PDA

View Full Version : THE FINAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING - everything explained!



danno
19th July 07, 10:14 AM
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/544_TOE_Diagram_3.jpg


What if Newton and Einstein were both wrong
about gravity being either an attracting force or
warped spacetime? What if Special Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics are misguided abstractions,
with even electric charge, magnetism and light
sizably misunderstood today?

All noted physicists and academics would then be
wrong, constantly mystified or second-guessing one
another. Conflicting science headlines and wild
speculation would appear almost weekly. Serious
flaws in our science education would emerge.
Billions in public funds for high-end physics
experiments would be misguided. The public
would tire of the apparently endless confusion and
mystery surrounding our otherwise sensible world.

What if all this was happening right now -- exposed
in a groundbreaking new science book -- with a
wealth of compelling answers that replace many
time-honored beliefs upon which today's science
status-quo depends? Would you hear about it from
the scientific community? Would its existence even
be acknowledged by our scientists, either privately
or publicly? Would those invested in an education
and career based on today's scientific understanding
want to know about it? Would they want you to?

The Final Theory is that book. Read on to find out more!
(A Top Science Bestseller at Amazon.com)



The Bestselling New Scientific Perspective
The Final Theory is the first science book to step
entirely outside today's science and view it from a
completely new perspective that unravels all the
mysteries, showing precisely where the wrong turns
have been made and providing solid answers to the
numerous problems plaguing our science. It has
remained atop numerous physics bestseller lists at
Amazon.com and other booksellers because it
presents the first credible, full-fledged scientific
alternative to the current mainstream beliefs that
are causing all the mysteries and paradoxes today.

The Final 'Theory of Everything'
The concept of a final ‘Theory of Everything’ based
on one overlooked unifying physical principle has
been a main goal of physics for centuries, but no
scientifically credible proposals have ever arisen,
tarnishing this critical pursuit. The Final Theory has
overcome this now sizable negative preconception
of ‘theories of everything’ from individual scientists
by delivering a powerful and definitive rewrite of the
physics books that leaves no stone unturned and
is based on one single overlooked physical principle
in nature. In the process it does precisely what the
hoped-for ‘Theory of Everything’ is expected to do –
show precisely where and why our current beliefs
have failed us, and how to rethink things from an
entirely new, viable scientific perspective.


Featured Article

See article featuring The Final Theory.


Spotlighted Review:

"The Final Theory replaces much of what we
think is absolute with a simple unifying principle
that eliminates many idiosyncrasies and
contradictions of our current theories. It makes one
think about that which is taken for granted as
absolute in physics and realize there is alot that is
truly unknown."
--- Steve Maillet, Microsoft Most Valuable
Professional recipient, 2006
(mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpinsider_2006-07)
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/homepage.html

first chapter for free here:

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF



i estimate that about 85% of the general public will fall for this bullshit if it ever gets to the mass media.

MEGALEF
19th July 07, 11:37 AM
I'm not buying it until I see some flashy 3D graphics and animated diagrams.

Truculent Sheep
19th July 07, 11:53 AM
Most physicists are smug twats par excelsis - the self-appointed aristocracy of the sciences much in the same way that midgets hype themselves up in Freak Shows.

The best way to wind them up is to argue convincingly that Archaeology or Psychology are real sciences* and then laugh as they go off on a mammoth rant about how big their brains/penises are.


* Bonus points for Sociology!

Shawarma
19th July 07, 11:56 AM
How can anyone claim that archaeology is not a real science? Psychology, yes, I can understand that, but archaeology?

Truculent Sheep
19th July 07, 01:41 PM
Ask a physicist... Archaeology covers so many disciplines (chemistry, forensics, radiology, zoology, paleography, geology, climatology etc.) that you could argue that it's as scientfic as you'll ever hope for. There's also huge amounts of drinking involved. I have to keep telling my archaeologist girlfriend all this whenever she worries she's stupid.

As for Psychology, it really depends on what and who you're talking about. The people at University College London, for example, are pretty sharp (I speak as one of their lab rats), but I grant you - there's some real shit being peddled in the field too.

bob
19th July 07, 03:58 PM
I don't think even archaeologists would claim it's a real science. It's a discipline that uses a scientific framework.

Shawarma
19th July 07, 04:17 PM
Semantics, no?

Teh El Macho
19th July 07, 05:19 PM
Semantics are teh unifying theory. Duh!

Truculent Sheep
19th July 07, 05:29 PM
I don't think even archaeologists would claim it's a real science. It's a discipline that uses a scientific framework.

