Posted: May 01, 2017 4:27 pm
LjSpike wrote:it won't be able to tailor its responses to clarify any misunderstood points.
That's what you pay your tutors for, LJSpike. It's one way you can motivate yourself to respect the expertise of those who have more expertise than you do, instead of flailing around in an anonymous internet forum where the people who have the expertise really to help you don't have the time to waste on your brand of protest. You've had several lovely chances (from several different posters) to absorb the answer to what was, after all, a rather simple question on 'amplitude' in analysing radiation. To get beyond the simple analysis, you're going to have to hold yourself responsible for proving that you understand something, and that very much is going to be by doing calculations in the early going, instead of wrangling with wave-particle duality like some blithering philosopher.
LjSpike wrote:Questioning why something occurs.
Like some philosopher, Spike? No, for starters you should think about showing you understand how some physics is modeled. It works best if you begin at the beginning.
LjSpike wrote:I tried to do a quick look for the source, I can't remember where I saw it
Then it's not something you 'know', and you can't communicate coherently with anyone else about it, because you don't have access to anyone else's critique of it. It's a shabby way of conducting a conversation about physics.