Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:23:10 UTC No. 16218894

>>16218865
> t. guy who has never set foot in a serious university math or physics course

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:25:47 UTC No. 16218895

>>16218894
Not true. I took various math and physics courses at university but then I quit school because school is gay. I learned far more in a month of reading math books than I did in years of school.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:29:53 UTC No. 16218898

>>16218865
That's cute but you have no foreskin and therefore your argument is invalid.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:33:54 UTC No. 16218904

>>16218898
>jew projecting
oy vey rabbi

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:40:23 UTC No. 16218908

>>16218895
This is probably because it's easiest to learn when you are self-motivated. If it's just to fulfill a mandatory course requirement, the drive may not be there.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:44:26 UTC No. 16218912

>>16218865
teaching at university by stem profs is done pretty well with thought to make people understand the concept and not stupidly memorize ("know where to look for the solution to this differential equation"). your mentioned problem is, that kid-teachers are normie retards, who always learned by memorisation and then translate their retardation to the kids. ideally you would have teachers for each topic, that come from years of working in that field, but these people who can really motivate and encourage interest in that topic, are not going back to teaching schoolclasses. teachers are like journalists: they have no fucking clue about anything, but pretend to know alot and then preach their watered down bullshit.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 06:02:57 UTC No. 16218929

>>16218908
That is definitely a part of it, but it's also the approach schools have: Tell students to memorize a bunch of equations instead of actually understand the content. If the focus was on understanding rather than memorizing, students would be allowed to reference equation sheets as much as they want during tests, but in practice, teachers usually do not allow that at all or only to a limited extent. This proves they don't give a fuck about teaching, only on making students get good at mindless memorization.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 06:04:22 UTC No. 16218931

>>16218912
Yeah pretty much, but what you say about teaching at university will vary a lot from teacher to teacher I think. For the ones who do focus on learning/understanding rather than memorizing, good on them.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 06:13:27 UTC No. 16218945

>>16218931
i only had good experiences from stem profs. and i think they are so much better at teaching, even without having all the teachers "didactic courses" and psychology bs, because they have a deeper understanding and knowledge of the field. so they know exactly how to translate this importance to teaching graduates, that actually want to study and learn about this topic. simple example is: teachers ask kids to spit out the stupid equation. profs will ask, how the value does change, when the variable in the denominator grows. this gives more grasp and natural understanding of, what the equation is even about, instead of just writing it down and thats it. and once the relation between the values is understood naturally, they can just recreate the the equation to some degree, by mapping the variables' place from their understanding of what the physical real world meaning of it is.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:20:11 UTC No. 16219017

>>16218865
People will purposefully conflate the idealistic concept of the scientific method with the current state of academia and pretend there is no problem. "But SCIENCE brought you the computer!" they'll screech, as if that justifies dogmatic thinking.

Imagine how many times that self-assured academics have been presented with proof that our existing ideas are incorrect, only to have it dismissed because Science™ says it can't happen (unless you're credentialed, then you can invent as much schizobabble as you want)

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:29:29 UTC No. 16219024

I'd say they are beautiful disciplines, but it's hard to become competent enough to contribute.

Unless you seriously want to work in science there's nothing wrong with teaching yourself, all the books, exercises, a lot of lectures and course materials are online and with ChatGPT you have a great tutor at your disposal without the existential dread of not being smart enough to compete.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 07:55:02 UTC No. 16219054

>>16218865
OK, so what? Relativity is not a meme btw, keep studying

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:16:48 UTC No. 16219081

>>16219017
based
>>16219024
>Unless you seriously want to work in science
Even if someone wants to work in science there is still nothing wrong with that
>>16219054
Yes it is

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:26:05 UTC No. 16219093

>>16219081
And what makes you think relativity is a maymay?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:29:14 UTC No. 16219097

>>16219093
It's pronounced meem

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:30:05 UTC No. 16219098

>>16219093
He doesn't think about it at all. He never studied relativity. He's just a brainwashed golem mindlessly repeating the larpy pseuocontrarian anti-science propaganda his masters fed him together with all the soi and interracial cuckold porn he consumes while stroking his mutilated cock.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:35:29 UTC No. 16219105

>>16219098
>accusing me of being brainwashed by kikes all the while you defend kike pseudoscience
The fucking irony.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:39:41 UTC No. 16219167

>>16219105
>the mathematical-physical framework developed by Lorentz and Poincare based on consequences of Maxwell's equations must be le wrong because ... uhm I don't like the name of the guy who got the credit for it
Peak brainrot

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:59:12 UTC No. 16220568

>>16219167
Nice ad hominem faggot. Special relativity is a hoax.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:21:00 UTC No. 16220627

>>16220568
Then Maxwell's equations are a hoax, too. Because SR is directly derived from Maxwell's equations. Which of the equations have you disproved? Oh wait, none. Because you're too busy consuming your woke propaganda.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:22:33 UTC No. 16220629

>>16218865
Oh good, another poster who'd fit in perfectly in Berlin in 1938.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:51:02 UTC No. 16220696

>>16218895
A drop out is mad that he doesn't have the discipline to finish his studies and instead of striving towards self-improvement he instead makes brain rot conspiracy larp posts on here in order to convince himself that he's not the one at fault for his failures.

This is top tier cope

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 21:51:37 UTC No. 16220697

>>16220627
Nope I didnt say Maxwell's equations are a hoax. They do not indicate timefuckery.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:01:52 UTC No. 16220717

>my problem is with physics and education.
Exactly, study pure mathematics.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:04:36 UTC No. 16220720

>>16220717
based

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 22:14:21 UTC No. 16220735

>>16218895
What do you measure the backdrop of everything against if not relative to light?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 06:38:08 UTC No. 16221430

>>16220717
best answer in this thread

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:00:15 UTC No. 16221962

>>16220697
Yes they do

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:06:23 UTC No. 16221976

>>16218865
I like mathematics and physics, but I absolutely hate the modern mainstream scientific establishment and its views and beliefs on mathematics (i.e. treating 2+2=4 as gospel).

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:09:18 UTC No. 16221983

>>16218865
It seems you're just frustrated with professional human dynamics. Egos clashing, envy, politics, etc.
The lower down the rungs you are, the less you have to deal with that, and college physics is already pretty far high up there. There are many, arrogant, cocky researchers, you have to stay away from those as much as you can. Shit, they're on /sci/ right here! They are toxic, broken people. There are also nice people in the mix, but you have to find them.

Your fixation with relativity, I don't understand, it's not gospel, it's something that has been tested and verified many times over in many different ways. It's also not fully verified, and it is therefore a theory.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:26:47 UTC No. 16222027

>>16221983
>researchers
students too! they're already betting their future on that, so the competition already begins there.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:36:24 UTC No. 16222900

>>16220735
I could tell you, but you wouldn't like the answer.
>>16221983
You sound fairly reasonable. However, relativity has not been 'verified'; rather, some of its predictions have been verified.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:47:24 UTC No. 16223037

>>16222900
>i could tell you, but you wouldn't like the answer
Try me.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:24:14 UTC No. 16223263

>>16222900
dude:
>It's also not fully verified
>>16221983