New Things I've Learned on AAC Recently

Thread Starter

Back to school

Joined May 22, 2019
106
Edit, Orginally posted to "Feedback", moved by Moderator.

"Mass is a Force."


In simplist terms the standard equation of F=ma should apparantly be the equation F=ma. F, a and now m are bold in the equation because they're all vector quantities. Newton's three Laws of Motion need some rethinking.

"A Torus is made up of helicies."

In geometry a Torus is made up of a circle(s) revolving in a coplaner axis to the circle(s). If the Torus is a solid than the Torus is defined with a disk(s) instead of a circle. In Topology a Ring Torus is still defined as the product of two circles. In the multiple iterations of what's considered to be a Torus I can't find a Torus being defined by or with helicies. An ignorant man needs his information.

"The ignorant man needs his information."

So much for the scientific method. Develop an hypothesis and then create the information or data as needed to support the hypothesis. If someone for any reason doesn't accept an hypothesis or theory, being reasoned and applying critical thinking isn't required to develop a counter hypothesis or theory. Just rationalize what's required to support an objective.

I read an article a couple of years ago about a group of archaeologists, some with stellar reputations, that are (were) looting and destroying sites from antiquity. The sites offended their sensibilities. They had their reasons for doing what they were that allowed them to rationalize what they were doing. As they were doing this though they still considered themselves to be archaeologists and maybe even better ones. Even though what they were doing was the antithesis of archaeology, their belief in "The ignorant man needs his information," allowed them to justify their actions by rejecting the inconvienent information.

More examples are available but why is it no one has challanged these statements? What do the moderators do? Is this an abusive question?
 
Last edited:

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,162
You seem to be a victim of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. AFAIK mass is not a vector quantity, and the multiplication of vectors is an ill-defined operation. Your views on the composition of solids are quaint but not dangerously misleading.

The moderators can speak for themselves about what they do. It is not for you to define that job or even have any expectations for what it is or isn't. Most importantly this forum is not run by the participants, it is run by the owners.
 
Last edited:

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
23,539
The scalar product of two vectors gives a scalar result (dot product).
The vector product of two vectors gives a vector result (cross product).

AFAIK mass is a scalar quantity.
 

atferrari

Joined Jan 6, 2004
4,329
As far as I understand it makes sense this OP being posted in the Feedback forum, seeing that it is addressed to moderators.

Not clear to me, nevertheless, if their task is correcting eventual conceptual errors. I do not think so.

But then, who? Big Brother?
 

Thread Starter

Back to school

Joined May 22, 2019
106
You seem to be a victim of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. AFAIK mass is not a vector quantity, and the multiplication of vectors is an ill-defined operation. Your views on the composition of solids are quaint but not dangerously misleading.

The moderators can speak for themselves about what they do. It is not for you to define that job or even have any expectations for what it is or isn't. Most importantly this forum is not run by the participants, it is run by the owners.
The scalar product of two vectors gives a scalar result (dot product).
The vector product of two vectors gives a vector result (cross product).

AFAIK mass is a scalar quantity.
I was being sarcastic about learning something new. Hopefully no one read these statements and accepted them as true because of how they were packaged.

Mass is not a force and I gave one of the multiple reasons why with vector quantities. Mass does have an equality relationship with force because of the "=" sign in the equation F=ma but that does not make it a force just as acceleration is not a force although it is a vector quantity because it is the net result of applied forces. A Torus is not made up of helices according to classical geometry. There are some theoretical physics or\and metaphysical theories that allow for interpreting the need for information to be stated like this. For example some of the multiverse theories, Schrödinger's cat's paradox, transactional theory, etc., that allow for ideas like, something doesn't exist until someone conjures it up or acknowledges its existence. Somewhat along the lines of Berkeley's stated or Aristotle's unstated philosophy, "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" Useful maybe for thought experiments or for trying to understand the nature of man and reality. It's not useful for understanding problem solving in science. Even with the quantum information theory it's not a useful statement for problems like quantum entanglement. The theory may not solve "why" but the theory does have some predictable action\result qualities for entanglement with "information."

The question was originally posted in "Feedback and Suggestions," about why the statements weren't challenged by members or moderators because they are obviously false statements for classical science. Is it because it's rude to challenge what someone writes or maybe part of the, "win or lose everyone gets a trophy" concept?
 

Berzerker

Joined Jul 29, 2018
621
Some things I've learnt while here on AAC
Don't mess with Mr.Chips, ericgibbs and Wendy!
Don't ever let "MY" political views be know to others!
Don't ever mention "DJT"
And when it comes to electronics always ask here first because I'm always wrong.
 

bogosort

Joined Sep 24, 2011
674
I was being sarcastic about learning something new. Hopefully no one read these statements and accepted them as true because of how they were packaged.
I understood your sarcasm immediately. For those that are unaware, the nonsense that @Back to school is deriding (e.g., "mass is a force") is from the imagination of @BR-549. Seasoned users know that his views on science are, at best, "non-orthodox". I suppose that his wackier claims don't get challenged because they're so obviously crackpottery that it's not worth the effort.

Personally, I'd say that BR-549 is a loon, but a good-natured loon. :)
 

Thread Starter

Back to school

Joined May 22, 2019
106
I understood your sarcasm immediately. For those that are unaware, the nonsense that @Back to school is deriding (e.g., "mass is a force") is from the imagination of @BR-549. Seasoned users know that his views on science are, at best, "non-orthodox". I suppose that his wackier claims don't get challenged because they're so obviously crackpottery that it's not worth the effort.