Isn't that what a science is? Most archaeologists think it's a science...

Kiko
19th July 07, 06:10 PM
42!

danno
19th July 07, 06:14 PM
i would have said that they make inferences about how people lived in the past - by employing various scientific methods to examine the objects they find.

don't call it a science if you like, but if you don't have respect for it you can kiss my arse.

Steve
19th July 07, 06:15 PM
42!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kiko again.

frumpleswift
19th July 07, 06:35 PM
How can anyone claim that archaeology is not a real science? Psychology, yes, I can understand that, but archaeology?

I've noticed that most physicists tend to think that the scientific quality of the work you do is directly proportional to the amount of calculus your work requires.

I think that in every scientific filed most people are just technicians, and their are very few real scientists (doing actual scientific research). Psychology gets discounted the most, because they immediately associate it with Shrinks (who are just technicians) and don't think abot all of the reasearch that goes into the process.

Antifa
19th July 07, 06:42 PM
42!

Damn you

beat me to it

now I got +rep a republican

Kiko
19th July 07, 06:44 PM
YES, Archaology! LOOK WHAT THEY FOUND!!! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_sc/italy_ancient_bath;_ylt=A0WTcVpd9p9GEYAAJwHMWM0F)

Roman HOT TUB!!
ROME - Archaeologists said Thursday they have partly dug up a second-century bath complex believed to be part of the vast, luxurious residence of a wealthy Roman.

The two-story complex, which extends for at least 5 acres, includes exceptionally well-preserved decorated hot rooms, vaults, changing rooms, marble latrines and an underground room where slaves lit the fire to warm the baths.

Statues and water cascades decorated the interiors, American archaeologist Darius A. Arya, the head of the excavation, said Thursday during a tour of the digs with The Associated Press. Only pedestals and fragments have been recovered.

Arya spoke as students and experts were brushing off earth and dust from ancient marbles, mosaic floors and a rudimentary heating system, made of pipes that channeled hot air throughout the complex.

"The Romans had more leisure time than other people, and it's here in the baths that they typically spent their time," Arya said. "Because you could eat well, you could get a massage, you could have sex, you could gossip, you could play your games, you could talk about politics — you could spend the whole day here."

However, he added, "to have a bath complex of this size, this scale, it's very unusual."

The complex is believed to be part of a multiple-story villa that belonged to the Roman equivalent of a billionaire of today, a man called Quintus Servilius Pudens who was friends with Emperor Hadrian, Arya said. It is not clear if the baths were open to the public or reserved to distinguished guests of the owner.

"These people lived a magnificent existence and were able to provide entertainment," to others, said Arya, who is also a professor at the American Institute for Roman Culture.

Excavations at the Villa delle Vignacce park lasted a total of 10 weeks, and it is planned to continue, he said. Future decisions, including whether the site will be opened to the public, are still to be made.

Ancient Romans put a great deal of emphasis on bathing, turning the art of the soak into a ritual.

Meeting at communal bath houses, they would go through a series of rooms of alternating temperatures at a leisurely pace, dipping themselves in hot and cold baths. It was a social event, but also a way to purify their bodies of toxins and a form of relaxation.

2C2RhoTvzdQ

meng_mao
19th July 07, 07:43 PM
i HATE quacks. detest them. It's a combination of ambition and poor education, imo.

Kiko
19th July 07, 07:53 PM
http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-07/dd-gaming-flowchart.jpg

WarPhalange
19th July 07, 08:12 PM
Ask a physicist... Archaeology covers so many disciplines (chemistry, forensics, radiology, zoology, paleography, geology, climatology etc.) that you could argue that it's as scientfic as you'll ever hope for. There's also huge amounts of drinking involved. I have to keep telling my archaeologist girlfriend all this whenever she worries she's stupid.

Your friend is smart, you are an idiot, though. Archeology is like history. It uses science to get information, but it's not a science at all. Why? Experiments. You can't set up an experiment to test your theory. No science. It's a discipline of history.


As for Psychology, it really depends on what and who you're talking about. The people at University College London, for example, are pretty sharp (I speak as one of their lab rats), but I grant you - there's some real shit being peddled in the field too.

I don't know who you've talked to. I've never met a physicist who thought his science was better than someone elses, or that he had "t3h real science". I only do it because I'm an asshole.

WarPhalange
19th July 07, 08:15 PM
Isn't that what a science is? Most archaeologists think it's a science...

