Seeking advice for my plans of a career in physics

[Mark Walker]

Hi, how's it going. I am new here. Over the past month or so I have developed back that facination of the universe I had as a kid. It was big back then but it's even bigger now. I am seriously concidering a career in physics and all to do with the universe, but I've never really known what I wanted to do with my life so I'm unsure whether it's just a phase or not. This is why I am seeking some advice. There's more to it; i'll explain.

At school I didn't really do that well in science, and couldn't really be bothered with it but I always had a feeling that my future played a major part of technological advancement. Over the past couple of years or so now I have learned basic knowledge on the universe from books and the bbc series "Space" and enjoyed it's presence, but have never really had any SERIOUS knowledge on the subject. Just like almost every average person.

Over the past couple of months my mind has been constantly focused on the universe and the laws of physics. This is part of my wanting the career, But the most of it is the theorys, questions, answers and arguments I have worked out/thought up. Some of them are more farout than others, but they generaly follow the laws of physics and the most popular theories I've read about.

This is what is driving my dream of resaerching the laws of the universe. New discoveries will be found in my life time, no matter how large or minor as I'm only 21 and I want to be a part of that. I have a whoe 50 years average left of my life, that's like half a century.

This was all good, until the other day. Before hand I only knew that black holes where created when a star dies. But now I have actualy, in theory, figured out how black holes are created all by my self, and it all follows einsteins laws of physics I know of! I have even thought of arguments that the current way they think it's possible to create a black hole in a particle accelerator is wrong. Colliding two particles together I think it is, correct me please. I am not saying it is right, but they follow laws and it seems right to me.

I have never read anything of my theory, all I knew was they don't know how they are created. How old this information is I don't know, kind of the reason I am posting here. Correct me please. I even tought of a basic equation of what gravity is, but I don't know if people have an equation for gravity either.

When I figured it out I started crying and thinking that normal people shouldn't be figuring out things like this. Could this be a sign that this is what i should do?

P.S I haven't studied science at colege or uni so I know prety much nothing and I think that if I study and know my stuff, the theories will be bigger and better. Is coming up with a serious theory on how black holes are created and how to create one concidered a exceptional thing for an average person with absolute no college training? I hope if I study, I might have some serious answers. That's my drive.

 

[juvenal]

You have two paths:

1. Actually learn some physics at the college and graduate level before concluding that your theory is right. Based on your background, it's almost 100% certain that your theory is either not right, or does not yield any useful or meaningful predictions. Learning astrophysics is hard, hard work. Do you have the patience?

2. Go the crank/crackpot route. This typically means holding steadfast to your theories even after they've been repeatedly proven to be false by those who know more physics than you. Cranks and crackpots are not welcome here, though. There are other forums for that ilk.

 

[Mark Walker]

Don't worry I'm not going the crack pot route. Are there actualy any "seriously popular" theories on the creations of black holes? My theory makes a lot of sense, a hell of a lot of sense to me and a lot of family I've told. If there arne't any good theories then mine is definatly worth a listen. But not to the level where other people could steal my theory, and possibly ruining my future career. This is why I want to learn and evolve my thorys. But if this theory is already around and/or is the most popular one then it would be nice to know now.

 

[Data]

If you want to know whether your work makes sense or not, you have a few options. First of all, you could post it here. Noone will steal it. There are many posters here who have extremely strong backgrounds in physics and mathematics, and who can tell you where your mistakes are, if they exist.

Another option is to try to get the work published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm sure others here can refer you to some that might be appropriate, if you decide to try this. Such a journal, if it finds your work worthwhile, will submit it to a panel of experts for review (essentially the same thing that would happen if you put it up on this board), and decide if it makes sense and is publishable.

 

[juvenal]

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I don't know. But you should learn general relativity (GR) to at least the level where you can solve a good portion of the problems in a basic GR textbook like Schutz, Wald, or MTW = (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler). In order to get to the stage where you can learn GR, you probably need to take 4 years worth of college-level physics/math courses.

Go here:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/multi?group=physics&/find=Search

And search the abstracts for "black holes". There are thousands of papers out there on black holes, pretty much all written by experts. If you can get to the level where you understand what they are writing, at a non-superficial level, then you are ready to judge your own theory.

 

[Mark Walker]

Sorry for double posting, it won't let me edit the above.

I don't mean to sound big headed, I'm just SHOCKED by all these ideas coming to me, but to me from what I've read(I'm currently reading collins encyclopedia of the universe), not so complicated knowledge, there's about a 50% chance my theories right, "or", one of the most popular theories of natural black hole creation.

