rationalskepticism.org

Cito di Pense wrote:

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.

1) I am not protesting, I came to query a point on amplitude in electromagnetic waves, that is all.
2) Why pay a tutor? This magical thing called the internet has millions of people on it, from all around the world, many specialists in every imaginable field (and some I couldn't begin to imagine) exist in here. Scholarly articles from universities and research labs everywhere are catalogued in this great library and school of thought.
3) It's my choice to wrangle with particle-wave duality. Don't insult philosophers, while Newtons Flaming Laser Sword and Occam's Razor are both awesomely named principles, and have their applications at points, to treat them as a law is to deny any progress to be conducted. Before you begin a venture, you have no way of knowing its ending.
4) I accepted the simple answer, your the one who then stumbled along, threw jargon at me, and then threw a temper tantrum when you were asked to simplify it down.


To summarise, chill out, and just don't throw a hissy fit over my spontaneous endeavours. I know that it is almost certain that nothing will come from my little endeavour, but that is not a reason to not try. I'm sure if we all followed your philosophy of just "don't try push the boundaries or do anything new" many of the inventions that bless our little blue marble would not have come to be. We would not have stepped out into space, nor touched the deepest depths of the ocean. I likewise doubt we'd have the internet, and as a result, this little forum for us to discuss and debate on, if we followed your philosophy. While your free to follow that train of thought of not enduring through some of the most random of tasks, or wondering things which have no answers yet, please don't force it on to me.

Edit: One Irony I do find, you insult being a philosopher with the description of "blithering" yet the chunk of the forum you are most active on is the Philosophy section. Either you have a lot of time to enforce your views onto others, or you enjoy contradiction?