[paul cotter]

That is precisely why I used such an example. This being a science forum we are interested in science, not philosophy. Water will affect fire but that does not mean they are related, one being a material and the other a combustion phenomenon. Similarly gravity affects em radiation but they are NOT related.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I dedicated this thread for non-technical discussion. If you are interested in further discussion on technical issues, let's do it in the original thread, by following the link below.

That is precisely why I used such an example. This being a science forum we are interested in science, not philosophy. Water will affect fire but that does not mean they are related, one being a material and the other a combustion phenomenon. Similarly gravity affects em radiation but they are NOT related.

I bring the discussion from my other thread, so we can go deeper on technical issues.
How do you explain positive result in my electrodynamic balance experiments?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I asked Gemini about an interesting quote.

This quote, "Everyone knew it was impossible, until a fool who didn't know came along and did it," is often mistakenly attributed to Albert Einstein. There's no evidence he actually said it [Quote Investigator].

The saying likely originated anonymously and has been circulating for some time.

[paul cotter]

I do not claim to be an expert on em phenomena, I am sufficiently knowledgeable to have made a living from engineering but that is my limit. To seriously challenge standard theories one needs explicit and extensive understanding of the subject matter- I don't believe either of us is in that category.

[alancalverd]

The saying likely originated anonymously and has been circulating for some time.

Typical bullshit from a chatbot. Statements cannot originate anonymously (everyone has a name) but are often quoted as such.

To seriously challenge standard theories one need explicit and extensive understanding of the subject matter-

Or an interestingly anomalous discovery. HY claims to have made a few but so far his elegant experiments (I acknowledge practical genius) have all yielded to textbook explanations.

[paul cotter]

I stand corrected, thanks Alan.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Statements cannot originate anonymously (everyone has a name) but are often quoted as such.

But they can be published anonymously, especially when the author doesn't want his name to be associated with those statements, eg when they are considered controversial.

[alancalverd]

And your chatbot doesn't seem to know the difference between originating and publishing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If a statement isn't published (in broad sense, which simply means it's made to be known by the public), or it's kept in private, we won't be able to discuss it publicly.
In the age of generative AI, every possible arrangements of words to form a statement could be produced anytime somewhere in the internet. It may not be important anymore which AI model produced it first, or who's the person who noticed it first.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can get your knowledge from literature. You can collect a lot of condensed information with relatively low effort, based on experience of other people in the past. But this kind of knowledge is limited by their experience, and no new knowledge can be produced, other than what's already revealed by someone else. You also tend to follow their mistakes.

Alternatively, you can also get your knowledge from your own experience. It takes more effort to obtain useful information. You need to filter out noise from signal. You may need to produce your own instrumentation equipment, and it can cost significantly.

[alancalverd]

That's science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just like to share this useful information here.

Brain Hack: 6 secrets to learning faster, backed by neuroscience | Lila Landowski | TEDxHobart

Sharing the secrets to productive learning, backed by neuroscience. Dr Lila Landowski explains the methods which can be used to allow us to learn faster.  Dr Lila Landowski is a multi-award winning neuroscientist and lecturer that expertly arms people with an understanding of how their brain works, to help them make better choices in their lives. She is also a Director of the Australian Society for Medical Research, a Director of Epilepsy Tasmania, as well as a regular guest expert science communicator for the ABC. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Studying Physics Without Studying Physics - Can You Do It On Your Own?

You have to go to university to study physics. Or do you?
Is there any way to self-teach, to study physics without having to study physics?

Content:
0:00 Intro - Could you?
1:42 It?s crazy how much you could do
4:11 It?s important to understand you need others
7:25 Still, could you do it?

[alancalverd]

There's no need to attend a university to study physics, but I rather think you have to study physics to understand physics. 

Studying chemistry, for instance, might (should!) make you curious about some applications of physics but it won't help you calculate centrifugal force or magnetic fields. And I doubt whether time spent reading Shakespeare or Sanskrit texts would bring you any closer to understanding why the moon is where it is.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Most Cited Paper of the Decade ? Can We Learn from It?

?Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization? ? is one of the most highly cited papers ever published. Moreover, this paper was written in 2014 by two PhD students! Let?s see why it became so popular and if we can learn anything from it.

00:00 Incredible number of citations
02:37 Authors of the ?Adam? paper
04:40 What is Adam method?
05:26 Let?s check the paper!
10:10 Can we learn from it?
10:38 YES
12:26 NO
13:52 Other highly cited papers
14:49 ?Adam? is an unusual paper
16:02 Attitude to research
17:15 Other features

I haven't written any formal scientific paper for years, so I guess it's time to relearn it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I googled my name, and found my LinkedIn profile. I also found my Facebook page, which is mostly inactive.
I also looked for "hamdani yusuf lomba penelitian ilmiah remaja 1996", which returns some links to online libraries.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The book is a collection of scientific papers winning the Youth Scientific Research Competition 1996. I haven't read the physical book myself, even though I won the first place that year. Instead, I've already read some earlier editions from mid 80's to early 90's from a used bookstore near my school when I was still in junior high school. I guess it gave me a head start to prepare for the competition.
In 1995 I read an invitation to participate in the competition from the bulletin board in my high school, and decided to join in.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I've learned the hard way.

Why Facts Don't Change Minds

We often get into arguments with one another for millions of different reasons, but how often do we genuinely change the other persons mind? Most times, facts don't change minds. But if facts don't change minds, what does?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How to Change Someone?s Mind - 5 Rules to Follow

Are you searching for ways to change someone's mind to your way of thinking or methods to convince someone to your opinion? One of the things that we frequently try to do, but almost always fail is to change someone's opinion. We are so bad that, to a point, our relationships with our friends and family gets spoiled just because we are really bad at convincing the other person about our ideas and a opinions. In this video I am going to share with you how to change someone?s mind in a much easier way.
1) Never turn the conversation into an argument
2) Never say that you are wrong
3) Get the other person saying "Yes" as soon as possible
4) Let them talk a lot!
5) Let them think their idea is theirs

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mercier

Why do arguments change people?s minds in some cases and backfire in others? Hugo Mercier explains how arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.