I find myself pondering now and again the brilliant minds that have paved the path of electrical science which is just another form of chemistry (What must be realized is all things are in fact chemistry, one way or another), but that path has been grown over and neglected by the generations after, which by design and human nature have made their own interpretations of, and the formulas that have been made are not used by the student with his intent to recreate how the engineer was developing the formula and how he was advancing it. As the only way to properly implement these equations and formula into day to day endeavors is completely understand how the these equations were formulated at the times that they were and how they were being implemented mathematically in order to evolve to the highest degree. If an attempt is going to be made to use these formulas and equations, that is, how colleges and the educational system has portrayed the science of engineering, then don't do it at all! This might seem harsh but you need to see the truth behind the veil, how can you possibly know how to implement symbols that have written if you don't know how the true meaning came to be. I'll give credit to the "QM is wrong" thread for my tangent that I am going on. I would like to see the logic that the comments might bring or might not. the evidence in my reasoning and statements are in history itself, look at the major boom in electrical science and engineering from 1820-1940, it was a slow start and it did peter out towards the 1940's but in the era between 1870-1920 that 50 year period was a somewhat elegant rise of the peak of electrical research. It is because of my reasoning above that this was possible, there was no influence for the researcher at the time to be diluted with, and they were thinking of the functions as if they were the writers of the books for which they read, and the passion that was put into this was what made it possible. The saying go big or go home is in order for these things, as in the present there are to many dilutions that have polluted the further evolution of these topics. As I am in total belief that we are still the pioneers of this great topic of science and research, and we don't even know the beginning of what is possible. And we need to cultivate greater minds in order to leap the gap that has been made.
Have a smile,
-Simon

 

I find myself pondering now and again the brilliant minds that have paved the path of electrical science which is just another form of chemistry (What must be realized is all things are in fact chemistry, one way or another)

Me being pedantic: all things, including electronics and chemistry, stem from fields, forces, and particles. Fundamentally, the science of physics.

 

Chemistry is actually physics.

 

Chemistry is actually physics.

And there is not much chemistry in electronics (except for batteries), but a lot of physics.

 

And physics is really maths.

 

And there is not much chemistry in electronics (except for batteries), but a lot of physics.

In the early 1970's the chemistry professor noticed that I was reading an Intel 8008 data sheet during his lecture. After the lecture he took me to his office and tried to convince me that electronics is based on chemistry. I had no business reading that data sheet because I was not up to speed on chemistry.

 

And physics is really maths.

Nah.

If math were never invented, falling off a cliff would still hurt.

 

See this is the mind viruses I referred to before, you think physics is the source of the all, but in fact all action is subject to action and reaction, this is a fundamental law, chemistry is not just the jurisdiction of the physical, forces impressed on other forces or matter is chemistry. Chemistry is the action of two or more variables performing or making an action that is different from input variables. No matter what the variables are, even math is part of this art. You look at this narrow minded, you are looking with a perspective from the textbook "chemistry", which is indeed a very small attribute to the bigger picture, as all is one under the son and for those who cannot see this basic logic do not dwell near the well of truth, and do not accept law as it is "LAW", and only accept what you want to accept, imposing your own opinions and tainting the truth. If it doesn't make logic it doesn't make sense, emotions are not to mixed with the law, Aristotle speaks of this same thing regarding the actions of your mind causing things to action in the physical plane. Isn't that odd, we are back to every action has a reaction, and a force impressed, causes a change in the natural medium as it were.
Have a smile,
-Simon

 

See this is the mind viruses I referred to before, you think physics is the source of the all, but in fact all action is subject to action and reaction, this is a fundamental law, chemistry is not just the jurisdiction of the physical, forces impressed on other forces or matter is chemistry. Chemistry is the action of two or more variables performing or making an action that is different from input variables. No matter what the variables are, even math is part of this art. You look at this narrow minded, you are looking with a perspective from the textbook "chemistry", which is indeed a very small attribute to the bigger picture, as all is one under the son and for those who cannot see this basic logic do not dwell near the well of truth, and do not accept law as it is "LAW", and only accept what you want to accept, imposing your own opinions and tainting the truth. If it doesn't make logic it doesn't make sense, emotions are not to mixed with the law, Aristotle speaks of this same thing regarding the actions of your mind causing things to action in the physical plane. Isn't that odd, we are back to every action has a reaction, and a force impressed, causes a change in the natural medium as it were.
Have a smile,
-Simon

Words mean things.

