# Thread: Simple Theory on how matter really works?

1. Hello,

I'm not a scientist and probably not as bright as most of you but I had one of those thoughts that you have to write down. I also wanted to share it with people who would understand and possibly expand it into a "real" theory. This is very simplistic but could be a stepping stone for someone. I don't remember ever reading this thought or seeing science videos that may have subconsciously influenced my thinking, but I do know that some people are working with gravity being in a separate dimension. Okay, here it goes:

Watching videos on Protons, neutrons and electrons I started to realize that they can't themselves be responsible for creating Hydrogen, Carbon, Gold, etc. How can simply adding more protons, neutrons, and electrons change matter so dramatically?

Analogy: The engine in your car doesn't do anything unless you have gasoline. The engine is simply a construct to allow gas to work, in order for the vehicle to run.

I am proposing a theory that protons, neutrons, and electrons are simply put together as a construct to allow some external force or energy to affect the atom to become different forms of matter. Like changing the wavelength of light will change the colour from one to another, adding more elementary particles allows this force or energy to form different types of matter.

What is this force or energy and why can't we detect it? I don't think it exists in our material plane but it must be in a separate dimension. It would have to work with gravity (which could also be in it's own separate dimension but we see the effect in our plane) or gravity could be a by-product of the force's/energy's affect on our plane's subatomic particles.

2. Originally Posted by SirRight
Watching videos on Protons, neutrons and electrons I started to realize that they can't themselves be responsible for creating Hydrogen, Carbon, Gold, etc. How can simply adding more protons, neutrons, and electrons change matter so dramatically?
Because of the number of electrons, mainly the number of electrons in the outer (valence) shells. Look at the periodic table, for example.

The mass of the atom, determined by the number of protons and neutrons, also has some effect on the properties.

This is all well understood and there is no need for an undetectable magic force.

3. Originally Posted by SirRight
Watching videos on Protons, neutrons and electrons I started to realize that they can't themselves be responsible for creating Hydrogen, Carbon, Gold, etc.
Your source is a video, and somehow you then conclude that something can't be? "Argument from incredulity" is a classic logical fallacy. At minimum, regardless of whether you have scientific training or not, a rational human should at least be on guard against committing such a mistake. Just because you can't imagine how something could be as it is, you shouldn't declare it to be impossible. You have overlooked the likelihood that it is your imagination that is simply more limited than nature. A proper humility is part of science.

How can simply adding more protons, neutrons, and electrons change matter so dramatically?

Analogy: The engine in your car doesn't do anything unless you have gasoline. The engine is simply a construct to allow gas to work, in order for the vehicle to run.
Terrible analogy. You've cherry-picked one to conform to your belief. Here's one that contradicts your bias. Table salt is made out of sodium and chlorine atoms. By itself, sodium is a dangerously reactive metal; it burns in water. Chlorine is a deadly gas. Table salt has a very different character, wouldn't you say? The lesson is simply that the properties of combinations of constituents need not be anything like the properties of the constituents themselves. I could list many examples, but table salt does just fine. One counterexample is all that is needed to falsify your implicit proposition, in any case.

I am proposing a theory that protons, neutrons, and electrons are simply put together as a construct to allow some external force or energy to affect the atom to become different forms of matter. Like changing the wavelength of light will change the colour from one to another, adding more elementary particles allows this force or energy to form different types of matter.
More than a century ago, a physicist named Rutherford showed how you can make atoms using the very method that you say can't make atoms. So, there appears to be no need for your theory. More than that, there is no evidence for your theory. Even more than that, you don't actually have a theory, in the scientific sense of the term.

What is this force or energy and why can't we detect it? I don't think it exists in our material plane but it must be in a separate dimension. It would have to work with gravity (which could also be in it's own separate dimension but we see the effect in our plane) or gravity could be a by-product of the force's/energy's affect on our plane's subatomic particles.
Now you've slipped fully into woo-land. You started with a flawed argument from incredulity, then solved a non-problem by invoking a made-up "solution" to that non-problem.

Nature is already wonderfully subtle, complex and beautiful. I don't understand the need of some to gild the lily, especially with fool's gold.

4. I wasn't expecting the reaction I received from this. I was just putting it out there as something to think about and was not meant to hurt anyone's feelings.

I understand the classical viewpoint but when you really think hard about it, how does simply adding more neutral, positive, and negatively charged particles totally change the form that the matter takes? Sure, it is the way it is because it is the way it is, but is there something we are not seeing?

