The Nature of Reality

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, moonman said:

Seriously? You don't even need the formula to figure out the answer. As long as you know 212F = 100C and 32F = 0C (which is basic knowledge) the answer is just common sense. There can't be any 59 degree swings between a degree change on either of the two scales.

Yeah Seriously= i don't know you-- this is how it works on the www dear chap:

you may not have had a clue to start with- looked it up telling everyone you know & it's simple basic knowledge.. how am i supposed to TRULY know?

not for one minute suggesting you are lying of course> plus the formula difficulty in question is kinda irrelevant:

just making the point with regards to the OPs qualifications/ life experience.. we can all say things like: 'oow i've got this- i've got that- i see this- i experienced that etc etc etc' in forums.

all due respect & hope you see my point

[moonman]

Knowing the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is not hard to believe. Most people learn that in early grade school, when someone says they know the difference there's no need to doubt that. It's nothing; a factoid.

Proclaiming that you know everything about everything (and learned it all in a year no less)  is something completely different. You should definitely doubt that. Not only doubt it, but know it's a complete falsehood. It's something an egotistical teenager would say after reading a couple books.

 

I do see your point, though. If you really want to test someone, you'll need to ask something that can't be readily looked up on the internet.

Edited July 11, 2018 by moonman

[danydandan]

54 minutes ago, moonman said:

Knowing the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is not hard to believe. Most people learn that in early grade school, when someone says they know the difference there's no need to doubt that. It's nothing; a factoid.

Proclaiming that you know everything about everything (and learned it all in a year no less)  is something completely different. You should definitely doubt that. Not only doubt it, but know it's a complete falsehood. It's something an egotistical teenager would say after reading a couple books.

 

I do see your point, though. If you really want to test someone, you'll need to ask something that can't be readily looked up on the internet.

I didn't think the proof would be easily Googled, is it?

The answer probably is, but I doubt the proofs are.

And if it is easily done I'm even more surprised it wasn't done correctly.

Edited July 11, 2018 by danydandan

[moonman]

9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I didn't think the proof would be easily Googled, is it?

The answer probably is, but I doubt the proofs are.

And if it is easily done I'm even more surprised it wasn't done correctly.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58472.html

That wasn't hard to find, is it proof-y enough? Honestly I'm not exactly sure what a proof entails if not.

Edited July 11, 2018 by moonman

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, moonman said:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58472.html

That wasn't hard to find, is it proof enough? Honestly I'm not exactly sure what a proof entails if not.

Yeah that's fine, shows how the linear equation can be manipulated to achieve the results. But it's not the question that was asked.

So I'm really surprised that the answer wasn't given now. I wouldn't have doubted a copy and paste job as I would have assumed it would not be easily accessible on the net. Skeptical thinking will now forever by maximised in the future.

Edited July 11, 2018 by danydandan

[GlitterRose]

On 7/8/2018 at 5:51 PM, XenoFish said:

Which politician ya think said that? 

Lol.

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Which politician ya think said that? 

Lol.

Obama?

 

[GlitterRose]

29 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Obama?

 

Probably be one with casinos.

I don't think he had any of those.

[Jodie.Lynne]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:03 PM, Dejarma said:

i'm here to have an adult logical debate regarding said topic.. 

That would be an improbable impossibility, since the OP cannot possibly learned all those disciplines in the time stated, and be qualified to discuss the subject.

[Blood_Sacrifice]

On 7/11/2018 at 4:57 PM, Emma_Acid said:

Always thought of going into physics, probably dodged a bullet with that one

Why didn't you? I can't imagine the things you could have achieved, given that even without a degree you know so much about it.

 

[Emma_Acid]

On 11/07/2018 at 12:13 PM, danydandan said:

May I ask what you do now?

A really interesting field is the history of science.

Edit: I thought I read science of communication, but now I see you mean like scientific journalism? That's really interesting too. You should start with a blog or an article here, I tried one awhile ago and am in the middle of writing one about relativity which I'm hoping to post in afew weeks.

No, I mean science communication - as in, helping scientists form the messaging that goes to the outside world. I think it's something that still isn't done very well, and negatively affects peoples's view on science as a whole.

I currently work in graphic design, which includes strategic comms etc, so its not a million miles away. But from what I've read, you need a science degree to get a job as a science communicator.