No. An engineer's knowledge is based entirely on science, but it's not what he does, therefore he's not a scientist.

The same way a carpenter needs to know what kind of glue to use, what kind of materials, etc., all based on science, yet he's not a scientist.

frumpleswift
19th July 07, 09:52 PM
No. An engineer's knowledge is based entirely on science, but it's not what he does, therefore he's not a scientist.

again we get into the difference between a scientist and a technician. Most engineers are technicians...but some can and do do scientific research. Where do you think the blue laser came from?

Just look at UCSB's Nobel Laureate (http://www.ucsb.edu/nobel/index.shtml)s...Kroemer teaches in the Enginerring department and basically invented the semiconductor laser. Heeger worked with conductive polymers, etc. Engineering...at least solid state, is most definitely science even by your (limited) definition.


I don't know who you've talked to. I've never met a physicist who thought his science was better than someone elses, or that he had "t3h real science". I only do it because I'm an asshole.

Pretty much every physicist (you included) I have ever met has believed precisely that. The only professors* that run more arrogant than the physicists are the mathematicians who consider all science just an irrelevant branch of mathematics that distracts from the beauty of pure numbers.

*The only professors with anything to be arrogant about that is...people in the School of Business are all pricks, and usually flunky engineers.

WarPhalange
19th July 07, 10:00 PM
again we get into the difference between a scientist and a technician. Most engineers are technicians...but some can and do do scientific research. Where do you think the blue laser came from?

Just look at UCSB's Nobel Laureate (http://www.ucsb.edu/nobel/index.shtml)s...Kroemer teaches in the Enginerring department and basically invented the semiconductor laser. Heeger worked with conductive polymers, etc. Engineering...at least solid state, is most definitely science even by your (limited) definition.

I don't see any science discoveries there. Those are feats of ENGINEERING! When you make a gadget, you are engineering. When you figure out how something works, you are doing science. The two frequently mix together (and in fact compliment each other), but an engineering degree isn't a science degree and vice versa, for a very good reason.


Pretty much every physicist (you included) I have ever met has believed precisely that. The only professors* that run more arrogant than the physicists are the mathematicians who consider all science just an irrelevant branch of mathematics that distracts from the beauty of pure numbers.

*The only professors with anything to be arrogant about that is...people in the School of Business are all pricks, and usually flunky engineers.

Hahaha my bass teacher was doing engineering-physics (some weird mix major) until he said he couldn't hack it and switched to business. A student of his that leaves as I walk in said the same thing, only he was straight up engineering.

Neither of them are pricks, though. :)

In any case, at my school at least, they offer a lot of classes of mixed sciences, i.e. biophysics, physical chemistry, etc. The professors seem to talk to each other, so there's no bad blood. Frequently before a lecture we'll have a discussion of some new discovery or project or what not involving any branch of science.

frumpleswift
19th July 07, 10:21 PM
I don't see any science discoveries there. Those are feats of ENGINEERING! When you make a gadget, you are engineering.

So...if you do something useful with science you are an engineer? Are you only a scientist if you are wanking off for the sake of finding new things?


When you figure out how something works, you are doing science.

Psychologists, through experimentation, figure out how the mind works. By your logic they are scientists. Christ, by that logic anthropologists are scientists because they figure out how the ancients made beer.


The two frequently mix together (and in fact compliment each other), but an engineering degree isn't a science degree and vice versa, for a very good reason.

My wife (who has done both) says that lab work done in experimental condensed matter physics research is the same damned thing as solid-state (electrical or materials) engineering research*.

You might consider the discovery of the semiconductor laser to be engineering, however the leading scientific minds of the world obviously don't agree with you. He did win the Nobel Prize in PHYSICS after all, and my wife has a few of his physics text books on the shelves right now.

*Except that you earn a fuck load more money with an advanced degree in engineering than you do with one in physics. Maybe that is why you are so bitter.

Case in point...while the engineers and the physicists at UCSB both use the same labs for research and generally work on the same shit, the PhD engineers tend to earn 50% more on average on entering the work force.

WarPhalange
19th July 07, 10:47 PM
So...if you do something useful with science you are an engineer? Are you only a scientist if you are wanking off for the sake of finding new things?

Precisely. That really is the definition.


Psychologists, through experimentation, figure out how the mind works. By your logic they are scientists. Christ, by that logic anthropologists are scientists because they figure out how the ancients made beer.

I never said psychology wasn't a science, I said archeology wasn't. Beer-ology is a science, too. ;)


My wife (who has done both) says that lab work done in experimental condensed matter physics research is the same damned thing as solid-state (electrical or materials) engineering research*.