It follows the idea of they're created by a dieing star, and to common sense it works. Then there's my theory. It concludes that coliding two particles directly together won't create a black hole. It sugests that a singularity may not be at the centre of a black hole in conditions faster than the speed of light. It predicts that light isn't the fastest thing in the universe. And it goes on. Linking more and more elements of the universe together. Fitting together piece by peace like a jigsaw. And it all makes sense.

 

[so-crates]

there's about a 50% chance my theories right, "or", one of the most popular theories of natural black hole creation.

Theories are either right or wrong(they either predict phenoma that occur within a certain domain, or they don't). A "chance" of a theory being right makes no sense.

It follows the idea of they're created by a dieing star, and to common sense it works. Then there's my theory. It concludes that coliding two particles directly together won't create a black hole. It sugests that a singularity may not be at the centre of a black hole in conditions faster than the speed of light. It predicts that light isn't the fastest thing in the universe. And it goes on. Linking more and more elements of the universe together. Fitting together piece by peace like a jigsaw. And it all makes sense.

What empirical evidence do you have that there exist objects in the universe that travel faster than the speed of light? Does your theory correspond to plain old classical physics under nomral conditions, like the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do?

 

[Mark Walker]

One of my theories is it goes sound barrier, light, then gravity, the expansion of space it's self. Once the gravity barrier is broken, that's when space time will puncture.

Physacists have predicted that the reason the black-hole is black, is because the matter in the centre is traveling faster than the speed of light.

Well, it follows all of einsteins laws that "I know of". It certainly follows my knowledge of gravity. That it is a curvature in space time. Massivly, actualy.

I am researching now by reading the collins encyclopedia of the universe. From what I have read it could be possible that my theory is correct. I haven't read quantum mechanics yet, but I have read special and general relativity and get the idea of it. This is why I wan't to learn. To find out if it is right. If it's not, then it's a damn good theory to be starting out with, not forget the others. I bet there'll be more.

To give you an idea of my understanding level, I predicted on my own that, intergalactic travel is possible via the stabilised worm hole theory because time and space doesn't exist with in a singularity or, non-space. The travel will be instantanious via the link because space doesn't exist between the two points. This is similar content to my BH theory in complexity. No quantum physics or advanced content.

Like I say I don't mean to sound big headed. This is posibly the biggest thing I have ever had on my mind. Never before would I consider a life time comitment to study. Now I truly want this. To me, the better you understand my knowledge and situation, the easier it might be for you to offer me advice.

Is there a link between the energy given off by a dieing star and speed?

 

[Bladibla]

One of my theories is it goes sound barrier, light, then gravity, the expansion of space it's self. Once the gravity barrier is broken, that's when space time will puncture.

Physacists have predicted that the reason the black-hole is black, is because the matter in the centre is traveling faster than the speed of light.

Well, it follows all of einsteins laws that "I know of". It certainly follows my knowledge of gravity. That it is a curvature in space time. Massivly, actualy.

I am researching now by reading the collins encyclopedia of the universe. From what I have read it could be possible that my theory is correct. I haven't read quantum mechanics yet, but I have read special and general relativity and get the idea of it. This is why I wan't to learn. To find out if it is right. If it's not, then it's a damn good theory to be starting out with, not forget the others. I bet there'll be more.

To give you an idea of my understanding level, I predicted on my own that, intergalactic travel is possible via the stabilised worm hole theory because time and space doesn't exist with in a singularity or, non-space. The travel will be instantanious via the link because space doesn't exist between the two points. This is similar content to my BH theory in complexity. No quantum physics or advanced content.

Like I say I don't mean to sound big headed. This is posibly the biggest thing I have ever had on my mind. Never before would I consider a life time comitment to study. Now I truly want this. To me, the better you understand my knowledge and situation, the easier it might be for you to offer me advice.

Is there a link between the energy given off by a dieing star and speed?

''I don't mean to sound Big headed'' ... ''This is probably the biggest thing i have ever had on my mind''

Does that sound weird just to me..?

You say you are not going to follow the crackpot route, and yet you seem like you will.

And just how much detail do you think Collins dictionary has on the topic? More that on this forum about its topics? Do you think you can truly master a subject of enormous complexity by just reading a encyclopedia?

You really should go and learn physics more, get a degree in university, to even START thinking of making a theory. Oh and, you'll have to find experimental evidence for it. Good luck.

