/social_construction..html Why would your team feel frustration and discord and unnecessary distraction from the person with bad reputation??? Unless you all think the same of a " particular group of people" then this would be reasonable to think! are these facts, or something " you were led" to believe about the person???? IE their reputation.... So say the person is a: a homosexual around homophobic people a black person around white people a rapper around a christian group a lesbian around an all female society A SCIENTIST AROUND PEOPLE WHOM BELIEVE IN GOD... I think you get the point and I think we are all smart enough to figure out your reply here.... However what about if the person is: anti social does not believe in anything the world tells them thinks " human are all crazy and waked in the head simply cant be bothered with typical conventional and practical " subjects " Hymm??? Unless anyone " here" does not have personal experience dealing with the news media the music world and or fashion world and do not have chronological personal experiences dealing with " large amounts of people's perceptions" of which is solely based on marketing strategies, I would suggest researching this area to get familiar with the reasoning of Reputation and its legitimacy of success and failure on behalf of the willing or betrayed... Without having to be under the conventional application it is always best to use one's own judgement and intuition of what " they feel" is the correct method of probing the integrity of an individual.
  2. " Of coarse negative feedback is necessary" how would anyone learn anything if they are always lied to? The issue I have is in " member's profiles" Like in my case here "I have a bad reputation" solely based on others opinion. It is publicly seen by anyone, not so skilled in critical thinking to understand that the reputation may be solely based on the premise for scientific discipline " here" from others members whom are willing to read, 'spend their time" and show concern for other members passions and inquiries on science. The only thing that gets in the way is that not all people think the same when someone has a bad reputation....WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEONE WITH A BAD REPUTATION??? THINK ABOUT IT?? LOOK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/fired-over-facebook-posts_n_659170.html Fired Over Facebook: 13 Posts That Got People CANNED
  3. Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Iwonderaboutthings

      Iwonderaboutthings

      why?? is it because like artist, "under contracts" they become owned? meaning like famous artist, the artist's work is the sole property of the contractors IE the publicist and marketers.. Would then the desire remain? A good source for the Vampires??

       

    3. ajb

      ajb

      Scientists generally don't get paid lots of money. There are exceptions of course.

    4. Iwonderaboutthings

      Iwonderaboutthings

      ajb I Love the way you make me think in both backwards and reverse....who are exceptions?? the politically involved right? Please don't tell me, big boobs and sexy abbs are the case cause I think I will puke....no joking..

