Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 you seem to have an incredibly creative talent for guessing about science and talking some wonderfully garbled chat A sarky put down. Take that back. Hey, if you think that my definition is pants, then go and tell my old physics teacher this. It's how they explain the basic principles of Quantum Physics at A-level standard. Hardly my lack of 'guessing'. A lot of people here mentioned the theories of physics, but they fail to mention quarks. Why is it not important ? Again, I didn't want to look on the Net, cos I wanna participate in a discussion on my own merits, and not quoting this, or that. Where's the enjoyment of socialising if I can just google everything. [added] and i'm aware that i didn't use the word quantum in my post - i am aware tho that if someone reads and digests my post, they will have an idea of what quantum physics concerns Haha ! You just added this bit ! Does it mean that you are looking at your post now from bystander's viewpoint ? It is an essay about history of physics. A chemist's viewpoint will emphasize and look at it from the particle point of view, whereas from the physics viewpoint, you would look at it from the electromagnetic viewpoint. i.e. wave. I am a pure Chemist. Hardly 'guesswork'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 A sarky put down. Take that back. Hey, if you think that my definition is pants, then go and tell my old physics teacher this. It's how they explain the basic principles of Quantum Physics at A-level standard. Hardly my lack of 'guessing'. A lot of people here mentioned the theories of physics, but they fail to mention quarks. Why is it not important ? Again, I didn't want to look on the Net, cos I wanna participate in a discussion on my own merits, and not quoting this, or that. Where's the enjoyment of socialising if I can just google everything. [added] Haha ! You just added this bit ! Does it mean that you are looking at your post now from bystander's viewpoint ? It is an essay about history of physics. A chemist's viewpoint will emphasize and look at it from the particle point of view, whereas from the physics viewpoint, you would look at it from the electromagnetic viewpoint. i.e. wave. I am a pure Chemist. Hardly 'guesswork'. hey, sarky putdowns are one of my specialities! i can't take it back, i'm under oath to the british sarcasm society never to do such a thing well i'm sure that some of the words u used would be used in the A'level explanation of quantum physics, but not in the order you used them in! lol confused socialising is great, that's one reason i come here - i enjoy posting with people i disagree wiv as much as those i agree wiv but the poor fella wanted help understanding something, and while i applaude ur desire to get stuck in, to get involved, your explanation didn't help him, as it was garbled yeah i do edit my posts - that's wot the edit button's for! if you call that an essay on the history of physics, thank you, but i don't think that it warrants that compliment the earlier part of my post was to put into context the later part to illustrate how what a newtonian view is and how it relates to the more recently developed models ur missing the point when u talk about looking at the subject from physics or chemistry viewpoints - we're talking about a bigger picture here i see why you try to relate the particle perspective to chemistry, and on a practical level that's correct, but deep down they are entirely interlinked subjects - particle/quantum physics is in some ways the study of the building blocks of chemistry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 to illustrate how what a newtonian view is and how it relates to the more recently developed models The guy did ask for a 'basic' idea, and understanding, so why throw him in the deep end ? I did write that I am unsure of new 'theories', however, you cannot disregard that the term 'quarks' are used to describe the sub-particles which makes a nucleus. I am aware that there are plenty and plenty of mathematical equations, and theorum to describe new areas and development within this area. However, you can only go by the old science books, until these ideas or theories are disproven. [added] but the poor fella wanted help understanding something, and while i applaude ur desire to get stuck in, to get involved, your explanation didn't help him, as it was garbled You're talking out of your bum ! How do you know my explaination did not help him ? Why don't you let him decide on this ? Unless you say that my explaination won't help him in YOUR opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The guy did ask for a 'basic' idea, and understanding, so why throw him in the deep end ? I did write that I am unsure of new 'theories', however, you cannot disregard that the term 'quarks' are used to describe the sub-particles which makes a nucleus. I am aware that there are plenty and plenty of mathematical equations, and theorum to describe new areas and development within this area. However, you can only go by the old science books, until these ideas or theoies are disproven. lol the newtonian worldview is pretty much the most basic view, it's the shallow end, so i started there yes, very true, the term quarks is used to describe sub atomic particles our understanding of physics has become more in depth over the years - as i described it, it's not so much been a question of disproving ideas, but refining them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 You're talking out of your bum ! How do you know my explaination did not help him ? Why don't you let him decide on this ? Unless you say that my explaination won't help him in YOUR opinion. lol cos ur explanation sounded like it came outta ur bum! it didn't say much of substance at all, but waffled like a drunken wino like so many of my posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Oh bog off. If someone ask they don't understand something, then of course you start with the basic, and build on top of it, and get more indepth. Quoting scientific terms which the reader may not even have an understanding of means you may lose their attention. If you don't understand the building blocks, then how can you understand the buildings that you're looking at ? There. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Oh bog off. If someone ask they don't understand something, then of course you start with the basic, and build on top of it, and get more indepth. Quoting scientific terms which the reader may not even have an understanding of means you may lose their attention. If you don't understand the building blocks, then how can you understand the buildings that you're looking at ? There. :P exactly - which is why i started at the most basic and worked up the way attempting to explain the terms as i went, to enable a reader to understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 If you say so......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingpang Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 If you say so......................... i do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 are you 2 married? (bago/ping)??? ash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.