Just read the topics on the astronomy/GR and you will get an idea how complex the topic you think you have a 'theory' really is.

 

[Mark Walker]

Hey don't get me wrong, I know the sheer complexity of physics and the years I'll have to put into my study. That a theroy has to be genuinly good, and has to be capable of being tested and proved wrong. I'm also aware of the simplicity of the encyclopedia, but it is a start. So far, from what I've read, my BH theory could be true. Even of the simplicity of it.

With that on my mind it's the first step. The more I learn, the closer to the top of the stairs I get. No matter how many ups and downs. Even without this theory I still want to learn physics. I just think for someone who has only had one job and been on the dole for 4 years, to going into full time study is a big step. Just, the idea of my theories and solving or ruling them out my self, keeps it alive all that more.

 

[Data]

A quick google search for the Collins' Encyclopedia of the Universe gives me the strong impression that while it is probably a good source for a fuzzy, qualitative, "yeah it sort of makes sense," understanding of phenomena (which is certainly a good place to start!), that it's not something you'll be able to learn enough to make meaningful predictions from.

In order to do that, you need to formulate well-defined and consistent postulates, and to use mathematical formalism to determine what follows from the postulates. Then you'll need to find ways to test the predictions!

I've studied a little bit of physics so far at the university level, through many, many textbooks. I certainly have this sort of fuzzy understanding of how black holes work. What I don't have is (a) actual experimental data/observations relating to the subject and (b) a mathematical model consistent with my "fuzzy" understanding. As such, it is not a good idea for me to try to explain to anyone how black holes work!

All of this said, your current work, while likely not publishable or easily supportable in a mathematical sense, is certainly an indication of your interest in the subject. If you think you will remain interested, then go ahead and study it in more detail! Be warned that you will have to work through a lot of mathematics if you intend to study it seriously, and you will almost certainly have to work very hard before you understand some things. If you really like the subject, you will be rewarded in the long run, though.

 

[Mark Walker]

I would love to tell you all my theory but if I did post, and it made sense to other people it's likely it would get stolen. Unless of course I find it's been mentioned before. I searched black hole theory in htread titles and only got 3.

 

[Bladibla]

Hey don't get me wrong, I know the sheer complexity of physics and the years I'll have to put into my study. That a theroy has to be genuinly good, and has to be capable of being tested and proved wrong. I'm also aware of the simplicity of the encyclopedia, but it is a start. So far, from what I've read, my BH theory could be true. Even of the simplicity of it.

With that on my mind it's the first step. The more I learn, the closer to the top of the stairs I get. No matter how many ups and downs. Even without this theory I still want to learn physics. I just think for someone who has only had one job and been on the dole for 4 years, to going into full time study is a big step. Just, the idea of my theories and solving or ruling them out my self, keeps it alive all that more.

Then let's ask another question: what are you trying tell us?

I read your original post and i read:

Could this be a sign that this is what i should do?

I think you just answered your own question. Then do physics for your advanced study.

''When I figured it out I started crying and thinking that normal people shouldn't be figuring out things like this. Could this be a sign that this is what i should do?''

Oh, so now you think you are a master-mind?

Keep in mind that MANY, MANY people in the world have thought of what you have thought, and are still trying to figure out many of the 'holy' grails of physics. So to think that you are unique, is sheer arrogance and dogmatism in action.

 

[Bladibla]

P.S I haven't studied science at colege or uni so I know prety much nothing and I think that if I study and know my stuff, the theories will be bigger and better. Is coming up with a serious theory on how black holes are created and how to create one concidered a exceptional thing for an average person with absolute no college training? I hope if I study, I might have some serious answers. That's my drive.

For crackpots, there usually is no age limit. Although there are VERY, VERY few exceptions.

 

[Maxwell]

Mark Walker:

I'm sorry to be harsh, but there is absolutely NO chance your theory is correct. To even claim your theory MIGHT be 50% correct is foolish. You have NO understanding or background on the topics in which you claim to have theories about; that is the biggest error an aspiring physicist of scientist can make. How can you honestly feel you have discovered a theory when you haven't even studied the basics of the material??

If you want reasons as to why your theory is absolutely wrong, post it here. No one will steal it, and if by some cosmic mess up your theory is correct (Read: No chance), there are many people here who will witness your post and vouch for you. If your theory is correct, have no fear, people will know it was yours.

So, go to school and learn the basic material in a field that interests you. Learn as much background information as you can and then attend graduate school.