An open mind that can consider new thoughts can also open up new ideas. This is why we have String Theory today (but it almost slipped into obscurity).

5. Originally Posted by Strange
Because of the number of electrons, mainly the number of electrons in the outer (valence) shells. Look at the periodic table, for example.

The mass of the atom, determined by the number of protons and neutrons, also has some effect on the properties.

This is all well understood and there is no need for an undetectable magic force.
Correct but don't you find it interesting how as you add weight to the atom it can shift from a solid to a gas then back to a solid. One example is Carbon to oxygen. Why wouldn't all the lightest elements be the gases then would follow the various types of solids? When you really stop to think about it, it doesn't make sense. You would think that there should be some sort of progression: Hydrogen becomes a heavier gas when you add subatomic particles, add more and you get a heavier gas, et cetera. Eventually you would get solids and they should also progressively change as they had bigger atomic numbers. How can just changing a few particles totally change the element's properties?

6. Originally Posted by SirRight
Correct but don't you find it interesting how as you add weight to the atom it can shift from a solid to a gas then back to a solid.
It is fascinating. That is why I studied chemistry and particularly enjoyed physical chemistry (even though I struggled with it).

Why wouldn't all the lightest elements be the gases then would follow the various types of solids?
Because the properties depend on the forces between atoms, which in turn depend on the patterns of electrons in the (outer) shells.

When you really stop to think about it, it doesn't make sense.
When you actually learn about it in detail, it makes perfect sense.

You would think that there should be some sort of progression
Read up about the periodic table. There is a reason it is called "periodic". Patterns and progressions across each row and down each column.

7. Originally Posted by SirRight
I wasn't expecting the reaction I received from this. I was just putting it out there as something to think about and was not meant to hurt anyone's feelings.
You didn't hurt anyone's feelings. What gave you that odd idea?

I understand the classical viewpoint but when you really think hard about it, how does simply adding more neutral, positive, and negatively charged particles totally change the form that the matter takes? Sure, it is the way it is because it is the way it is, but is there something we are not seeing?
I don't think that you understand the classical viewpoint at all. It's clear that you haven't studied it (and by your own admission). You are continuing the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. The best cure for that is education, not making up random pseudoexplanations.

An open mind that can consider new thoughts can also open up new ideas.
Be very, very careful about throwing that around. First, it's the standard crackpot calling card ("if you only opened your minds, you'd understand!"). Second, it presumes arrogantly that your audience isn't open-minded. Third, it subtly and improperly shifts the burden from the one making the assertion, to the reader.

Scientists are among the most open-minded folks I know. But they are demanding. They'll consider most any idea, but you'd better have some evidence for why they should accept yours. If you don't have evidence to support your assertion, then you will be properly dismissed as just another random guy on the internet with an opinion. Everyone's got one (or two, or three...). Not everyone will be right. Science says, reasonably enough, that we'll use evidential support to sort the wheat from the chaff. Simple, fair and logical.

This is why we have String Theory today (but it almost slipped into obscurity).
Exactly right. That shows the open-mindedness of science. String theory is not yet accepted as scientific, because there is as yet no evidential support. "Sounds good" or "feels right" is not sufficient. We are all waiting for testable, and tested, predictions of string theory.

In your case, we have a century of atomic theory that fully supports what we see. That is, hands down, the best theory of how matter works. You come along with a clear lack of knowledge of even that history, and are unable to do anything but offer a fairy tale. Why should anyone pay attention to what you say?

8. Originally Posted by SirRight
not meant to hurt anyone's feelings.
It hasn't. Why would you think it has.

An open mind that can consider new thoughts can also open up new ideas.
An open mind would be willing to learn rather than making stuff up.

9. Originally Posted by tk421
You didn't hurt anyone's feelings. What gave you that odd idea?

I don't think that you understand the classical viewpoint at all. It's clear that you haven't studied it (and by your own admission). You are continuing the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. The best cure for that is education, not making up random pseudoexplanations.

Be very, very careful about throwing that around. First, it's the standard crackpot calling card ("if you only opened your minds, you'd understand!"). Second, it presumes arrogantly that your audience isn't open-minded. Third, it subtly and improperly shifts the burden from the one making the assertion, to the reader.