[Emma_Acid]

On 11/07/2018 at 12:27 PM, Golden Duck said:

Almost sounded like your uncle was Brian May

Even as a non-Queen fan, that would be cool.

[Emma_Acid]

On 11/07/2018 at 5:24 PM, sci-nerd said:

I'm gonna limit my replies to questions about the topic itself. Mocking and slander will be ignored.

How I learned, or how long it took to learn, doen't matter. It's off topic and irrelevant. You don't believe it? Fine! 

It isn't really, as you used it for the basis of your statements. If you haven't had the education or the experience, what's to separate you out from other armchair experts?

[Emma_Acid]

11 hours ago, Blood_Sacrifice said:

Why didn't you? I can't imagine the things you could have achieved, given that even without a degree you know so much about it.

 

Too young to make a decision, screwed up my education properly, got into design by mistake.

[danydandan]

35 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

No, I mean science communication - as in, helping scientists form the messaging that goes to the outside world. I think it's something that still isn't done very well, and negatively affects peoples's view on science as a whole.

I currently work in graphic design, which includes strategic comms etc, so its not a million miles away. But from what I've read, you need a science degree to get a job as a science communicator.

I agree, it's often hard to explain some concepts in layman's terms, particularly in physics. We certainly do not communicate correctly, I don't see why you'd need a physics degree to be able to communicate it effectively.

[Blood_Sacrifice]

1 hour ago, Emma_Acid said:

Too young to make a decision, screwed up my education properly, got into design by mistake.

Did you have science in O and A levels? If you have the money you can still enroll into a private university to get a degree or at least diploma.

[zep73]

On 12/7/2018 at 12:51 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

That would be an improbable impossibility, since the OP cannot possibly learned all those disciplines in the time stated, and be qualified to discuss the subject.

Who are you to decide what's possible or not? Are you some kind of goddess? 

What's more interesting: What is your definition of "qualified to discuss a subject"? Please be specific and thorough.

[StarMountainKid]

Ok, ok, so...what is the nature of Reality?

[danydandan]

31 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Ok, ok, so...what is the nature of Reality?

Relativity, and I don't mean Einstein's definition of it.

[StarMountainKid]

I could comment on the OP's definition of Reality, but I don't know what his definition is.

In a real sense, our experience of this moment is the nature of Reality. I think this is a very real expression of the universe. It's confusing, though, because our experience changes from moment to moment.

Is there some fundamental experience we can have that does not change? 

 

[XenoFish]

Okay. I'm responding to this topic since you're other one (OP) was locked. You have stated that you've mastered various sciences. This is what people have a gripe with. Now, if you are simply knowledgeable or curious. You could devour a decent level of knowledge upon a subject in three years. Even if you went for a rather obsessive route. One thing that you need to remember is that it isn't how many books or studies you've read. It's retention of what you've learned. If you read three books on a subject you are automatically know more than the average individual. I've been reading stuff on psychology for nearly 8 years now and I know enough to get me in trouble. I won't master the subject but I do know how magick affects the psyche. If you came to us saying that you've been studying your subject for 3 years we wouldn't be harsh. But you stated that you've mastered, that a rather tall tale. 

[zep73]

I never said I mastered anything. I know and understand them. Enough to discuss them. Enough to build a model.

If you disagree, then please tell me, how much knowledge is required to discuss things and build a model?

From my perspective it all seems pretty clear and simple. The whole universe is in my mind.

[XenoFish]

On 7/8/2018 at 6:16 PM, sci-nerd said:

It took me a year to learn everything

Quote

I never said I mastered anything. I know and understand them. Enough to discuss them. Enough to build a model.

Seems like if you learned everything in a year with two additional years to comprehend it, that implies that you've 'mastered' those subjects. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by XenoFish

[zep73]

Yes, a year to learn. But not to understand.

When I finnished after that year, I was very confused. I learned alot, but didn't know what was what. So I had to research the whole mess and put it in order.

That took two years. Total: 3 years.

Edited July 13, 2018 by sci-nerd

[XenoFish]

Just now, sci-nerd said:

Yes, a year. to learn But not to understand.

When I finnished after that year, I was very confused. I learned alot, but didn't know what was what. So I had to research the whole mess and put it in order.

That took two years. Total: 3 years.

Even at 3 years you're still a noob to the subjects you claim to have studied. You might be more knowledgeable of them, but you are not a master of them. You may never master them.