*Except that you earn a fuck load more money with an advanced degree in engineering than you do with one in physics. Maybe that is why you are so bitter.

I'm not certain I'm going to go into physics for a Ph.D. yet. Money being one of the issues. I'm not bitter, either. I like engineering. I just think that there is a distinction between science and engineering.



You might consider the discovery of the semiconductor laser to be engineering, however the leading scientific minds of the world obviously don't agree with you. He did win the Nobel Prize in PHYSICS after all, and my wife has a few of his physics text books on the shelves right now.

Case in point...while the engineers and the physicists at UCSB both use the same labs for research and generally work on the same shit, the PhD engineers tend to earn 50% more on average on entering the work force.

Which is weird. Because if I invent a new computer, I shouldn't get a nobel prize in physics.

I won't go for a Ph.D. in engineering, either. All the sources I've heard from tell me that experience > degree. =/

In any case, my professor is working on the Axion experiment with Livermore Labs. The project involves several engineers. I asked the engineer I work with "what the hell's an axion?" and he said he didn't know. Even though he's the backbone of the hardware portion of the project over at UW. The fact is it doesn't matter if he knows or not. He just needs to build a machine for it. Conversly, my professor doesn't need to know how the machine works. He's just interested in finding those damned axions.

The_Tao
19th July 07, 10:55 PM
http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-07/dd-gaming-flowchart.jpg


with that picture you made my day.

Steve
19th July 07, 11:52 PM
*sigh*

Doncha know?

THIS IS THE UNIVERSE AND IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING (http://www.leekspin.com/).

StealthNinjaScyther
20th July 07, 12:20 AM
Your friend is smart, you are an idiot, though. Archeology is like history. It uses science to get information, but it's not a science at all. Why? Experiments. You can't set up an experiment to test your theory. No science. It's a discipline of history.

They assemble hypotheses just like any other scientist which contain claims and predictions which are falsifiable. And they carry out experiments too. I mean if they didn't carry out experiments how would they determine the uses of all those artifacts and what not? It deals with history, obviously, but it is much more than just history. Most people consider as one of the major fields of anthropology, if you're determined to group it in with something else.

WarPhalange
20th July 07, 12:32 AM
Examples of these experiments, please. No need for sources, I just want to know what you are talking about.

Goldenmane
20th July 07, 01:01 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html

Body of an email discussion between a curious reader and the author, in which the author signally fails to support the basis of hit wonderful theory. If anyone was interested.

Truculent Sheep
20th July 07, 06:12 AM
Your friend is smart, you are an idiot, though. Archeology is like history. It uses science to get information, but it's not a science at all. Why? Experiments. You can't set up an experiment to test your theory. No science. It's a discipline of history.

There's so much stupidity here, I don't know where to start...

Oh well,

i. If it uses science (as in, scientific procedure), ergo it is science. If I, as a creature of the Eng Lit racket, use string theory to attempt to prove that Wuthering Heights is a load of old shit, then you may have a point. But considering that archaeology deals with physical evidence in such a precise and SCIENTIFIC manner, I'd have to say you're talking rot.
ii. Never heard of experimental archaeology? Or the strenuous testing of HYPOTHESES that take place all the time on sites and back at 'base' using a barrage of carbon dating, chemical tests and computer modelling? Another archaeological friend of mine is an expert on horsebones: he's got a PhD after successfully testing his hypothesis. He'd probably not be happy to hear you say he's not a scientist.
iii. The big question is why Archaeology - even Archaeological Practice, which is as 'hands on' as you could ever hope for, isn't given BSc or MSc status in most universities. The fact that Arch. degrees are usually awarded as arts degrees just confuses people and gives the wrong impression. I'm not sure a field archaeologist with four or more years of postgrad study in, say GIS and Spatial Analysis really wants, or deserves, to be lumped in with the Media Studies and Contemporary Dance tossers somehow...


I don't know who you've talked to. I've never met a physicist who thought his science was better than someone elses, or that he had "t3h real science". I only do it because I'm an asshole.

No surprises there. Although, last time I heard, arseholes were actually useful.

downinit
20th July 07, 04:43 PM
Is computer science a science?

Kiko
20th July 07, 05:06 PM
Is THIS science??