Scientists are among the most open-minded folks I know. But they are demanding. They'll consider most any idea, but you'd better have some evidence for why they should accept yours. If you don't have evidence to support your assertion, then you will be properly dismissed as just another random guy on the internet with an opinion. Everyone's got one (or two, or three...). Not everyone will be right. Science says, reasonably enough, that we'll use evidential support to sort the wheat from the chaff. Simple, fair and logical.

Exactly right. That shows the open-mindedness of science. String theory is not yet accepted as scientific, because there is as yet no evidential support. "Sounds good" or "feels right" is not sufficient. We are all waiting for testable, and tested, predictions of string theory.

In your case, we have a century of atomic theory that fully supports what we see. That is, hands down, the best theory of how matter works. You come along with a clear lack of knowledge of even that history, and are unable to do anything but offer a fairy tale. Why should anyone pay attention to what you say?
One of the problems with forums is that it is easy to read the wrong tone into a person's statements. Perhaps I'm incorrect that you came across as harsh and dismissive but that is how I perceived it.

I've read many of the books Steven Hawkins wrote and two from Brian Greene, and I comprehend the standard model. Sometimes it is good to throw out everything you know and start fresh. It can add new insight and will probably lead right back to the standard theory, which is good. We understand that the different the current theory works the way it does, with a century of proof but can we really understand how the different arrangements of particles and charges actually do what they do?

One thing I got out of the books is that some of the smartest people can be the most closed minded to anything that contradicts their own work. Imagine spending a lifetime to prove something and then find out it was all wrong; some scientists would do anything they could to discredit the opposing ideology.

10. Originally Posted by Strange
It hasn't. Why would you think it has.

An open mind would be willing to learn rather than making stuff up.

What if what you are learning is totally wrong? How would you know unless you had the ability to consider other things? We used to think that the Earth revolved around the Sun then somehow it changed to the Earth being the centre of the Universe. People were thrown in jail or worse for dictating something different, that later turned out to be the case: The Earth is not flat and it does go around the Sun.

11. Originally Posted by SirRight
What if what you are learning is totally wrong? How would you know ....
Evidence.

12. Originally Posted by Strange
Evidence.

Wow!

13. Originally Posted by SirRight
One of the problems with forums is that it is easy to read the wrong tone into a person's statements. Perhaps I'm incorrect that you came across as harsh and dismissive but that is how I perceived it.
"Harsh" and "dismissive" do not imply hurt feelings. In this instance, the comments were certainly dismissive. So you've committed another logical fallacy there...

I've read many of the books Steven Hawkins wrote and two from Brian Greene, and I comprehend the standard model.
I doubt that very much. First reading pop sci books about science is very different from studying science. There's a world of difference! Plus, the fact that you misspell Stephen Hawking's name (in two different ways) confirms that you are not very detail-oriented, confirming other data gleaned from your OP. Science is very much about the details, not just the stories.

Sometimes it is good to throw out everything you know and start fresh.
Yes, and that's generally when the old way isn't working.

It can add new insight and will probably lead right back to the standard theory, which is good. We understand that the different the current theory works the way it does, with a century of proof but can we really understand how the different arrangements of particles and charges actually do what they do.
You keep repeating this assertion, but you keep failing to consider that the problem is with your own ignorance. As I have already said, and Strange has independently noted, the best cure for that is getting an education, not making stuff up. That you prefer the latter is understandable, because it's easier.

Once thing I got out of the books is that some of the smartest people can be the most closed minded to anything that contradicts their own work. Imagine spending a lifetime to prove something and then find out it was all wrong; some scientists would do anything they could to discredit the opposing ideology.
Once again, a self-serving and wrong assertion. Scientists are richly rewarded for proving that the standard story is wrong. They give Nobels for that, don'tcha know?

But they don't give out prizes for assertions. You have to back up your "open-minded" creativity with evidence. That's the hard part. Anybody can have an "out of the box" idea. Anybody. Don't attach so much value to it.

14. Well enough with the intellectual bullies; it was a mistake to come here and propose an interesting concept. tk421, you just want to win at all costs and use things like a simply misspelling to launch yet another character assassination. Okay, you win, but you still don't know why things work the way they do...just that they do. Call me ignorant and insult me all you want, it is obviously something you need to do to sustain your own self-worth.

