http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php Scientific physics forums for professionals and students to discuss serious issues and topics regarding physics in theory, practice, study and reality. Students can also find help for homework and career perspectives en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:25:21 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.physicsforums.com/Nexus/misc/rss.jpg http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3757 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:03:38 GMT Because my topic is removed (own theories not allowed in forum) I continue here because I am not convinced yet, that time dilation can not be explained by the idea that all is really going smaller by... Because my topic is removed (own theories not allowed in forum) I continue here because I am not convinced yet, that time dilation can not be explained by the idea that all is really going smaller by a higher speed let's say in a kind of Higgs field (or the Higgs field).

You don't need to have all physics knowledge to think about relativity, this is really an area where you can think logically (and facts from others of course).

I wrote in my topic too, that two constant speeds are possible, C and another unknown speed S (let's say the expansion of space). So for speeds lower C you can use Lorentz with γ for C, and for speeds above C you can use Lorentz with γ for S. So a neutrino could go faster than light.

How longer I think about the idea everything will be really smaller because of a force (or Higgs field) I can't find a contradiction. I speak now further about the Higgs field (that field is the only field that's everywhere, also around particles, maybe there is another field but does not matter).

Light has from the beginning always the maximums speed (as I thought because of the encapsulated ration C in space, caused by the Higgs field) and have mass 0 or a very little mass. So the size of light is always the same (if we can speak about size if mass would be 0). So there is no force working on light, but there can be a second stage in the Higgs field that speeds can higher (neutrino). But Maxwell has proved the speed of light is always C (possible). Duration or time is something defined by our own clock, and with that clock we found C.

So in the Higgs field is C the maximum possible distance to over bridge in our "second".

If you measure the speed of light while everything is smaller (higher constant speed), our own clock is smaller (BUT on atom level, not only size of course, and maybe other physics effects are smaller too) and the units of time are smaller, so we measure a smaller duration with our clock. To make this clear, our clock is smaller in size, so the units too, but it takes more time to over bridge an drawned unit in our smaller clock. It’s very normal we measure the same speed of light (the Higgs field has the best clock, expressed via light), light has not slow downed by the Higgs field.

When we measure speeds, we measure in fact relative speeds because we don't know our own speed and we don't know what our actual speed is (I speak now about persons). So we don't know who is actually moving or has the greatest speed. One of both is being smaller because of the Higgs field (so we are dealing with a relative smaller size), so that gives symmetry, that’s why you get the same results for both (calculated by the other). You will never know who is really smaller, you only know if both have the same speed, both have the same size. But there is no difference in (relative) time for both, duration is always the same as fixed by light or in the Higgs field. As long we can't find an explanation, our fantasy will being greater and we can even travel back in time.

An example to make it clear.

X1------------------------ car with speed 10 m/s, measured in rest frame A -----------X2

X1----------------- car in its rest frame B, Lorentz 10 m'/s' (from X1) ----X3-----------X2

There must be a factor and I suppose Lorentz but maybe it could be another factor if Lorentz not fits in this theory. That it must be exact Lorentz is never proved I guess (impossible).

The very known triangle proof for time dilation is for me a question too, to see light from two directions and both C. If this would not be correct, than Lorentz is not correct.

So the car and clock has been smaller in rest frame B (in A too but all is measured with own units), but at the same moment (same duration) it arrives in X2, seen in rest frame A, but in ration it arrives in X3 (10 m' in 1 s', it's units when standing still) because the time units are smaller in duration. And because the car has always the same (relative) speed, its clock is going slower (smaller in ration but time is not slower) but the total duration at any moment is the same (so in X2 are the clocks equal). So what is time dilation now, just the difference of a slower running clock and compared at the wrong moments?

Now the question about empty space between?

That’s difficult because all these things are never proved in real.

For example you have two cars in rest frame B and is the space (or distance) between the two cars also smaller. Who tell me, that could be a fact if the road is also part of frame B (road is smaller too, air is smaller too etc.). But if that cars would be two spaceships with the same constant speed, is the distance between also smaller if the constant speed is going higher. Answer: never proved, you can't prove that (just speculation, Lorentz need not to be true in that situation for space, we know only light has always the same speed, so distance between the two spaceships can be equal at any speed, minus spaceships are smaller, but if you are going to measure with your taken ruler, it will be greater). But the size of the spaceship will be equal, because your ruler is smaller too (same ration). The clock is running slower in the spaceship, but time is not going slower.