 

What is logical in the mind oftentimes does not agree with reality. The flat earth and earth-centric models come to mind.

 

I find myself pondering now and again the brilliant minds that have paved the path of electrical science which is just another form of chemistry (What must be realized is all things are in fact chemistry, one way or another), but that path has been grown over and neglected by the generations after, which by design and human nature have made their own interpretations of, and the formulas that have been made are not used by the student with his intent to recreate how the engineer was developing the formula and how he was advancing it. As the only way to properly implement these equations and formula into day to day endeavors is completely understand how the these equations were formulated at the times that they were and how they were being implemented mathematically in order to evolve to the highest degree. If an attempt is going to be made to use these formulas and equations, that is, how colleges and the educational system has portrayed the science of engineering, then don't do it at all! This might seem harsh but you need to see the truth behind the veil, how can you possibly know how to implement symbols that have written if you don't know how the true meaning came to be. I'll give credit to the "QM is wrong" thread for my tangent that I am going on. I would like to see the logic that the comments might bring or might not. the evidence in my reasoning and statements are in history itself, look at the major boom in electrical science and engineering from 1820-1940, it was a slow start and it did peter out towards the 1940's but in the era between 1870-1920 that 50 year period was a somewhat elegant rise of the peak of electrical research. It is because of my reasoning above that this was possible, there was no influence for the researcher at the time to be diluted with, and they were thinking of the functions as if they were the writers of the books for which they read, and the passion that was put into this was what made it possible. The saying go big or go home is in order for these things, as in the present there are to many dilutions that have polluted the further evolution of these topics. As I am in total belief that we are still the pioneers of this great topic of science and research, and we don't even know the beginning of what is possible. And we need to cultivate greater minds in order to leap the gap that has been made.
Have a smile,
-Simon

Try using paragraphs to organize your thoughts. It would make your posts a lot easier to read...

 

It would make your posts a lot easier to read...

I read this as:

"It would make your poems a lot easier to read."

 

Reality is all about perception, if perception is tainted, then reality would also be. Facts are Facts and are not meant to be argued.
I find all of your hollow words amusing, as not one of you kept your comments to the subject matter of the thread, you simply just interjected your presumptions and opinions instead of commenting regarding the credit worthiness of all the predecessors in the venue of the electrical relations of our Plane.

 

you simply just interjected your presumptions and opinions...

Kettle, meet pot.

 

Reality is all about perception, if perception is tainted, then reality would also be. Facts are Facts and are not meant to be argued.
I find all of your hollow words amusing, as not one of you kept your comments to the subject matter of the thread, you simply just interjected your presumptions and opinions instead of commenting regarding the credit worthiness of all the predecessors in the venue of the electrical relations of our Plane.

Everything we know about the world is entirely theoretical and conjecture. We will never know what is real.

 

We will never know what is real.

Aristotle would disagree with you.

 

For example, we don't know what appeared before Big Bang and what happened immediately after Big Bang.
All that we can observe is what happened long after Big Bang, "long" being a relative term.

 

.…instead of commenting regarding the credit worthiness of all the predecessors in the venue of the electrical relations of our Plane.

Because I could not understand the meaning of your rambling sentence, I decided to feed it to AI, and this is the condensed reply:

That is a highly unusual and cryptic sentence. It doesn't appear to be a standard English idiom or a common technical phrase. Its meaning is deeply dependent on the context in which you found it…..
If this is from a fantasy, sci-fi, or spiritual text, the sentence takes on a grand, abstract meaning.

I have a simpler explanation. You are a troll.

 

Because I could not understand the meaning of your rambling sentence, I decided to feed it to AI, and this is the condensed reply:

That is a highly unusual and cryptic sentence. It doesn't appear to be a standard English idiom or a common technical phrase. Its meaning is deeply dependent on the context in which you found it…..
If this is from a fantasy, sci-fi, or spiritual text, the sentence takes on a grand, abstract meaning.

I have a simpler explanation. You are a troll.

I love AI!

 

It's

Because I could not understand the meaning of your rambling sentence, I decided to feed it to AI, and this is the condensed reply:

That is a highly unusual and cryptic sentence. It doesn't appear to be a standard English idiom or a common technical phrase. Its meaning is deeply dependent on the context in which you found it…..
If this is from a fantasy, sci-fi, or spiritual text, the sentence takes on a grand, abstract meaning.

I have a simpler explanation. You are a troll.

I don't think it is trolling, I think it is affected grandiloquence attempting to rationalize another version of "the ancients knew the truth".