15. Originally Posted by SirRight
Well enough with the intellectual bullies; it was a mistake to come here and propose an interesting concept. tk421, you just want to win at all costs and use things like a simply misspelling to launch yet another character assassination. Okay, you win, but you still don't know why things work the way they do...just that they do. Call me ignorant and insult me all you want, it is obviously something you need to do to sustain your own self-worth.
Science can indeed appear harsh and unfriendly to those with inflated egos, because it demands evidence that is rarely provided by those would-be Einsteins. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Calling you ignorant is not an insult. We are all ignorant. It is a description of a condition. The challenge for all of us is to acknowledge that truth, and then to do something about it. So far, you seem unwilling to do anything about it, and instead wail that a mean person simply called you on your arrogance. All I can say is that I hope you grow up. But not everyone is ready to let go of fairy tales.

16. Originally Posted by SirRight
Wow!
Yep. That's all it takes. There are people far smarter than you and me, and have a far more detailed understanding of existing theories, who will come up with "wacky" far-out speculative ideas. No one will take them seriously until there is evidence to support it.

17. Originally Posted by SirRight
Well enough with the intellectual bullies; it was a mistake to come here and propose an interesting concept.
It wasn't wrong. You could take it as an opportunity to learn (if you want to). When I said, "read about the periodic table", that isn't bullying it is a heartfelt suggestion. It is really interesting and explains a large part of the things you are questioning. Then, if you want to you can get into more details to udnerstand the rest of it.

Call me ignorant and insult me all you want
No one did that. Oh, hang on ... who said: "I'm not a scientist and probably not as bright as most of you"

Actually, we are all ignorant. That is not a crime or an insult; it is an opportunity.

18. Originally Posted by Strange
Yep. That's all it takes. There are people far smarter than you and me, and have a far more detailed understanding of existing theories, who will come up with "wacky" far-out speculative ideas. No one will take them seriously until there is evidence to support it.
I read somewhere that it usually takes 100 years for a ridiculed, new theory is adopted as fact; the scientist is usually long dead and probably suffered much from his colleges. Now I in no way am saying that what I have proposed is in any way the reality that we know, but it can give one some interesting mental exercise, if that person has the ability to "daydream" a totally far out possibility.

I am glad that there are scientists that are seriously looking into the possibility of some kind of Warp Drive (yes, like on Star Trek) that would shift into a different dimension to avoid the galactic light speed limit. Maybe they will find nothing and we will be doomed to create generation ships, in order to head to the stars. But, maybe they find something ...

19. Originally Posted by SirRight
I read somewhere that it usually takes 100 years for a ridiculed, new theory is adopted as fact
I'm not sure it is as simple as that. Some new ideas are accepted almost immediately (relativity, for example, despite being a massive paradigm shift was accepted as soon as the first experiments showed some confirmation). Others can take centuries. For example, the idea of continental drift was first put forward in the 16th century (after all, we have all noticed as kids how the major continents seem to fit together). It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that both definite evidence and a mechanism were found.

Scientists are always looking for "the next big thing". The young ones, especially, are imaginative and rebellious. Most of their ideas will come to nothing after a bit of analysis or a check against the data.

20. Originally Posted by Strange
It wasn't wrong. You could take it as an opportunity to learn (if you want to). When I said, "read about the periodic table", that isn't bullying it is a heartfelt suggestion. It is really interesting and explains a large part of the things you are questioning. Then, if you want to you can get into more details to udnerstand the rest of it.

No one did that. Oh, hang on ... who said: "I'm not a scientist and probably not as bright as most of you"

Actually, we are all ignorant. That is not a crime or an insult; it is an opportunity.
I agree with your first comment but please understand that as misguided as you may think my idea was, it is just to allow one to think of the universe on a totally different level. I'm sure that I am wrong but there still could be something to it. If String theory is correct in assuming that there are multiple (10 or 11 is the usual number that frequently comes up) dimensions that are very, very tiny, then this could account for gravity being on a brane that is next to ours. All I am proposing is that something else could exist on another membrane that works with the matter in our universe. How could I have evidence for this? I certainly don't have any but there is no harm in considering the potential of the idea.

The second comment really wasn't directed at you and I shouldn't have made "bully" plural. I did make that statement "I'm not a scientist..." and still stand behind it. You'll find I'm also one of those rare men who admit when I'm wrong and apologize as required; an uncommon trait that most consider a weakness but is in fact a great strength.

I was just going to quit the forum but I am starting to enjoy your discourse.

