Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!aioe.org!/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:41:00 -0800 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: <6222876C.76A5@ix.netcom.com> References: <19e49842-ab2f-4aee-b50b-55bb3686b478n@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39617"; posting-host="/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220304-6, 03/04/2022), Outbound message X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:579464 Odd Bodkin wrote: > > patdolan wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >> > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >> a chemist. > >> > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >> > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >> handy. > >> > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >> > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >> > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > > Bodkin, > > > > Galileo learnt physics--forward and back. And he kept studying it after > > he learnt it. Guess what, like me, he discovered that it was wrong in several areas. > > 1. Galileo was widely read. > > 2. Galileo performed real experiments and made quantitative experiments. > > 3. Where he discovered things were wrong, it was because of those > experimental observations, not because of “logical thinking”. > > 4. Galileo did not descend into self-amused babbling due to excessive > drinking. You forgot number 5...didn't he invented the Cuckoo Clock??? Cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.