Besides space is even expanding (slow) on every location I read, so this would be always a contradiction with Lorentz.

I can't find a contradiction too in the relativity theory , to think that all has begon with an absolute point where everything has its original size, but when things are going to move they get a smaller size and our clocks are running slower (if only light was there, the only thing moving, we could not measure without a running (so moving) clock.

Curious what I see wrong (I know time is different in locations, yes compared with slower going clocks at the wrong moments, but is that not a wrong view), could it not be more simple than we think? ]]> digi99 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3757 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3751 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:24:47 GMT I have not been a mentor for very long, but I can see pretty clearly that we get quite a lot of complaints of people who think the PF-rules are too strict or that we should be more lax in enforcing... I have not been a mentor for very long, but I can see pretty clearly that we get quite a lot of complaints of people who think the PF-rules are too strict or that we should be more lax in enforcing the rules. It may not surprise any of you that I disagree with this. But let me try to explain my motives behind my disagreement.

First of all, there is only one person in this entire forum who decides what the rules are. That person is Greg. It is his forum. He is the one who spends a lot of time and money in maintaining this wonderful forum. He does so entirely without profit and as a hobby. He does not owe us anything. We choose to come on this forum and we know that it is Greg who ultimately decides everything. If we disagree with him, then we can argue with Greg, we can explain our position. But he has the final call. And if we don't like his decision, then we're also free not to come on this forum. It's as simple as that: it's Greg's forum and he gets to do whatever he likes. The only thing we can do is choose to participate or not to participate on his forum.

I choose to participate on this forum, because I think the rules are good and fair. Let me take an example of rules that some newbies don't like. First of all, it's a rule that people should always make some kind of effort on a homework problem. I like this rule: it forces students to think instead of being spoonfed. Students don't benefit from getting the answer from somebody else, students benefit from finding the answer for themselves. This is my opinion, but (I guess) it is also the opinion of the established members, the homework helpers and the science advisors. I think that those people would not stay here much longer if it were allowed that we just give the answer to students. Nobody of them wants to see PF being degenerated into yahoo answers. Make no mistake: it are the established members who make PF what it is today. Without them, PF would be worth nothing. So it is in everybody's interest to keep the established members happy. And that means: no spoonfeeding and no crackpottery.

This is a science forum. And people signing up for it should note that a scientific mentality is one of the most important things on this forum. If you do not respect science or the scientific method, then please do not come here. There are many other forums where you can express your opinion.

Furthermore, we only talk about mainstream science here. No speculative ideas allowed. The purpose of this forum is to help current science students understand the science of today. The purpose of this forum is NOT to try and formulate an innovative new theory. Even if Einstein were to use this forum to formulate his new relativity theory, he would still get his post deleted. We know that it will never happen that a groundbreaking theory appears and says: "This was first published on PF." This will not happen and we're ok with it. We're ok with it because it is simply not the purpose of this forum.

And finally. Are our rules so strict?? Really? I think we allow a lot here. A lot depends on the very attitude of the poster. Take for example the simple misconception: "If a spaceship flies at 0.9c and I fly inside the spaceship with 0.2c, then in total I will fly with 1.1c. So I go faster than the speed of light." If somebody comes here and says: "Look at this. This shows that Einstein was wrong. You are all arrogant physicists" then this is not allowed. If somebody comes here and says "Look at this. It seems to violate physics, but I know that physicists consider it to be ok. Where did I go wrong?" then this is perfectly allowed.

Do not come here and assume you are the smartest person who ever lived. We have PhD's and grad students here (and other smart members): it can be expected that most of them understand the science quite well. So it would be advisable to listen to these people with an open mind.