Do fish suffer from exposure to Uriah Heep? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070720/od_nm/fish1_dc;_ylt=A0WTUctZMKFG9z4B.CXMWM0F)

HELSINKI (Reuters) - A Finnish researcher is to study fish in an aquarium while a rock group performs nearby, to see if the sound causes any ill-effects or distress.

Bands including aging rockers Uriah Heep will perform on Friday night to about 3,000 fans in a tent just a couple of dozen metres away from the aquarium.

"I will be looking for any abnormal behavior or activity," said researcher Mikko Erkinaro.

The 500,000-liter tank is home to salmon, trout, pike and perch and other species common in Finland's brackish coastal waters.

"It could be quite nasty to arrange such an aquarium and a performance venue (so close)," Erkinaro said, "especially when the (band) is a bit old-fashioned."
**************************

Well? Is it?

frumpleswift
20th July 07, 05:07 PM
Precisely. That really is the definition.

I'm not certain I'm going to go into physics for a Ph.D. yet. Money being one of the issues. I'm not bitter, either. I like engineering. I just think that there is a distinction between science and engineering.[/quote]


Theorizing on what happens when you put two different band gap materials next to each other to create a heterojunction, and then determining how such a property might be useful isn't science? ... okay...

How much graduate level research have you done in either physics or engineering, because your impression of what goes on is somewhat naive.

By your logic most physicists are not actual scientists...because theorists (ie. Hawking and Einstein) tend not to experiment thus making them mathematicians, and the experimentalists test theories that are not their own...thus glorified engineers.


Which is weird. Because if I invent a new computer, I shouldn't get a nobel prize in physics.

Well...the theorists behind quantum computers probably should...


I won't go for a Ph.D. in engineering, either. All the sources I've heard from tell me that experience > degree. =/

Not completely true. My wife earns more than her brother who has been in the work force about four years longer with just a BS. Our friend working for Raytheon with a PhD earns much more than her brother. Plus the glass ceiling is a lot higer if you don't have the Masters.


In any case, my professor is working on the Axion experiment with Livermore Labs. The project involves several engineers. I asked the engineer I work with "what the hell's an axion?" and he said he didn't know. Even though he's the backbone of the hardware portion of the project over at UW. The fact is it doesn't matter if he knows or not. He just needs to build a machine for it. Conversly, my professor doesn't need to know how the machine works. He's just interested in finding those damned axions.

For most graduate level engineering you need to do both...and aerospace engineering is all about science because the methematical modeling of fluid dynamics is hideously ugly.

As for archaeological experiments...any experiment to figure out how the pyramids were built, or to reconstruct roman concrete techniques, or pretty much any theory being tested about any given ancient feat of engineering that we don't fully understand.

Again most archaeologists are technicians, not scientsts, but that goes for any scientific field.

More to the point, most of humanity is barely capable of being a competent technician, let alone a scientist. The kind of innate grasp of mathematics coupled with the visionary mind is bloody rare.

Edit: I would love to see you tell Herb Kroemer* that he is an engineer not a scientist, because pissing off cranky ass germans is always fun. He'd probably exterminate your people before you could say "Herr Doktor Doktor Nobel Laureate"

The_Tao
20th July 07, 05:08 PM
Is computer science a science?

you should burn for that question.

downinit
20th July 07, 06:03 PM
you should burn for that question.

It was a serious question too. I'm unaware of computer scientists actually utilizing the scientific method, unless they consider their code to be a hypothesis. That would be pretty stupid though, because computer code is deductive rather than inductive.

WarPhalange
20th July 07, 07:08 PM
How much graduate level research have you done in either physics or engineering, because your impression of what goes on is somewhat naive.

By your logic most physicists are not actual scientists...because theorists (ie. Hawking and Einstein) tend not to experiment thus making them mathematicians, and the experimentalists test theories that are not their own...thus glorified engineers.

Eh? When did I say that? I said the field has to have both theory and experimentation. There is no way 1 person could do both these days.



Well...the theorists behind quantum computers probably should...

Ok ok ok... I guess you're right.



Not completely true. My wife earns more than her brother who has been in the work force about four years longer with just a BS. Our friend working for Raytheon with a PhD earns much more than her brother. Plus the glass ceiling is a lot higer if you don't have the Masters.

Is it ok if I contact your wife? Via your PM box or something? I really need some guidance, and she seems to be in a field that I am intersted in (i.e. working in industry, and more to do with gadgets).


For most graduate level engineering you need to do both...and aerospace engineering is all about science because the methematical modeling of fluid dynamics is hideously ugly.

