It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Secret Of Gravity Revealed - Scientific Experiment Included

page: 23
52
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Allisone; I know you think your explanation of your theories should stand on their own, but a demonstration would be much more convincing, especially for those of us who are new to this field. A large levitating block of stone would be an awesome demonstration of your theory.


A demonstration would not help explain my theory, it would only help you believe me. That is not my goal.

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for 0ne day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."


Originally posted by Sparky63
I am having a difficult time grasping the fundamental difference between the magnetism produced by electromagnetic particles that is commonly referred to as gravity but does not produce a discernable magnetic field & the magnetism produced by a large number of elementary particles that does produce such a field.


The problem is, those elementary particles are NOT producing a field. They are only holding the field.

There is no real difference between metal and plastic. They are both made of electromagnetic electrons and protons. The only reason they seem different is because of how those electrons and protons are arranged to create the atoms. The atoms are also arranged differently to create different electromagnetic effects. In the end, they are both made of the same substance, just arranged in a different way. Much like there is not much difference between a cd player, and a dvd player. The only difference is how the electronics are arranged.

An analogy: Lego building blocks. I can create many different objects with Lego building blocks, and even objects that do different things, but in the end they are all still Legos.

Another analogy: Get a million different size and shape random super magnets. Grab a hand full of magnets and clump them together into 0ne object, and set it aside. Now, get another handful of magnets and make another clump. Technically, you have two different "elements". 0ne clump will act differently then the other clump. One clump will be stronger then the other. One clump will attract or repel more than the other. One clump will be stronger or weaker than the other. But in the end, both clumps are made of the same thing. In the end, just like gravity, both clumps of magnets (mass) will be attracted to each other.


Originally posted by Sparky63
If the earth is constantly being magnetized by the sun and as a result has a magnetic field, what keeps Venus from producing such a field?


Heat. I just posted a link from NASA in 0ne of my last posts that explains how NASA thinks heat is the reason Venus' magnetic field is weaker than Earths. Which is plausible because Venus is closer to the Sun.

Also, really early in this thread, I was talking about how heat "weakens" magnetic force. I was also talking about the "curie point".



Ask yourself this question:

Why, when you heat metal, is it more easy to shape and mold? Then why, when it cools down, does it hold the position? Remember, metal is made of electromagnetic particles.


Originally posted by Sparky63
What causes the leap from one type of magnetism, commonly called gravity, and the other type of magnetism that produces the familiar magnetic field?


The type of particles (size, strength, amount), and the places where the particles flow, and how they flow (direction, shape of flow, speed of flow), all make these "different" effects that are observed.

The only reason anyone thinks magnetism and gravity are different is because of what they "see" with their eyes, and what they "observe". It's almost like seeing someone with makeup, and a costume, and actually believing it is a different person.


-edit typos and video link-

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Wow, flame on! The fact that you reply to my input with insults tells me that your own theory is weak and doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And if you think I've repeated what others have posted in this thread, then shouldn't you stop and think that perhaps it is true? After reading your tyrant twisted gibberish I can tell that you really don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. Where did you say you got your physics degree?

And about the black hole: Of course THAT would fail. You're looking at volume. Did you not stop to think about how a magnet can defeat the pull of the Earth? How can I use a 1x1x1 inch magnet to pick up a bolt off of the table if Earth's (Mass = 5.9736x10 to the 24th KG) gravity is stronger? Gravity IS weak

Now, take a look at the answer you supplied concerning the question about doing the experiment on the other side of the planet. If the other end dips down doesn't that tell you that the magnet is trying to point to the true pole? Considering that the surface of the earth is curved, the fact that it dips down towards the TRUE magnetic pole (through the curve of the Earth) tells me that the metal rod is acting on magnetism, not gravity.

You can argue the point until the end of time, you'd still be wrong. Gravity is not magnetism. They are two very different forces.

Ok, you say I didn't do a very good job of explaining what magnetism is. I'll try to phrase it a different way. Every atom has a small magnetic field around it due to the electrons travelling along their valence bands. In other words, it is a form of energy that is associated with electron flow. This is why we see magnetic lines of flux coming off of wires with an electrical current running through them. So, basically you could call it a field of energy. The reason why having all of the atoms aligned with each other is important is because their fields will have an additive effect, making the over all field stronger. (also see Law of induction: en.wikipedia.org...)

So, your spunge/plastic cube scenario can go bye-bye because the only particle involved with magnetism is the electron. The field itself is not constructed out of particles.