But please, please do not run around telling people you have new theories on black hole formation and gravity.

 

[juvenal]

Mark - you also have to realize that "fuzzy", non-quantitative science is fairly easy to do, even though it might involve some degree of creativity and a little insight. It is not going to win you any glory. Has a single writer on Star Trek won a Nobel Prize for any of the creative ideas they've come up with? No.

The really hard part is taking your ideas and making them into quantitative theories that can be testable by experiment. For that, you'll need years of training at the university and PhD level.

 

[Bladibla]

Of course I don't. I do think I have a mind for physics though.

I agree. But persionaly it made me happy. My mind doesn't usualy come up with things like these.

Off quickly scanning google I still can't find an article that mentions what my theory sugests. You get the usual a star dies as a supernova, everything collapses in on it's self and creates a black hole stuff. But I've never seen anything on why and how the black hole is created off high density stars. Why it's flat and spinning, how and why everything colapses inwards etc etc.

But I have an explination as to how that happens. I can explain a sugestion as to what happens the instant a high density star dies. Why and how gravity has that effect on space when a star dies. Why the black holes spinning and flat. Colabirates why it can't be seen and more.

Edit: Ok I'll tell you. Imagine if a star was completely still. If it exploded the debree would be shot outwards because it would have equal force in every direction from the centre of the star.

But because stars spin, the negative force hurtling the debree isn't shot outwards. The constant rotation of the star causes gravity to distort space in a spiral. The faster the star rotates, the stronger the gravitational pull and the tighter the distortion of space time. As the energy gets shot outwards, it follows that distortion in the curve gravity created. So instead of hurtling in all vectors, it explodes with enough energy to spin the star faster than light, spins on it's axis like a cathryn wheel, constantly accelerating the strength of the gravitational pull, sucking everything inwards. As gravity is twisting and tightening around that central point, it squeezes everything in with it, compressing it down with the tightening of gravity.

As we know the revolution of objects in space creates gravity, pulling things in towards it, just like our planet. Again if the star spins faster the force of gravity will increase. So if a high density star exploded with all it's force, the energy followed the curvature the revolution causes, and started spinning on it's axis, it could accelerate to a point beyond the speed of light. If the star was spinning faster than the speed of light, the gravity would be emmense. You wouldn't be able to see the centre because it is spinning faster than the speed of light.

This is a Bunch of quack, quack, quack. You don't even have the patience to search for relevant detailed information on the subject. Such quick judgement can be priceful, as it is now.

 

[Mark Walker]

Sorry, previous post was deleted instead of edited.

"Of course I don't. I do think I have a mind for physics though.

I agree. But persionaly it made me happy. My mind doesn't usualy come up with things like these.

Off quickly scanning google I still can't find an article that mentions what my theory sugests. You get the usual a star dies as a supernova, everything collapses in on it's self and creates a black hole stuff. But I've never seen anything on why and how the black hole is created off high density stars. Why it's flat and spinning, how and why everything colapses inwards etc etc.

But I have an explination as to how that happens. I can explain a sugestion as to what happens the instant a high density star dies. Why and how gravity has that effect on space when a star dies. Why the black holes spinning and flat. Colabirates why it can't be seen and more.

Edit: Ok I'll tell you. Imagine if a star was completely still. If it exploded the debree would be shot outwards because it would have equal force in every direction from the centre of the star.

But because stars spin, the negative force hurtling the debree isn't shot outwards. The constant rotation of the star causes gravity to distort space in a spiral. The faster the star rotates, the stronger the gravitational pull and the tighter the distortion of space time. As the energy gets shot outwards, it follows that distortion in the curve gravity created. So instead of hurtling in all vectors, it explodes with enough energy to spin the star faster than light, spins on it's axis like a cathryn wheel, constantly accelerating the strength of the gravitational pull, sucking everything inwards. As gravity is twisting and tightening around that central point, it squeezes everything in with it, compressing it down with the tightening of gravity.

As we know the revolution of objects in space creates gravity, pulling things in towards it, just like our planet. Again if the star spins faster the force of gravity will increase. So if a high density star exploded with all it's force, the energy followed the curvature the revolution causes, and started spinning on it's axis, it could accelerate to a point beyond the speed of light. If the star was spinning faster than the speed of light, the gravity would be emmense. You wouldn't be able to see the centre because it is spinning faster than the speed of light."

This is a Bunch of quack, quack, quack. You don't even have the patience to search for relevant detailed information on the subject. Such quick judgement can be priceful, as it is now.