  4. You words: someone who is willing to accept and learn from criticisms. Like I said, it makes other members look dumb// does this also apply to professional scientist here>>>? Some members just may have a passion with telling the truth, even though other members disagree with it,,, The whole point is getting rid of this reputation deal here. Their is a big issue on social media that " allows" negative people's input to be seen by virtually anyone, this is unfair, and its POLITICS! You Tube does this too, its a psychological tactic that drives traffic on the internet, people are really getting bored of it, unless, this is a way to restrict people and keep them in "Check" I see online social media downsizing, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE JUST GETTING BORED OF OTHER PEOPLE'S NEGATIVE INPUT. Yes their are some people here that have no clue about what they are talking about, reputations only make it worse, besides at the end of the day, its all about SCIENCE FACTS, VERSUS OPINIONS RIGHT?? On another note, What if the negative reputation is tactic to get members to share more and more of their theories and ideas, so that " other members" can take them and add them to their own theories and ideas??? I caught onto to this not too long ago, people whom do this, should be ashamed of themselves! again: lets face it, Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money. I talk from experience here..
  5. Whats to stop member's of having "UM"---> " MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS" and vote for their own post thus giving them a "GREAT REPUTATION????" Personally I think, this "reputation" causes issues " when" people in general share their own insights on either science, mathematics or any other topics that deal with: The Uncertain And The Unknown------->Basically Science.. This reputation deal, causes issues, friction and a tense atmosphere because of mixed emotions and or facts on the topics that others disagree with which has nothing to do with the OP! Not to mention the integrity of the post in general, some people may just want to get noticed by others here with " popular work and science positions" trying to make other members with legit post " look dumb" and not liked." It makes the forum " look bad." However, lets face it, Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money. I talk from experience here.. Reputation in any case, is solely based on " politics" nothing more nothing less. Anyone can be anyone on this forum, " IE " profiles photos suggest this..... Its also known that Scientist have BIG EGOS, this also gets in the way of this reputation deal here.. Again I say: Science is no different than fame, glamour, luxury and money. I talk from experience here..
  6. NOW I 100% GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING... IN THIS: I can have orthogonal mathematical functions that have an infinite number of dimensions. YOU NAILED IT VERY GOOD ON THE DOT... I always wondered about this very thing! And it frustrated me very much. I think I am at the level now in where I am understanding that science is way more than just numbers and mathematical relations. So about infinite, how can we place a limit on something " physically" infinite though??? And yet expect some type of meaningful prediction? The only thing I would assume would be the limit on the physical system's energy? In this case, the mass and the diameter...I see this to be the only method we have that allows something physical described by numbers and math.
  7. when you say "stored" do you mean as stored digital information??? I am thinking in terms of quantum membranes by the way. you also say: not limited to any particular value of mass. ​Is this because of a metric issue?? For instances I have heard about the issues at the sub-millimeter scale, but this looks like a "zero" issue meaning zero " needs to be defined or have its absolute decimal representation as a universal and alternative metric system at these scales. I hear that infinities at this level are basically going hay-wire in all directions.. On another note here. How reliable is "computational calculations" dealing with round off errors? I am aware that only approximations in the whole of science always guarantees some accuracy, but this can only be rectified if the cases in question are precise, therefore the uncertainty can be integrated correctly from these approximations so long as zero " is defined .. Where do we start to get the absolute values of zero>>>?? Is it found with the electron charge? The radius of " any mass" The speed of light?? Is it relative to something? Does it have a constant in between? Just some ideas, no math advice please Any ideas to work with??
  8. Math is under no such restriction??? YOU MUST BE KIDDING RIGHT? What about the laws of algebra? Field axioms? Radix dot and round off errors?? Complex Conjugates and Constants used in math?? Maybe, "Math Formulas" Have a design of their own some of us are not aware of???? So as per science, not using math, why are refracted images " plural" dimensional and uniform in size from the reflected source, regardless of their " size themselves? which images " regardless of its size" is the "original image" and if you may, without math, can we resolve the issues of indistinguishability? On another note, in relation to " time and frequency" is there another method science prefers other than " the word mysterious" that describes: Something invisible: IE: gravity Something intangible IE: gravity Something Parallel IE: gravity Something that encapsulate the outer regions of this planet IE: gravity Something that " i have been told here" that has no effects at the atomic scale IE: gravity I am serious when I am asking these questions by the way.. Is there another word other than mysterious we " ponderers out here " can use that describes something invisible so we can fully understand what we are talking about??