Thank you everybody for letting me rant!! ]]> micromass http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3751 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3750 Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:04:18 GMT hola earthians I am: * in my midlate 16s * a u.s. resident * a fob * an aopsian * fiancee of feinman and erdos friendship is always welcome :) hola earthians
I am:

• in my midlate 16s
• a u.s. resident
• a fob
• an aopsian
• fiancee of feinman and erdos

friendship is always welcome :) ]]> heartyface http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3750 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3748 Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:22:26 GMT Hmmm! I'm often found doing Maths or Physics to pass modules in the OU on the way to a Degree.
I had studied at Poly for 3 years & gained an HND only to find that employers thought that HND sttod for
Has
No
Degree
Slightly miffed about that. Education & employment never fully lived up to what I could have done - Ah well!
Trying to remedy that now, in the last ditch attempt to get a proper career going.
~Unlikely, I know, but always worth trying. ]]> Roodles01 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3748 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3747 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:31:08 GMT [tex]\iiint_0^\infty \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sin\left(\frac{\pi x}{l}\right)\,dx[/tex] ]]> Saladsamurai http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3747 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3741 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:17:28 GMT could use suggestions related.I would like to replicate the most intricate designs of nature to use in technology to make the technology more precise. could use suggestions related.I would like to replicate the most intricate designs of nature to use in technology to make the technology more precise. ]]> laalini http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3741 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3739 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:37 GMT Relative gravity

Relative gravity is an attempt to identify the structure of universe where we live, using Newtonian gravity, Coulomb's law and special relativity, along with the basic mathematics.
Two co-ordinate system.

A point say (a,b) in X-Y axis, and (a', b') in X'-Y' axis. where X'-Y' axis are rotated an angle θ from X-Y
then
a' = a * cos(θ) + b * sin(θ);
b' = b * cos(θ) - a * sin(θ);

where θ(shift) is the angular difference between the axes rotated;

with One Imaginary axis
==============
if one of the axis is taken as imaginary, then we can have imaginary or complex angular shift.

MOTION IN TIME
==============
if every observer is moving in its imaginary axis, all others will see he is moving in space too. if y axis is mapped in imaginary numbers, then

y = y' * cos(θ);
x = -y' * sin(θ);

x/y = -tan(θ);

if the imaginary axis is taken as time:
we can write that:
V = -tan(θ);
Gravity and shift

UNDERSTANDING GRAVITY
=====================

Every mass induces acceleration on other mass,
a = dV/dt
at V = 0,
a = dV/dt = dθ/dt = g
where g is the acceleration due to gravity.
dV/dt = d(-tan(θ))/dt =-sec²(θ) * dθ/dt
= -sec²(θ) * GM/r² cos(θ); ( see the Gravity and Shift below)
= -sec(θ) * GM/r²;

Acceleration due to gravity is the rate of change of shift.

GRAVITY AND SHIFT
=================

If a particle ( we can call it 'subject'), is influenced by a gravitational field, where the subject remains in the space and time of gravity with a shift θ and the distance between them in space is r when viewed by an observer with a shift of zero from gravity.
our subject will disagree with the measurement of distance of observer, and say r' is the distance between them.
where r' = r/cos(θ);
hence the distance is different the subject will see different gravitational field than observer and follow the rules as he observe.
now:
g' => rate of change of shift as measured by the subject.
g => rate of change of shift as measured by the observer;
g' = GM/r'² ---(r'², instead of ^r2)

if we take a small time t, as t-->0, so that the displacement due to gravity can be calculated for any finite shift θ
S' = g' * t'² / 2;
where
S' = S/cos(θ) and
t' = t/cos(θ)

S = S' cos(θ);
= GM/r'² * t'² cos(θ) / 2
= GM/r² * t ² cos(θ)/2
= g(0) * t²/2 * cos(θ);
hence we can find that
g = g(0) cos(θ);

it shows that the rate of change of shift will change with respect to the shift of subject;

READING COULOMBUS LAW
===============

a1 = k * q1 * q2/ r² /m1
a1 is the acceleration of particle q1, due to the field of q2
acceleration if taken as rate of change of shift ( and it should be).
let change the units :
let Q = sqrt( k/G) q;
a1 = k * q2/r² * q1/m1;
= G * Q2/r² * Q1/m1;
= a2(0) * Q1/m1;