I have a friend who is an engineering major and is doing a physics minor. He says that in the thermal physics class we (and I took it with him) did all the detailed stuff. The probability distribution, multiplicities, etc. Stuff for one or two particles that is pretty bad and looks horrible for 10^25 or however many there are in a room. However, he also took the engineering thermal class and they got a lot more "to the point" there. None of the "what is this particle doing?" stuff, but generally what is going on and what you can count on will happen.


As for archaeological experiments...any experiment to figure out how the pyramids were built, or to reconstruct roman concrete techniques, or pretty much any theory being tested about any given ancient feat of engineering that we don't fully understand.

So beerology is real?


Again most archaeologists are technicians, not scientsts, but that goes for any scientific field.

More to the point, most of humanity is barely capable of being a competent technician, let alone a scientist. The kind of innate grasp of mathematics coupled with the visionary mind is bloody rare.

Naw. You're thinking too highly of scientists. Most of them are normal people who have an interest. Besides, for something like biology, you don't need the super math you'd need for say physics. And even then, I've taken all the math I'll need to take, and it's nowhere near what a math major would have had to take.

Also most people don't expect to be the next Einstein. It's like people who do MMA. How many of them expect to be next PRIDE or UFC champ? Not many. We do it because we like it, not because we expect something from it.


Edit: I would love to see you tell Herb Kroemer* that he is an engineer not a scientist, because pissing off cranky ass germans is always fun. He'd probably exterminate your people before you could say "Herr Doktor Doktor Nobel Laureate"

If he gets pissed for being called an engineer, then I don't care about him much.

frumpleswift
20th July 07, 07:34 PM
Is it ok if I contact your wife? Via your PM box or something? I really need some guidance, and she seems to be in a field that I am intersted in (i.e. working in industry, and more to do with gadgets).

Sure thing, just don't fall in love with her. Genius, hot, martial arty, geeky gamer women are hard to come by, I know, but I don't want you getting hurt :)

I'm sure she would be happy to give whatever advice she can currently she is working as a patent examiner, but she's got plenty of experience in the clean room as well. We also have good friends in materials engineering, working for raytheon etc. Plus my dad has been in the industry fo my whole life.


I have a friend who is an engineering major and is doing a physics minor. He says that in the thermal physics class we (and I took it with him) did all the detailed stuff. The probability distribution, multiplicities, etc. Stuff for one or two particles that is pretty bad and looks horrible for 10^25 or however many there are in a room. However, he also took the engineering thermal class and they got a lot more "to the point" there. None of the "what is this particle doing?" stuff, but generally what is going on and what you can count on will happen.

Oh...undergrad engineering is a joke. One of the reasons my wife did physics in undergrad is because she wanted to actually learn the science. A physics undergrad degree is much more useful for graduate level engineering than an engineering, at least if you are going into electrical or materials.

My wife is exceptionally contemptuous of the few "math for engineering" and engineering courses she took as an undergrad...then again she also scored one of the highest GRE physics scores in the history of her school.



So beerology is real?

But of course...what do you think gave us the wonders of Midas Touch (http://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Year_Round_Beers/Midas_Touch_Golden_Elixir/1/index.htm) a beer based on a recipe discovered through analyzing the contents of an ancient greek tomb.


Naw. You're thinking too highly of scientists. Most of them are normal people who have an interest. Besides, for something like biology, you don't need the super math you'd need for say physics. And even then, I've taken all the math I'll need to take, and it's nowhere near what a math major would have had to take.

I know...but most people (including scientists) are not geniuses either.

Biologists use more statistics and linear algebra (and a healthy does of information theory these days) than the hard calculus that physics employs.


If he gets pissed for being called an engineer, then I don't care about him much.

Good...he's kind of a prick and he made my wife cry during her screening exam...and my wife doesn't cry...

danno
20th July 07, 07:34 PM
is art a science or is science an art?

frumpleswift
20th July 07, 07:38 PM
is art a science or is science an art?

neither...however the drugs used by the artists making art were created by scientists...so you might say that science feeds art.

WarPhalange
20th July 07, 08:05 PM
Sure thing, just don't fall in love with her. Genius, hot, martial arty, geeky gamer women are hard to come by, I know, but I don't want you getting hurt :)

I'm sure she would be happy to give whatever advice she can currently she is working as a patent examiner, but she's got plenty of experience in the clean room as well. We also have good friends in materials engineering, working for raytheon etc. Plus my dad has been in the industry fo my whole life.

Awesome. I'll PM you when I have my essay of "what do I want to be when I grow up" written up.