How do you mean? Please explain? I am interested to know it's faults, or, my misconceptions.

Anyway, like I said, my theories aren't the basis of my interest to learn. They just encourage it a bit. I'm interested in studying physics and astronomy. I havn't researched any job titles yet, but I know a few of the courses I'll be looking at. I just want to be a part of modern science, future science. Do my part to move the world forward in technology and knowledge.

It's the discovery that excites me. Anyone else get this? What interests you to physics?

 

[monet A]

Hey Mark,

You know you want it so go get it. When you have determined your course every small step towards it will be great for you.

Get yourself a course guide for your local universities, read the course descriptions really well, really research it to choose your course based on the things you feel are most relevant to what you have in mind. Most uni's have this info online so you can browse them and write yourself out a couple of options that you think will fill the gaps in your knowledge. Once you've chosen your course and have a couple of matriculations that you are comfortable with in your hot little hands then find out what you need to do to get there.

Getting into a university from the academic level that you claim to be at right now is going to be a fair challenge for you and you'll do yourself proud to achieve it. There are multiple options for getting in, and if you have the drive and determination you'll find the one for you and you'll make it work.

I am one of two sisters who went back to uni after 15 years out of school, marriage and a bunch of kids were behind us, it's not too late to take the plunge into the deep end for anyone, so put the naysaying off to one side and go for it.

Good luck, I'll be watching or your update.

 

[Bladibla]

Sorry, previous post was deleted instead of edited.

"Of course I don't. I do think I have a mind for physics though.

I agree. But persionaly it made me happy. My mind doesn't usualy come up with things like these.

Off quickly scanning google I still can't find an article that mentions what my theory sugests. You get the usual a star dies as a supernova, everything collapses in on it's self and creates a black hole stuff. But I've never seen anything on why and how the black hole is created off high density stars. Why it's flat and spinning, how and why everything colapses inwards etc etc.

But I have an explination as to how that happens. I can explain a sugestion as to what happens the instant a high density star dies. Why and how gravity has that effect on space when a star dies. Why the black holes spinning and flat. Colabirates why it can't be seen and more.

Edit: Ok I'll tell you. Imagine if a star was completely still. If it exploded the debree would be shot outwards because it would have equal force in every direction from the centre of the star.

But because stars spin, the negative force hurtling the debree isn't shot outwards. The constant rotation of the star causes gravity to distort space in a spiral. The faster the star rotates, the stronger the gravitational pull and the tighter the distortion of space time. As the energy gets shot outwards, it follows that distortion in the curve gravity created. So instead of hurtling in all vectors, it explodes with enough energy to spin the star faster than light, spins on it's axis like a cathryn wheel, constantly accelerating the strength of the gravitational pull, sucking everything inwards. As gravity is twisting and tightening around that central point, it squeezes everything in with it, compressing it down with the tightening of gravity.

As we know the revolution of objects in space creates gravity, pulling things in towards it, just like our planet. Again if the star spins faster the force of gravity will increase. So if a high density star exploded with all it's force, the energy followed the curvature the revolution causes, and started spinning on it's axis, it could accelerate to a point beyond the speed of light. If the star was spinning faster than the speed of light, the gravity would be emmense. You wouldn't be able to see the centre because it is spinning faster than the speed of light."



How do you mean? Please explain? I am interested to know it's faults, or, my misconceptions.

Anyway, like I said, my theories aren't the basis of my interest to learn. They just encourage it a bit. I'm interested in studying physics and astronomy. I havn't researched any job titles yet, but I know a few of the courses I'll be looking at. I just want to be a part of modern science, future science. Do my part to move the world forward in technology and knowledge.

It's the discovery that excites me. Anyone else get this? What interests you to physics?

You just don't get it do you. Many people have already posted why you shouldn't post theories in this fashion, as you will most likely get booed at because there are many concepts in science you yet haven't grasped.

You contradict yourself. You say you know you have to know more to propose a clear theory, and yet you STILL post here to get ideas for your 'theory'. I would suggest not to do this, as you will get zero credit now and in the future.

 

[Mark Walker]

You don't get it more like it. I am not posting to get ideas for my theory. I posted my theory to example my interest and depth of thought on the subject. If I wanted ideas on my theory my title would have been "help elaborate my simple BH theory".

Anyways, theories don't start from quantum mechanics and go backwards, they start small and go forwards. If your critisizing me for posting an idea in the best way I can, then it seems you are more big headed that I thought I sounded.