21. Originally Posted by SirRight
I read somewhere that it usually takes 100 years for a ridiculed, new theory is adopted as fact; the scientist is usually long dead and probably suffered much from his colleges.
Well, Einstein's GR went from his brain to wide acceptance in a decade. Quantum theory began as a math trick in 1900 to being the standard stuff of textbooks in one generation.

But even if it were to take 100 years, so what? It's not the time per se, it's the evidence. Too often, you'll read folks (mainly crackpots) who say 'Yeah, they laughed at Galileo (or name your favorite persecuted figure here." But, as Carl Sagan pointed out, "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown." The point is that ridicule by itself is not necessarily an indicator that the idea is sound.

I repeat: What matters is the evidence.

Now I in no way am saying that what I have proposed is in any way the reality that we know, but it can give one some interesting mental exercise, if that person has the ability to "daydream" a totally far out possibility.
Scientists engage in far more daydreaming than you imagine. They just generally don't publicize it until they have something more substantial than "it sounds good to me." As I keep telling you, ideas are cheap. Good ideas are gold. The only way to tell the difference is to test with evidence.

I am glad that there are scientists that are seriously looking into the possibility of some kind of Warp Drive (yes, like on Star Trek) that would shift into a different dimension to avoid the galactic light speed limit. Maybe they will find nothing and we will be doomed to create generation ships, in order to head to the stars. But, maybe they find something ...
And again, scientists are very open minded (far more than the cartoon caricatures that crackpots like to imagine). That's why civilisation has achieved so much since the scientific method became the framework to harness our intellectual energies, rather than wasting it on fairy tales and pipedreams.

22. So is there anyone else that can see any potential towards this idea or should it simply be relegated to the fairy tale and pipedream file?

23. Originally Posted by tk421
Science can indeed appear harsh and unfriendly to those with inflated egos, because it demands evidence that is rarely provided by those would-be Einsteins. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Calling you ignorant is not an insult. We are all ignorant. It is a description of a condition. The challenge for all of us is to acknowledge that truth, and then to do something about it. So far, you seem unwilling to do anything about it, and instead wail that a mean person simply called you on your arrogance. All I can say is that I hope you grow up. But not everyone is ready to let go of fairy tales.
You can tell a lot about a person by the other posts they make on a forum. You have no issue in psychoanalyzing my alleged deficiencies and I hope you can also take some advice. Your conduct on the forum seems to be negative, harsh, and antagonistic. You do appear to be well educated and if you learned to employ a little bit of tact and kindness, I think you could be a very powerful force here. There are courses available that can help one improve their people skills and you would be surprised at how a little effort can yield amazing results. Making friends might not help improve your scholastic skills but could benefit you in communication with others and the creation of a less hostile work/forum environment.

Peace.

24. Originally Posted by SirRight
So is there anyone else that can see any potential towards this idea or should it simply be relegated to the fairy tale and pipedream file?
Here is a short, incomplete list that anyone -- you or someone else -- can use to answer that question:

1) Does the new idea solve a problem with existing theory?

2) Does the new idea make specific, testable predictions?

3) Is the new idea fully compatible with all of the experimental support for the existing theory?

25. Originally Posted by SirRight
You can tell a lot about a person by the other posts they make on a forum. You have no issue in psychoanalyzing my alleged deficiencies and I hope you can also take some advice. Your conduct on the forum seems to be negative, harsh, and antagonistic. You do appear to be well educated and if you learned to employ a little bit of tact and kindness, I think you could be a very powerful force here. There are courses available that can help one improve their people skills and you would be surprised at how a little effort can yield amazing results. Making friends might not help improve your scholastic skills but could benefit you in communication with others and the creation of a less hostile work/forum environment.

Peace.
Since you feel qualified to make such recommendations, allow me to return the favor. A serious problem that you, and others like you, have is a misguided confidence in the power of your own imagination. Somehow, many get the odd notion that watching a few videos or reading a couple of books is sufficient to become a scientist. But think about that: Can you become a piano virtuoso by reading about Liszt, or by watching a concert video? Can you become a football star by watching Beckham play? Of course not. So why is science somehow different?

That's what strikes those of us who practice science.

If you were to ask questions, you'd get answers. If you make assertions that are baseless, you will get called on it. If you then try to play the tired-old "imagination is more important than knowledge" game, you will get an earful.