  9. Defining the number 1 is math, not science? So why does science use math?? Are they correlated in any way shape or form?? 0 defines " nothing" are you saying that science is nothing?? Are these your words? Defining the number 1 is math, not science. Or maybe you meant to say, math defines a pre-destined path" and physics works much like a resistor ? I'm trying to give ideas here.. 1 " needs to be defined" otherwise you allow systems " at random" to not only share the same reference frame but also the history " IE evolution within... Unless you are referring to the issues of " distance and exponentiation" linked to time, BUT! there is where imaginary units comes along to " help along" So then, the model " the math" the electric field. What I see is: The static model, and the dynamic universe..Is this where magnetic waves, and stationary matter come in to explain the " causes and confusion" of why both physics and qm breakdown when it comes to applying " both" to the concept of black holes?? Distance" and exponentiation??? if that is the case with isotropic emissions then would the emission be " stationary?" My opinion here, but there seem to be 2 complete separate subjects we are discussing.. Basically 0s and 1s, what are they>>>? Remember My raindrops and refraction question? For example, what ever is being reflected in these drops of water, is much much bigger, and yet the single drop fits the perimeter of the refracted or reflected image... Not to make matters any worse, but we also have two eyeballs to deal with " um " too" I guess the problem is choice....
  10. Hymm I see now, the physical test prove the theory, but how many test and at the cost of what does this entail? Does this mean that the test results are " only proven" with only that theory? Or can others come along with a better theory that is a better theory? For example here, one that actually defines " the number 1" ? Hymm now I am even more confused here. You say: "made up" does not mean the same as making up a story I see that math would need to follow the path of a prediction in order to get something reasonable out of the theory that describes the nature of physics... But wouldn't math " be a function" of something "made up and making something up" I see inverses here, the waves of uncertainty, " frequency and time dilation" something relative to something else, I see "THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM " Not sure if that even sounded right... "made up" does not mean the same as making up a story Hymm, are you sure???? How so??? Would you say that what we see " then" is the size of a "single photon" For example, what ever is being reflected in these drops of water, is much much bigger, and yet the single drop fits the perimeter of the refracted or reflected image... NOTE: THEY ARE ALSO MULTIPLES OF 1, IN THIS CASE THE REFLECTED/ REFRACTED ORIGINAL IMAGE.. THEY ARE ALSO RANDOM IN SIZE...THE ORIGINAL "REMAINS UNCHANGED" WHY??? It appears that distance, time and translation is also a visual representation of what we see?? In this case nothing like light photon, I mean massless photon? What is "reality" if frequency information "electric field" is made up?? I am very confused
  11. Ohhhhhhhh, I see now, it is an issue of " products and services" now replies makes clearer sense to me" especially about the patent, the paper article, and public profile for the idea and statement so the world will know your theory is yours... Deep inside however I see, that no matter how one goes about it, their will always be ideas taken and may even be patented under those whom provide this " products and services" without you ever knowing it, hey its a real world. I think I choose the news paper article and public announcement so the world can see it was really you that had the original idea... Now hopeful those providers of " products and services" don't block the news to claim whats yours to be theirs... As Sato says, there are some sort of exceptions here, but these tend to be in relation to products and services. For example you can patent industrial process, computer codes and airplane wings. However the basic science behind these remains public. In most cases the journals take the copyright and the author gets limited rights. A copyright is only as good as your ability to enforce it. 100% true, products and services makes sense.... representation "confirmed" hymm,,, math that represents something mechanical, to get patented? this is how I am seeing it... How about if the math describes "light" in no relation to matter, would the math then be considered a non physical description that we all share applicable to copyright?? It should be I think, really if math described this, I think it would be applicable, it would just need some convincing though..
  12. But scientist are not 100% Black Holes exist>>>?? Hymm, quantum gravity??? at the microscopic level?? I thought black holes were super big in outer space?? Could I ask something here,,, what is the integrity of the equations that calculate these>>>? I see Lorentz Transforms, Special Relativity then Minkowski Space Time all bundled up... How on earth do scientist keep up with all those fundamental laws that " pop" up when you study>>>>??? It is difficult to stay with one book on the topic YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!
  13. I am very glad to read your reply, and would only hope to understand " then" If photons are mass-less, I assume they also have no size then right?? They cannot be scaled, touched, felt, tasted etc, they are well " constant" So then, how does physics describe how humans perceive the world macroscopically and microscopically?? As far as vision is concerned and photo receptors within the human eye's anatomy goes.. Does your same comment apply to what we see??? In other words, when a light photon enters our eyes, what " size" is the perceived " focus" of what we are sighting or focusing on?? I would only assume the size is point like and we are looking " everywhere in all directions" all at once, at all times, at all distance and with everyone on the face of this world????? I guess a good question would be then, is white light black??? Proportional to the square of the distance that is a good unresolved issue, or better yet derivatives = 0 all the time, then we have the measurement problem in which basically describes perhaps ALL THE UNRESOLVED ISSUES... About whats real?? Well, you are right with that one, however I don't really see too