 

[Bladibla]

You don't get it more like it. I am not posting to get ideas for my theory. I posted my theory to example my interest and depth of thought on the subject. If I wanted ideas on my theory my title would have been "help elaborate my simple BH theory".

Anyways, theories don't start from quantum mechanics and go backwards, they start small and go forwards. If your critisizing me for posting an idea in the best way I can, then it seems you are more big headed that I thought I sounded.

Oh, I'm big-headed? I criticized you because you clearly don't have enough knowledge to propose a theory at the moment. This is the truth. Nothing big-headed or anything like that.

And the above comment is already answered. Fine. You have shown your interest and depth of thought on the subject. Now go LEARN PHYSICS.

 

[AndersoN]

advice

That was a very good post I would say, Maxwell. I just want to add sth to encourage Mark:
It is good that you have some ideas, it is good that you have such strong interest in sth(as this can help you get really good at it), but you know little to have complicated theories,I think. With all this said, I think you have understood what to do now, haven't you?

And finally, remember this one thing that Albert Einstein said:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

 

[Bladibla]

That was a very good post I would say, Maxwell. I just want to add sth to encourage Mark:
It is good that you have some ideas, it is good that you have such strong interest in sth(as this can help you get really good at it), but you know little to have complicated theories,I think. With all this said, I think you have understood what to do now, haven't you?

And finally, remember this one thing that Albert Einstein said:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

Another thing to remember:

'Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen''

 

[AndersoN]

Yes, that is also true.

 

[ZapperZ]

Another thing to remember:

'Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen''

<looks at Bladibla and calls his copyright attorney> :)

Zz.

 

[marlon]

'Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen''

Err, let's stick with the Einstein quote...it contains more indept reality. This quote (i don't know where it comes from but it appears on many websites) really tells nothing new and does not invite to contemplate on its content

just my two cents
marlon

 

[Bladibla]

<looks at Bladibla and calls his copyright attorney> :)

Zz.

Ack. I apologize. Should have been 'Also, someone said'.

Marlon, how do you mean it has more indept reality?

 

[ZapperZ]

Ack. I apologize. Should have been 'Also, someone said'.

Hahah... no. You're welcome to use it as often as you like. :)

Zz.

 

[AndersoN]

how come? did your attorney say that you have no rights over it ? :)

 

[marlon]

how come? did your attorney say that you have no rights over it ? :)

he can't have, because this semi-quote pops up on several places of the internet

marlon

 

[marlon]

Marlon, how do you mean it has more indept reality?

The Einstein quote really makes you think on how creativity and real science are related. The other "quote" says nothing else then you need knowledge, otherwise science does not work. Well, duuhhh, that is something everybody knows and therefore this semi-quote does not merit the status of "QUOTE". I mean, 'the sun comes up every day' doesn't really qualify as a quote does it ?

The ignorance-thing is not a quote it is a general truth and whoever tried to launch it as an actual quote is a low-life faker who tries to sound intelligent to people that are not into science. That is why he/she is a faker

marlon

 

[Bladibla]

The Einstein quote really makes you think on how creativity and real science are related. The other "quote" says nothing else then you need knowledge, otherwise science does not work. Well, duuhhh, that is something everybody knows and therefore this semi-quote does not merit the status of "QUOTE". I mean, 'the sun comes up every day' doesn't really qualify as a quote does it ?

The ignorance-thing is not a quote it is a general truth and whoever tried to launch it as an actual quote is a low-life faker who tries to sound intelligent to people that are not into science. That is why he/she is a faker

marlon

Fair enough. However, it should be constantly reminded to people..

 

[ZapperZ]

he can't have, because this semi-quote pops up on several places of the internet

marlon

Unless you wish to contest that another person independently also came up with the IDENTICAL quote, I have several witnesses that can verify that I first cited that phrase on the IRC Undernet server in the #physics channel some time in 1995 or 1996.

... and gee, I must be a "low-lifer" for stating the "obvious".

 

[marlon]

Unless you wish to contest that another person independently also came up with the IDENTICAL quote, I have several witnesses that can verify that I first cited that phrase on the IRC Undernet server in the #physics channel some time in 1995 or 1996.

Ohh it's your (well according to you). You can't give a specific date ? Well, that does not sound very convincing. But in all honesty, why would anybody care, right ? It doesn't really have any value...I mean I imagine teachers bring over that point every day in class.

Err, i wish you good luck with it... :uhh:

marlon