Now, back to gravity for just a moment. Did you really just say that "mass is electromagnetic"? As I just described above, DUH. All atoms have an electromagnetic field. However, not all mass reacts to an electromagnetic field. For example, can you pick up a stick with an electrical magnet? Nope, sure can't. But you can pick up a nail. Just by observation alone we can see that gravity is having more of an effect on the stick than the magnet did. Thus, it stands to say we can separate the two forces into two different definitions.

As far as the 2d space thing is concerned I'm not going to bother trying to explain that one to you. It still confuses me when I try to figure it out, so I'm certain you wouldn't stand a chance when trying to fathom such a concept. Just take my word for it.



What you explain is called "quantum entanglement". It's like a more efficient and smaller scale "wireless transmission" that works off of resonant particles, much like radios work of of resonant circuits.

All I can say about this is HAHAHAHAAAHAAAHAAAA ! You don't have the first clue here. You think it works off of resonant particles! Wow, good luck with that.

Good luck proving your little theory. You're going to need all the luck you can get.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Promecus]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Wow, flame on! The fact that you reply to my input with insults tells me that your own theory is weak and doesn't have a leg to stand on.


INSULTS????


I NEVER INSULTED YOU! What on Earth are you talking about??


Can you please quote my "insult"??


[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
After reading this thread i got to thinking about heat affecting the magnetism of objects, And in the case of water and air then clearly hot water rises through cold water and similarly hot air rises through cold air.

So that coincides with your theory.

However surely if your theory is correct then if you were to dangle a piece of metal by a chain attached to some scales, Then if you were to heat the metal with a blowtorch.....So if your theory were correct would you not expect the metal to weigh less the hotter it got ?

Has anyone experimented with this as it sounds too easy to prove or disprove this theory.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
And if you think I've repeated what others have posted in this thread, then shouldn't you stop and think that perhaps it is true?


No, but I definitely stop to think that you were spoon fed knowledge, and that knowledge is all you have.


Originally posted by Promecus
After reading your tyrant twisted gibberish I can tell that you really don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about. Where did you say you got your physics degree?


Now, this is REAL insult.


Originally posted by Promecus
And about the black hole: Of course THAT would fail. You're looking at volume.


Yes, I know I am looking at volume. You should look at volume too.


Originally posted by Promecus
Did you not stop to think about how a magnet can defeat the pull of the Earth?


Yes, have you not stopped to think that? Listen to yourself, you said "a magnet can defeat the pull of Earth". Wow, anti-gravity right?


Originally posted by Promecus
How can I use a 1x1x1 inch magnet to pick up a bolt off of the table if Earth's (Mass = 5.9736x10 to the 24th KG) gravity is stronger? Gravity IS weak


Volume per square inch! A 1x1x1 magnet has more magnetic force per square inch then the Earth does. Although the Earth's mass is so large, its magnetic attraction is spread out over a larger area per square inch. A small magnet has more "lines of force" in a smaller area. The Earth has less "lines of force" in a smaller area. But, in total, the Earth is a much stronger magnet then the 1x1x1 magnet, simply because if you added all the lines of force together on Earth, it would equal more.

It's like comparing rain, to a bathroom shower. Rain will usually have less water per square inch, compared to a shower which will have more water per square inch. But if you added all the rain in the entire area, it would be more water. Do you get that?


Originally posted by Promecus
Now, take a look at the answer you supplied concerning the question about doing the experiment on the other side of the planet. If the other end dips down doesn't that tell you that the magnet is trying to point to the true pole? Considering that the surface of the earth is curved, the fact that it dips down towards the TRUE magnetic pole (through the curve of the Earth) tells me that the metal rod is acting on magnetism, not gravity.


If the North pole points down in the North Hemisphere, and the South pole points down in the South Hemisphere, yes, that means the rod is acting on magnetism. That is not the point I was trying to make with the original experiment.

When you tie a string to the middle of an object to make the weight of the object balanced, that means "gravity" is pulling equally on the object. Then, when you introduce a magnetic field, the object becomes unbalanced, which means magnetic force is changing how "gravity" is pulling the object. It's proof that magnetic force can be used as "anti-gravity".


Originally posted by Promecus
Ok, you say I didn't do a very good job of explaining what magnetism is. I'll try to phrase it a different way. Every atom has a small magnetic field around it due to the electrons travelling along their valence bands.


You said it yourself, every atom has a small magnetic field around it due to the electrons travelling along their valence bands. Did you know that every object is made of atoms? That means, every object is technically "magnetic".



Originally posted by Promecus
In other words, it is a form of energy that is associated with electron flow.


A "form of energy", yes you are correct. Well what is ENERGY?? Did you know energy is electromagnetic?? Did you know electrons are electromagnetic? Did you what happened when you move magnets? They make electricity. So when you move electrons, you create electricity, because electrons are mini-magnets.