COS(θ) IN TERMS OF MEASUREMENT OF MASS
===========================================

The Observed mass and Actual mass will differ if there exists a difference in shift between the observer and subject
This is identified by Coulomb's law, where actual mass is identified as charge and observed mass as real (real as in real life).
the ratio of the Actual mass to observed mass is cos(θ), which is same as γ as proposed by theory of relativity;
F = m₂a
= GM1/r² * cos(θ) * m₂
= GM1M2/r²;

hence:
M = m cos(θ);
cos(θ) = M/m
where M => Actual Mass
m => observed Mass;
Relative mass, complex accelertion

DEEP INTO THE UNIVERSE : THE FOUR WORLDS
========================================
Einstein shown first about the four worlds, which are separated by light cone surface. future, past and two unknown worlds. matter of different kind and complex acceleration make it possible to generate a fractal structure inside each world. Once the properties of such matter are identified, we can exactly identify the other worlds.

UPSIDE DOWN INSIDE OUT
======================
The space is complex only if complex number is a mathematical reality. If imaginary number is a mathematical reality, then distance between two particles can be imaginary. likewise, there can be time with real value( we can call it imaginary time) as well as complex time.

ATTRACTION AND REPULSION IN GRAVITY
===================================
Considering Gauss's law, if the separation of two particle is imaginary the flux will be negative producing reverse effect of real distance acceleration.
1) particles of same world will attract in a real distance, and repel in imaginary distance.
2) particles of opposite world will attract in an imaginary distance and repel in real distance.
But instead of pure imaginary and real distance, particles can have a separation of any complex distance. and create complex acceleration.

COMPLEX ACCELERATION
====================
g(0) = GM/r²;
when r = a + i b;
1/r² = 1/(a²-b²+i*2*a*b)
= (a² - b²)/(a² + b²)² - i * 2ab/(a²+b²)²
ie, for any real M

g(0)r = GM * (a² - b²)/(a² + b²)²
g(0)i = 2GM * abi/(a²+b²)²;

as we know, real acceleration will change the shift in imaginary angle.
imaginary acceleration will change the shift in real angle.( making the fractals of 4 world in all the worlds.)
hence a complex angle shift can be achieved.

Relative mass
========
Relativity is valid not only for space and time, it is valid for any universal truth, hence mass cannot escape from the reality.
every mass believe they are real, and measure others relative to itself.
every interaction between two particles are internal to themself. and are valid in their local frame of reference.

Relative gravity explained ]]> tripple_point http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3739 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3737 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:06:31 GMT Just a little bit about me: 35, unmarried, good working knowledge of 10 languages, written a poetic novel. I work as a night auditor at a hotel which enables me to study about 5 hours a night on the... Just a little bit about me: 35, unmarried, good working knowledge of 10 languages, written a poetic novel. I work as a night auditor at a hotel which enables me to study about 5 hours a night on the job. I used to be extroverted and a bit of a social butterfly, but my hunger for knowledge keeps chaining me more and more tightly to my desk. I'm one of those ridiculous fools that is trying to literally make sense of all human knowledge. I know I won't be successful, but I sure do love trying. I've got a good grounding in literature, languages, history, politics, philosophy, biology and psychology (in that order). Physics is the last main pillar of human knowledge that I know nothing about. I have now resolved to rectify that situation.

I zipped through a 650 page high school physics book in 60 hours spread over a 13 day period. That really energized me. Now I'm doing Calculus. I'm up to chapter 5.2 of 16 chapters, and I've got about 87 sections left to go, I'm averaging about 1 hour per section, give or take a half hour. I don't understand a lot that's going on. I rarely understand the proofs and I have a very difficult time applying Calc to word problems but that doesn't matter much because I'm just trying to get the basics.

I've been studying on average 30 - 40 hours a week since January 2010 and from 2006 until 2010 it was about 20 - 30 hours a week. I'm a self-confirmed studyholic and proud of it.

I'm trying to learn as much physics and math as I can until Sept 1. Then I will probably be entering graduate school in a poetry program and so I won't have time for physics. My goal is to understand what happened in the first three minutes after the Big Bang. If I can't reach that goal by Sept 1, hopefully I will reach it before I die. This journal will be a record of my progress.