many scientist contributing for humanitarian purposes on a quest for a better world and a better system that describes nature and life, what I see are "scientist" making inventions IE, better lcd screens, touch tone cell phones, better diet plans, plastic surgery etc.. Now only in theory, is the world in terrible condition due to the " standard model" of science?? In other words, since science is a major influence on this planet and has a major role in politics, is the planet's condition a consequence of the application of science? I assume this is where whats real and whats not would apply??? Free will perhaps??? Theories are made up then " confirmed" The mathematics too? How about radiation therapy for cancer victims, are you saying that chemistry is made up too?? On the notion of a Theory being made, why then would any scientist have a debate on something made up??? Wouldn't it be pointless?? Sorry, this is all new to me, I am glad I bumped into that link! physics problems??? as in health problems too??
  14. Is this true?? How then do aspiring scientist, such as aspiring musicians, song writers and etc, get recognized for their work??? Yes I look at science as an art form, and I do copyright all of my work regardless, I even have it notarized..
  15. I will go ahead and place a separate topic to this copy right reply..
  16. In regards of " range" how is it so that Albert Einstein's Field Equations is able to " describe a black" hole including entering one?? With such a " great range" Does his equations work much like " optical focus" but in pure numerical form? I saw a video in were black holes " kinda" alarmed physicist from their time, and had issues with the existence of them in that time I think it was early to mid 1800s not sure.. Now in our time, it is 100% confirmed that their is a black hole in the centers of Galaxies??? Galaxies orbit right??? What are they orbiting?
  17. The electric field isn't real. It's just something some guy (Michael Faraday) made up to make it easier to think about the universe. http://physics.info/electric-field/ I was not sure of this was true, but it kinda makes sense??????? So what now do we do??? I am thinking that most formulas for electrical engineering are a waste of time coupled with so many others too. Can these be upgraded ? This is really annoying and confusing, it seems now something is also leading to unresolved issues, How can we invest so much time in science research when we deal with news like this most of the time?
  18. How about the telescopes? I read that resolution of far away galaxies and objects are still an issue? I have read about the super lens and other inventions dealing with re-fractional indexes, has there been any progress for a better lens maker
  19. I think this is is what I need to, I need to see it in order to understand it, I am going to see how I can get one, thanks...
  20. I went ahead and took the PDF, the other links I don't understand where to download from on " that page" Here is something i read in your reply: constrained part of metric, I think I wanna know what this is. I will do a Google search on this.. why would a singularity be point like??
  21. Yes I am reading all the articles but not in their entirety, I only read the entire articles on the weekdays I assure you..I am in the USA it is Saturday Night Now... You say: In Coulombs Law you don't have flowing charged particles (so you can't say "charges per second"). They are stationary. Motionless. One of your links states this, and it frustrates me, because now I get ever more confused: Aside from the properties described in articles about electromagnetism, charge is a relativistic invariant. This means that any particle that has charge Q, no matter how fast it goes, always has charge Q. This property has been experimentally verified by showing that the charge of one helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons bound together in a nucleus and moving around at high speeds) is the same as two deuterium nuclei (one proton and one neutron bound together, but moving much more slowly than they would if they were in a helium nucleus). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge Can you please show me an entire numerical example then?? Where did I mess up?? It is hard to visualize something that is invisible here, "force" is invisible right? I know it moves things but that is based on observations I assume. I don't really want to say much about stationary particles and QM waves, because every time I do, someone gives me a negative vote, then I look bad to everyone.. But! I am very well aware of how static nature is
  22. Aaaaaaayyyyyyyysee ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOLD ME THIS, THANKS!
  23. Sensei this makes much more sense thanks! but one question here: When a number has exponents example like 9.7879*10^-13 * (11.7) Do you do it like this: 9.7879*10e^-13=0.00022123878 0.00022123878*11.7=0.00258849372 Or like this: 9.7879*10e^-13*11.7=0.00258849374 72-74= 2 The reason I am asking is because " Calculators" at least some have precession errors.. I assume 3 terms in the brackets ? (k x 5C x 7C) " then you divide all this by r^2 Well here is what I got so far: C= 62400000000000000000 C charges per second 5*62400000000000000000 = 312000000000000000000 C 7*62400000000000000000 = 436800000000000000000 C 312000000000000000000*436800000000000000000 = 1.362816e+41 C Ke 89875517870*1.362816e+41 C = 1.22483793761522e+52 1.22483793761522e+52 / r^2 13950.0429661 = 8.78017322664668e+47 I don't feel dumb asking, although I sense I should be feeling this way, it is just best to ask, I think I will do this for some time till I get more familiar with "the structure of equations"
  24. It is a pretty lengthy video, and has me pondering on things.. BLACK HOLES - WHAT ARE THEY? (Documentary) Science/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at19-lv4Cpw From what I understand the issue is How Does Quantum Mechanics and Gravity live together?? I ask why do they need to?? What would it prove? On another note, how on earth did Albert Einstein in his time know about these?? Could he have not known he was that smart?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.