Originally posted by Promecus
This is why we see magnetic lines of flux coming off of wires with an electrical current running through them.


Yes, because electrons are magnets.


Originally posted by Promecus
So, basically you could call it a field of energy.


Energy is electromagnetic.



Originally posted by Promecus
The reason why having all of the atoms aligned with each other is important is because their fields will have an additive effect, making the over all field stronger. (also see Law of induction: en.wikipedia.org...)


Just for clarification, I have read everything you are telling me before. I know everything that you will say about current day "gravity" and "physics". I have already stated earlier in this thread, which you admitted to NOT reading fully, that I am not trying to match your theory with mine, I am explaining how Ed Leedskalnin accomplished what he did, which goes against current day theory.


Originally posted by Promecus
So, your spunge/plastic cube scenario can go bye-bye because the only particle involved with magnetism is the electron. The field itself is not constructed out of particles.


No, I can prove to you with experiments that magnetism is the interaction of 2 particles, not just 0ne. Magnetism is NOT just "electrons", it is actually 2 particles. Ed Leedskalnin has experiments that prove this. I wish you would have read his writings, because he explains plenty of experiments that go against current theory.

0ne of the experiments shows that when you run electricity through a wire, and hang two magnets from the wire (one with north down, the other with south down), that 0ne magnet will swing 0ne direction, and the other magnet will swing the other direction. According to the laws of kinetic energy, and magnetism, this proves that there is TWO forces at work here which are TWO different particles. This is 0ne of the experiments Ed explains.


Originally posted by Promecus
Now, back to gravity for just a moment. Did you really just say that "mass is electromagnetic"? As I just described above, DUH. All atoms have an electromagnetic field. However, not all mass reacts to an electromagnetic field. For example, can you pick up a stick with an electrical magnet? Nope, sure can't. But you can pick up a nail.


Yes I did just say "mass is electromagnetic" DUH! My entire thread has been based around that fact. But of course, you admitted yourself that you didn't read the entire thread.

Did you just say "Not all mass reacts to an electromagnetic field"?


Well you are wrong! Have you ever herd of permeabiltiy?
en.wikipedia.org...(electromagnetism)

Everything has a permeability! Even wood! I even supplied a link, EARLYER IN THIS THREAD, that shows how to raise the permeability of wood.


Originally posted by Promecus
As far as the 2d space thing is concerned I'm not going to bother trying to explain that one to you. It still confuses me when I try to figure it out, so I'm certain you wouldn't stand a chance when trying to fathom such a concept. Just take my word for it.


Now you insulted my intelligence. Because YOU don't understand something, you think I can't? I fully understand the 2D space ANAOLGY, but there are MANY things with that analogy that don't add up. Like the size of objects effecting the "bend of space/time", more then the "mass" effects it. Of course, if you don't understand the 2D analogy like you claim, why should I waste my time even talking to you?

I understand relativity, I don't understand why people believe in it when it is so flawed.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
-continued-


Originally posted by Promecus
All I can say about this is ROTFLMAO ! You don't have the first clue here. You think it works off of resonant particles! Wow, good luck with that.


Does that mean you don't know how to disprove me? Instead you just laugh, and you don't have any supporting arguments?

Do you know anything about tuning forks? When you have two tuning forks that were created exactly the same way, same shape, same size, same metal, and then you vibrate one of them and put it next to the other, both will vibrate? Do you understand how antenna + coils work with wireless radio transmission? Do you understand that the length of coil and antenna (mass) has to be the same in order to tune into the same station? Both objects have to have the same "resonance".

Do you know I am an electrical engineer?


Originally posted by Promecus
Good luck proving your little theory. You're going to need all the luck you can get.


Let me ask you something, if you knew how to levitate a 30 ton block with magnetism/electricity, how would you explain it with the current theory of gravity?



[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


You're right, I DON"T BELIEVE YOU !!

Put up or shut up, kid! You've been blathering on about this for months now.
Show us your levitated 30 ton block of rock, NOW!! Piss, or get off the pot.
Back up your claims, the verbal diarrhoea tactic doesn't work.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Again I ask, where is your degree? Mine is sitting right here in my bookshelf. It may not be in physics, but to get that degree I did have to study a few quantum principles (electronic engineering)

Ok, I'll explain this one last time...even though I truly hate to repeat myself.

1. Go get a magnet. Any magnet. It could be an electrical magnet or a perminant magnet. Doesn't matter.
2. Walk outside.
3. Find a stick.
4. Pick up said stick with the magnetic force.

- Awww, what happened. It didn't work. Wanna know why?
A) Sticks aren't permiable. Magnetism won't work on them.

Now, riddle me this. If magnetism doesn't work on a stick then what is holding it on the ground? Oh my god! Could it be....gravity?