I have no ambitions to become a physicist but I would like to be able to read scholarly physics articles and keep up with the new evidence as it comes in over the next 50 years and understand what's going on. ]]> bobsmith76 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3737 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3736 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:24:59 GMT I had a horrible nightmare about a guy named Jimmy that beat me up and raped me in a house and town that made no sense to me. I do not know a Jimmy and I have no clue what this Jimmy even looks like.... I had a horrible nightmare about a guy named Jimmy that beat me up and raped me in a house and town that made no sense to me. I do not know a Jimmy and I have no clue what this Jimmy even looks like. Usually when I have a nightmare about a person with a name it comes true so I'm scared because I would rather not meet Jimmy....EVER. Any idea what my dream means or what I should do your advice is needed. ]]> xangel25125x http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3736 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3730 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:26:48 GMT Interference effects appear to be immune from some relativistic effects. One reason is that the phase difference between the emitter and receiver is a Lorentz scalar.

Here's a demonstration. Maybe even a proof.

http://www.blatword.co.uk/space-time/srphase.pdf ]]> Mentz114 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3730 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:37:49 GMT I see that statement surprisingly often enough on the Academic Guidance forum. I also hear this often whenever I talk to high school students who are interested in doing physics, or even new... I see that statement surprisingly often enough on the Academic Guidance forum. I also hear this often whenever I talk to high school students who are interested in doing physics, or even new undergraduate students thinking of majoring in physics, I often ask what they would like to eventually go into. The response I get is of the type "I want to do theoretical physics". When I ask them what they mean by "theoretical physics", I often get a reply that to the effect that they want to study string theory, elementary particles, etc.. etc. In other words, to many of these people

theoretical physics = string theory, elementary particles, and that type.

This, of course, is a highly faulty understanding of what "theoretical physics" is. It is no different than this very poorly written "guide" on becoming a physicist.

For better or for worse, physics has many different fields of study. If you look at the various division of the APS, you will get a good overview of all the different areas of physics that currently covers most, if not all, of the professional physicists in the US. So these are the different types of physics that people are working on. But also note that, in many cases, a person could be working in more than one field of study, i.e. the work involves more than just one field.

Now, within each field, we have both experimental and theoretical areas, well, all except string, which has no experimentalists! :) So if you are working in, say, nuclear physics, you can be either an experimentalist, or a theorist. Even so-called "applied" field, such as condensed matter physics, accelerator physics, etc., you can have both theoretical and experimental work.

So what this means is that, if you say you want to do theoretical work, that's rather vague and puzzling, because, it means that you haven't made up you mind what area of physics you want to work in. That's similar to someone saying "oh, I want to do experimental work", and someone would then reply "yeah, but doing WHAT?" Now, it's OK if what you mean by saying such a thing is that you don't quite know what field you want to work in, just as long as you are doing theoretical work. If this is really what you intended, that's fine. But most of the people who claim that they want to do "theoretical physics" don't mean that. They have a very narrow view of what physics is, and more importantly, what "theoretical physics" is. I've seen a look of surprise when I told them that Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, John Bardeen, are all theorists in condensed matter physics (which is often thought to be an "applied" physics), and they all have won Nobel Prizes in physics!

I think this is one of the "myth" about physics (and about physicists) that I try to constantly smash to pieces. Physics isn't just the LHC, and physicists aren't just the Brian Greene's. It is also the iPods, the MRIs, etc.. etc. And for someone who still don't know that "theoretical physics" does not automatically mean what they think it means, it is highly advisable that they hold off on focusing on what they want to do before they have done sufficient "window shopping" to see what physics really is and what it has to offer. At some point, there needs to be a dose of reality injected into a decision on what one wants to do.

Zz. ]]> ZapperZ http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3727 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3725 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:39:03 GMT MEMORISING THE TABLE IS DIFFICULT TASK FOR STUDENTS..... SO HERE'S SHORT TRICK...

1) Table of 19
19 * 2 = add ( 2*9) and 20.... so just hav to know table of 2 or table of 9.....
19 * 3 = (9*3)+30
19 * 4 = (9*4)+40
.
.
.
19 * 9 = (9*9)+90

similarly to learn table of 18,17,16....and so on having 1 in tens place , apply this short trick

2) table of 9
students get confused in this ...so here's simple trick....
just start splitting 9 in two parts as
0 and 9
1 and 8
2 and 7
3 and 6
4 and 5
5 and 4
and so on ..... such that sum of two number is always 9.... simple now??????????

so, to all parents to teach their kids the table and help them memorise it...........