Think about how you'd be treated if you were to walk up to a basketball star and tell him that you have a brand-new theory of how to play. If what you were saying were total gibberish to him, how would he react? If you were then to keep arguing about why he should pay attention to you, what do you think would be his response? I'll tell you: You'd be sailing ballistically down court, headed for a slam dunk.

Your mistake is in believing that the purpose of science is to make you feel good. Perhaps you're part of that generation that was educated in a school system that favored "self esteem" over correctness. Science doesn't have that luxury. If what you say is bollocks, it's going to be called bollocks. If you find that hostile, then you should fix your ignorance and avoid asserting bollocks.

Very simple.

26. Originally Posted by tk421
Since you feel qualified to make such recommendations, allow me to return the favor. A serious problem that you, and others like you, have is a misguided confidence in the power of your own imagination. Somehow, many get the odd notion that watching a few videos or reading a couple of books is sufficient to become a scientist. But think about that: Can you become a piano virtuoso by reading about Liszt, or by watching a concert video? Can you become a football star by watching Beckham play? Of course not. So why is science somehow different?

That's what strikes those of us who practice science.

If you were to ask questions, you'd get answers. If you make assertions that are baseless, you will get called on it. If you then try to play the tired-old "imagination is more important than knowledge" game, you will get an earful.

Think about how you'd be treated if you were to walk up to a basketball star and tell him that you have a brand-new theory of how to play. If what you were saying were total gibberish to him, how would he react? If you were then to keep arguing about why he should pay attention to you, what do you think would be his response? I'll tell you: You'd be sailing ballistically down court, headed for a slam dunk.

Your mistake is in believing that the purpose of science is to make you feel good. Perhaps you're part of that generation that was educated in a school system that favored "self esteem" over correctness. Science doesn't have that luxury. If what you say is bollocks, it's going to be called bollocks. If you find that hostile, then you should fix your ignorance and avoid asserting bollocks.

Very simple.
I thank you. I will try to incorporate some of your wisdom into my person so that I can continue to improve and strive towards enlightenment.

27. Originally Posted by SirRight
I thank you. I will try to incorporate some of your wisdom into my person so that I can continue to improve and strive towards enlightenment.
I sincerely hope that you will stay around, ask many questions, and read up on how mainstream science became mainstream. The actual stories are incredibly beautiful, and messy, and complex, and simple, sometimes all at once. That'll convey an idea of where things stand, and where the holes seem to be, and what ideas scientists are kicking around (and have kicked around) to try to fill those holes.

28. Originally Posted by SirRight
What if what you are learning is totally wrong?
Like the one tk421 mentioned above, this is also a calling card of the crackpot. It's based on the failure to realise just how much science actually knows. It can't all be wrong. Essentially what you are doing is projecting your own lack of knowledge onto science as a whole.

29. Originally Posted by KJW
Like the one tk421 mentioned above, this is also a calling card of the crackpot. It's based on the failure to realise just how much science actually knows. It can't all be wrong. Essentially what you are doing is projecting your own lack of knowledge onto science as a whole.
It's okay, you won't see me again. I wonder how many people quit this forum because of the anti-welcome wagon approach some of you like to take. I'll find a place with a better atmosphere; this "crack-pot" has left the building.

30. Originally Posted by SirRight
It's okay, you won't see me again. I wonder how many people quit this forum because of the anti-welcome wagon approach some of you like to take. I'll find a place with a better atmosphere; this "crack-pot" has left the building.
Please don't take what we said personally. It is simply based on what we have experienced in the past. Bear in mind that we never accused you of being a crackpot, but rather pointed out that what you said is what crackpots say. That is not the same thing.

31. Originally Posted by KJW
Please don't take what we said personally. It is simply based on what we have experienced in the past. Bear in mind that we never accused you of being a crackpot, but rather pointed out that what you said is what crackpots say. That is not the same thing.
A lesson I am also attempting to properly absorb KJW.

32. I was just going to quit the forum but I am starting to enjoy your discourse.
stick around. these guys are really good. they'll bend over backwards to help you. ask anything. science is the best "hobby" you can have. I am no scientist and all i know is bits and pieces of some stuff. i am a member of a few science forums, and see the same faces everywhere, all is asked is a willingness to learn, admit when you're wrong and be decent in your dealings with others. sometimes posts can come across as blunt but they are usually directed at the information not the person. scientists are blunt with each other more than you'll ever see here.