Personally, I'd say that BR-549 is a loon, but a good-natured loon. :)
bogosort, Thank you. I wondered about this because of the use of the now deleted "spirals." I wondered if that was an indirect reference to a philosophy claimed to be 4 to 7,000 years old that followers believe long ago presented the unified theory and the theory of everything among other things. I'm not claiming it does. Just wondering.

You've been a great help and inspirational. Thank you again.
 

OBW0549

Joined Mar 2, 2015
3,566
The question was originally posted in "Feedback and Suggestions," about why the statements weren't challenged by members or moderators because they are obviously false statements for classical science.
Sometimes members will refrain from challenging an obviously false statement precisely BECAUSE it is obviously false-- that is, it is so "way out there" it simply doesn't merit challenging. Others may refrain simply because the topic doesn't interest them. And still others may refrain because they don't feel any compulsion to stamp out incorrectness, as is the case with this poor fellow:

duty_calls.png

The moderators here generally do not police errors of fact or logic; mostly, their efforts are confined to stopping foodfights (hence the ban on political threads), making sure the Terms of Service are honored, and keeping the place tidy (deleting spam posts, moving misplaced threads to a more appropriate subforum, etc.).

But they do not take action against someone simply for posting something incorrect.

Is it because it's rude to challenge what someone writes...
No, it is not rude, unless done in an insulting or hostile manner.

... or maybe part of the, "win or lose everyone gets a trophy" concept?
This is AAC. We don't have that concept here.
 
Edit, Orginally posted to "Feedback", moved by Moderator.
/----/
More examples are available but why is it no one has challanged these statements? What do the moderators do? Is this an abusive question?
Here are the first lines of your very first post and you made that all of 8 days ago.

This is my first post and I have to admit I don't meet the "profession" requirements offered while joining. If my participation is offending to anyone please let me know and I will withdraw from the forum.
Learning about all the dynamics of this Forum might take a little longer, don't you think?
 

Berzerker

Joined Jul 29, 2018
621
You'd think he might take his own forum name and do exactly that.
I was always told "Think before you do" and "Be aware of your surroundings"
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,162
I was being sarcastic about learning something new. Hopefully no one read these statements and accepted them as true because of how they were packaged.

Mass is not a force and I gave one of the multiple reasons why with vector quantities. Mass does have an equality relationship with force because of the "=" sign in the equation F=ma but that does not make it a force just as acceleration is not a force although it is a vector quantity because it is the net result of applied forces. A Torus is not made up of helices according to classical geometry. There are some theoretical physics or\and metaphysical theories that allow for interpreting the need for information to be stated like this. For example some of the multiverse theories, Schrödinger's cat's paradox, transactional theory, etc., that allow for ideas like, something doesn't exist until someone conjures it up or acknowledges its existence. Somewhat along the lines of Berkeley's stated or Aristotle's unstated philosophy, "If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" Useful maybe for thought experiments or for trying to understand the nature of man and reality. It's not useful for understanding problem solving in science. Even with the quantum information theory it's not a useful statement for problems like quantum entanglement. The theory may not solve "why" but the theory does have some predictable action\result qualities for entanglement with "information."

The question was originally posted in "Feedback and Suggestions," about why the statements weren't challenged by members or moderators because they are obviously false statements for classical science. Is it because it's rude to challenge what someone writes or maybe part of the, "win or lose everyone gets a trophy" concept?
Another vote for [SARCASM][/SARCASM] tags .... I guess.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,162
Ideed ... unfortunately the funny, sarcasm and irony tones cannot be derived from plain text alone ... especially for someone whose mother language is not english.
Spanish seems so...colorful, almost musical, when people argue or get excited. Italian is a close second, but I have no idea why.
 

Thread Starter

Back to school

Joined May 22, 2019
106
I was born in Alabama....... You do know where Russia is on a map right?
Of course I do. Does knowing where its at on a map return friends along with my leg? It's a tangential reference you either get or you don't or accept or you don't. Doesn't matter.

Here are the first lines of your very first post and you made that all of 8 days ago.

Learning about all the dynamics of this Forum might take a little longer, don't you think?
Part of joining the forum required selecting a profession from a list that was limited to what is generally considered professional occupations. I have since learned that fitting a profession on the list isn't a requirement but that wasn't known at the time.

Observation is a learning method. Can't deny that but is it efficient when asking questions takes learning to the same place, just much quicker. Again, I didn't post this question here under this topic. I didn't mean for this to be an open discussion. Somebody else chose to do this. My apologies.

Sometimes members will refrain from challenging an obviously false statement precisely BECAUSE it is obviously false-- that is, it is so "way out there" it simply doesn't merit challenging. Others may refrain simply because the topic doesn't interest them. And still others may refrain because they don't feel any compulsion to stamp out incorrectness, as is the case with this poor fellow:

View attachment 178550

The moderators here generally do not police errors of fact or logic; mostly, their efforts are confined to stopping foodfights (hence the ban on political threads), making sure the Terms of Service are honored, and keeping the place tidy (deleting spam posts, moving misplaced threads to a more appropriate subforum, etc.).

But they do not take action against someone simply for posting something incorrect.

No, it is not rude, unless done in an insulting or hostile manner.

This is AAC. We don't have that concept here.
OBW0549, Thank you. I admire that everything you write is calm, reasoned, level headed and to the point. I get it now about corrections and what moderators do and what they don't do. That hasn't been my experience though which is why I asked. Most of my forum experience involved students though where incorrect information was acknowledged with various types of responses. As you can see though, to some the questions may not be rude but asking has been received with various levels of acceptance. I appreciate the trophy concept not existing here but it has IMO unfortunately become a mainstream concept.
 
Top