Being a teacher, i hope that , this post of mine be beneficial to other small kids...

NITA SINGH
(TEACHER
ST. PATRICK'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL) ]]> nita singh203 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3725 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3723 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:47:18 GMT Is there any way to change my username????? Is there any way to change my username????? ]]> Rakinniya http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3723 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3722 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:53:31 GMT "... then you haven't understood it."

We all have heard variations of that. In fact, we also often get crackpots who DEMAND that we evaluate their ideas and give them comments in "simple, ordinary language", and that our failure to make them understand physics on such terms implies that WE don't understand the physics (as if they do).

The idea here is that if you understood something, then you should be able to explain it in its simplest form to someone who has no background in a certain knowledge to be able to understand it. I've heard this told to physicists, and told by many people who should know better than repeating something unverified.

And that's the whole problem. The statement is mentioned and repeated AS IF IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO BE TRUE! So when it is uttered, most of us tend to get defensive and try to deflect it, rather than confront it directly and ask to show proof that the statement is true.

The problem here is that people confuse two things: (i) having knowledge and (ii) the ability to convey that knowledge in simple, understandable form. These two are NOT mutually inclusive! If it is, then someone needs to go out and proclaim that a physicist such as Dirac "doesn't understand quantum mechanics". Anyone who has read his biography could easily see that he wasn't much of an "explainer", and certainly not to the general public. So, who here in his/her right mind would like to proclaim that Dirac doesn't understand quantum mechanics? Anyone? How come this clear and obvious falsification to that statement was never brought up? I have plenty more examples from where that came from. Yet, people still continue to utter that statement, as if the understanding of complex physics ideas is an entitlement.

Most of us who have been in physics for any considerable period of time have met people who we KNOW for a fact to be experts in certain areas, and yet, they suck at explaining what they do to us, much less, to someone who isn't familiar with the subject matter. This may happen for a variety of reasons: (i) lack of pedagogical skills (ii) laziness in figuring out how to present something at the level that the audience can understand (iii) or simply a complete ignorance of the fact that the audience is clueless to what he/she is saying. Being able to present something in understandable form is not a skill that comes with knowledge. It requires quite a bit of thought, a consideration to the level of knowledge of the audience, and a lot of consideration on how to present something that is in touch with what the audience already know. This takes effort, and this is something not everyone realizes. Thus, you get brilliant scientists who could have a lot of trouble explaining something that a grandmother can understand. It has no reflection on his knowledge of the subject matter.

A few years ago, while explaining what we do to a group of general public visitors to our facility, one of our distinguished, senior theorist happened to be listening to my spiel. The next day, he walked into my office and told me that, after years of listening to my boss, and the previous boss of the group explained what the group's project is all about, yesterday was the first time he actually understood what we were doing! I was of course flattered, but also a bit shocked, considering that our group has been headed by people who are among the world's leading experts in this area! So to say that these people did not understand what they're doing is utterly false, because I KNOW for a fact that they do. And by that same token, just because I somehow have a bit of a skill in explaining such a thing, does that mean that I've understood it, and understood it more than they do? Nope, and certainly not to the same level as these experts that I look up to.

A lot of crap gets thrown out nowadays and accepted as "fact". The notion that the ability to explain things in simple is somehow commensurate with one's mastery of the subject is patently FALSE. It carries as much validity as claiming that if you can't sing very well the songs you wrote, then you're not a very good songwriter. One has nothing to do with the other!

Zz. ]]> ZapperZ http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3722 http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3700 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:07:13 GMT Latley ive been thinking about the world and theres a question thats been bothering me so i need help answering this caise i still dont get the meaning of it. *Question:* How do you find an... Latley ive been thinking about the world and theres a question thats been bothering me so i need help answering this caise i still dont get the meaning of it.

Question: How do you find an appropriate balance between taking pride in your culture and respecting others?

Im not quite sure how to answer that. Its a hard question and i want to see everyones opinion. ]]> Janell_Dizzy http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3700