Oh...undergrad engineering is a joke. One of the reasons my wife did physics in undergrad is because she wanted to actually learn the science. A physics undergrad degree is much more useful for graduate level engineering than an engineering, at least if you are going into electrical or materials.

Poop Loops wins again!

My train of thought was "I have no idea what I want to do. Why get stuck with XXX engineering when I can do physics and if I don't like it, switch to any other engineering?"

I also wanted to know exactly what makes those things work. For example, the engineer I work with was soldering some stuff and said he was going to get some flux. I asked him "what's flux?" and he said "...it makes it easier to solder." That's not answering my question. :(

This was kind of an analogy, but generally engineering doesn't focus on the "why's" as much as I'd like.


My wife is exceptionally contemptuous of the few "math for engineering" and engineering courses she took as an undergrad...then again she also scored one of the highest GRE physics scores in the history of her school.

I've taken 2 electronics courses from the physics department.

1st quarter: From analog circuits up through analog to digital converters and vice versa, and a ways into digital circuits, stuff like logic gates, flip flops, timers, etc.

2nd quarter: Build a microprocessor. For our final project, my partner and I hooked our microprocessor to a speaker and made it play sounds depending on what values you input in the keyboard.

My engineer friend (same as before) took a circuits class last quarter from the EE department. Quarter started the same as my first quarter, but they didn't even get into digital logic.

He's not stupid, though. Only reason he's getting an engineering degree is because he already has a job he loves (IT or something) and will only get better if he gets a degree.


But of course...what do you think gave us the wonders of Midas Touch (http://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Year_Round_Beers/Midas_Touch_Golden_Elixir/1/index.htm) a beer based on a recipe discovered through analyzing the contents of an ancient greek tomb.

Doesn't matter, I don't like beer. =/


I know...but most people (including scientists) are not geniuses either.

Biologists use more statistics and linear algebra (and a healthy does of information theory these days) than the hard calculus that physics employs.

I know. Linear algebra is easy and fun. Statistics is a pain in the ass, but all science has it. =/

[quote]Good...he's kind of a prick and he made my wife cry during her screening exam...and my wife doesn't cry...

I've heard stories about thesis defenses where people cried. Scary indeed.

danno
20th July 07, 08:13 PM
is man love a science?

frumpleswift
20th July 07, 08:24 PM
is man love a science?

no but man dolphin love (http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html) is....

frumpleswift
20th July 07, 08:31 PM
Poop Loops wins again!

Yes, the moral of the story is undergrad physics + grad engineering = $$$$$



My train of thought was "I have no idea what I want to do. Why get stuck with XXX engineering when I can do physics and if I don't like it, switch to any other engineering?"

I also wanted to know exactly what makes those things work. For example, the engineer I work with was soldering some stuff and said he was going to get some flux. I asked him "what's flux?" and he said "...it makes it easier to solder." That's not answering my question. :(

Real engineers need a solid grounding in the physics and math...which is why most engineers are hacks...but engineering is still a science...it just so happens that the best engineers are the really good physicists.


Doesn't matter, I don't like beer. =/

Blaspheemer. You'd better like scotch or I'll never let you near my wife.


I know. Linear algebra is easy and fun. Statistics is a pain in the ass, but all science has it. =/[quote]

I love statistics. When I have time I want to go back to school and study more statistics, math, etc. Then again I also want to take latin and study more history...

[quote]I've heard stories about thesis defenses where people cried. Scary indeed.

The very first thing he said to her was "Who are you?! You never took MY class!" and it went downhill from there.

He was a complete dick to his students to. He'd give a problem that would take everyone all weekend to do (so I have been told) and the next Monday he would say "I hope no one spent more than 15 minutes on that problem, it was completely trivial"

WarPhalange
20th July 07, 08:34 PM
[quote=frumpleswift
He was a complete dick to his students to. He'd give a problem that would take everyone all weekend to do (so I have been told) and the next Monday he would say "I hope no one spent more than 15 minutes on that problem, it was completely trivial"[/quote]

I had a professor like that all last year...

Homeworks took hours and hours to complete. On one test, the average was like a 35% or something. He solved all the equations in class in like half an hour after he gave us the tests back. He wasn't trying to be a dick about it, but you couldn't help but think that he's flaunting his superiority at us.

DAYoung
21st July 07, 05:15 AM
engineering is still a science

Can you remind me of why this is?

frumpleswift
21st July 07, 09:09 AM
Can you remind me of why this is?

Seriously?

Most super cool advanced engineering feats (from the semiconductor laser to the stealth fighter) start out with a hypothesis: "Hey I'll bet that if I combine these materials in this way this might happen, based on these physics properties that I know"

After the hypothesis comes the testing: "Well I built my theoretical device to such and such specifications and got B not A. Maybe I need to reevaluate my hypothesis. Back to the theoretical framwork. Okay now I have a new proposal C based on my new findings. Let me test those"

rinse and repeat this step till you get the final step: "Hey look at this super nifty thing I created...and in the process of creating it I know more about this fundamental porperty of the universe"

From quantum computers, to nanotubes, conductive polymers, to biologically created life forms (http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm) great feats of engineering are also steps forward scientifically.

frumpleswift
21st July 07, 09:13 AM
Homeworks took hours and hours to complete. On one test, the average was like a 35% or something. He solved all the equations in class in like half an hour after he gave us the tests back. He wasn't trying to be a dick about it, but you couldn't help but think that he's flaunting his superiority at us.

This was one of the reasons* I left physics. I was in a special physics program where basically you would have the same teacher all four years for your core physics classes. My teacher just happened to be a huge dick, and not even about the physics itself.

He would have us solve problems on the board while yelling at us for explaining them poorly. He didn't give a shit whether we actually understood what we were doing, only whether or not we could teach it well.

*Another other reason had something to do with the 0 girls in my physics program versus the 2:1 ration in the history department.

AAAhmed46
21st July 07, 12:38 PM
no but man dolphin love (http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html) is....


Is that REAL?

frumpleswift
21st July 07, 01:51 PM
Is that REAL?

I honestly don't want to know...but why don't you swim up to a dolphin and try to find out.

Truculent Sheep
21st July 07, 04:24 PM
Why dick a dolphin when you can poke a porpoise? They're much dirtier and will make you breakfast in the morning. Unfortunately, they can be quite possessive, and are known to ring their partners up at work to make sure they're not having an affair with a Sea Otter - the lothario medallion men of the aquatic mammals.

Antifa
21st July 07, 08:57 PM
no but man dolphin love (http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html) is....

my life feels somewhat cheapened by a knowing this

AAAhmed46
22nd July 07, 12:12 AM
Arn't dolphins like super aggressive?

I mean yeah they can be freindly to people, but thats when their on a good day.

I hear thier like chips: Potentially you can make friends with them.

But otherwise, they'll throw rocks at you.


Mind you, im probably really really wrong about this.

frumpleswift
22nd July 07, 01:03 AM
my life feels somewhat cheapened by a knowing this

how can you not find this tidbit worthwhile:

" WARNING! In the considerations of safety, you should NEVER let a male dolphin attempt anal sex with you. The Bottle-nose dolphin member is around 12 inches, very muscular, and the thrusting and the force of ejaculation (A male can come as far as 14 feet) would cause serious internal injuries, resulting in peritonitus and possible death."

knowledge is power. now you know not to give in to that temptation to let a dolphin sodomize you.

Sun Wukong
22nd July 07, 01:21 PM
My wife has a masters of EE too, weird.

Judah Maccabee
22nd July 07, 04:57 PM
" WARNING! In the considerations of safety, you should NEVER let a male dolphin attempt anal sex with you. The Bottle-nose dolphin member is around 12 inches, very muscular, and the thrusting and the force of ejaculation (A male can come as far as 14 feet) would cause serious internal injuries, resulting in peritonitus and possible death."

Ha, reminds me of that guy that died from horsecock.

frumpleswift
22nd July 07, 05:51 PM
My wife has a masters of EE too, weird.

congrats...would you like an invite to the "my wife is MUCH smarter than me, and never lets me forget it club"?


Ha, reminds me of that guy that died from horsecock.

There was a homeless guy who used to get arrested on U of A grounds for trying to solicit sex from a horse. He apparently would stick sugar or honey on his dong and go into the police horse paddocks.

I'm surprised he never got it bit off...

WarPhalange
22nd July 07, 05:54 PM
congrats...would you like an invite to the "my wife is MUCH smarter than me, and never lets me forget it club"?

I'll join if I ever get married. It really won't matter to whom...




There was a homeless guy who used to get arrested on U of A grounds for trying to solicit sex from a horse. He apparently would stick sugar or honey on his dong and go into the police horse paddocks.

I'm surprised he never got it bit off...

My cousin has been riding horses since she was little and owns one. One day her mother was feeding an apple to the horse and it ended up mangling her pinky. =/