Next phase of this little easy to do at home test.
1. Go find an iron nail.
2. Use your magnet to pick up said nail.

- Wow, it works. Wanna know why?
A) Iron nails are permiable and the magnetic strength of your little magnet is trouncing the strength of Earth's gravitational pull.

Also, yes you are correct and that I'm NOT reading everything you post. To do so would be a waste of time. My brain does not process gibberish.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
-Do you know I am an electrical engineer?


Originally posted by Promecus
Good luck proving your little theory. You're going to need all the luck you can get.


Let me ask you something, if you knew how to levitate a 30 ton block with magnetism/electricity, how would you explain it with the current theory of gravity?

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]


If you're really an EE then you should have KNOWN how magnetism works, what it was and what causes it.

I think you're pretty close to debunking yourself.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
After reading this thread i got to thinking about heat affecting the magnetism of objects, And in the case of water and air then clearly hot water rises through cold water and similarly hot air rises through cold air.

So that coincides with your theory.

However surely if your theory is correct then if you were to dangle a piece of metal by a chain attached to some scales, Then if you were to heat the metal with a blowtorch.....So if your theory were correct would you not expect the metal to weigh less the hotter it got ?

Has anyone experimented with this as it sounds too easy to prove or disprove this theory.


Yes, water, when heated, it's molecules separate making less mass per square inch. Same with air, when heated, it's molecules separate making less mass per square inch. With metal, when heated, metal expands making less mass per square inch.

Also, yes, if you hung a piece of metal, and you heated it up to its curie point, you will see a massive change in weight simply because Earths magnetic field is no longer helping pull it down. However, since the metal didn't lose any mass (electromagnetic electrons and protons) it will still be attracted to gravity the same amount, because it still has the same amount of electrons and protons.

When you pump something full of electrons, it has a "negative static charge". When you remove the extra electrons, it has a "positive static charge". However, you can NEVER fully remove ALL the electrons from an object. That means it will always have a "static attraction/repulsion" to the Earth, which is a giant statically charged object itself.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Yes, water, when heated, it's molecules separate making less mass per square inch. Same with air, when heated, it's molecules separate making less mass per square inch. With metal, when heated, metal expands making less mass per square inch.

Actually, if I may expand on this a bit for clarity reasons, by adding heat energy to water or air you excite the molecules. As a result the expansion you see is the increased movement of those molecules. But their relative mass remains the same. IE: Number of molecules at 70 degrees = number of molecules at 120 degrees. So, yes, you do get less mass per square inch (if you really want to use such a measurement style) but that does not mean less mass in general.


When you pump something full of electrons, it has a "negative static charge". When you remove the extra electrons, it has a "positive static charge". However, you can NEVER fully remove ALL the electrons from an object.

Wow, you got one right! Good job.

The reason why this may sound like the opposite to most people is because, back in the day, electronics were calculated using the Hole Flow method. It wasn't until a little later that we realized it was a hole we saw moving instead of the electron. I guess by then the mathematics involved were so sound we just never bothered to changed them to be more intuitive. But that's just a guess on my part.


That means it will always have a "static attraction/repulsion" to the Earth, which is a giant statically charged object itself.

That part sounds a bit like a conjecture to me. I don't believe those atoms will go rushing over great distances to find an electron that it needs. Instead, it will look for the closest electron of a similar type of atom or wait for a free electron to come wandering by. This is why FR4 works great for circuit boards because it's atom is much different than that of CU (copper for those of ya'll not familiar with that metal's elemental abrv.) But the atom itself will move very little.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Promecus]
fixing typos. Hey, I'm a tech not an English major...


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Promecus]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Yes, well, in a short while I figured I would just release 0ne actual method for levitating a 30 ton rock. Ok? Be back soon...


Hi ALLisONE

I have been away. Thought deeply about your theory.

IT makes sense!

Seems ATS is a place where many just like the "arguement factor" instead of discussing and exploring theory!

Everything is electomagnetic absolutely ...UNDENIABLE!

Therefore everything has electric charge ! CORRECT!!

I see you are enjoying the ignorance of some wannabes LOL!

But it is time... shirley!?????

What is your theory as to how Ed levitated massive blocks (30tons is your favourite)

Come one do you want me to U2U? or are you willing to put out!

The spinning top ... and the more mass= more charge .....now makes perfect sense to me!!!!!

Are you suggesting that there is a electromagnetic resonnance factor for every object which when coupled with overhanging equal resonnance they will bind by magnetic attraction?

Cheers
Has2b

PS Seriously if you prefer a U2U just EDIT: U2U me please!



[edit on 17-7-2008 by Has2b]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Well, I tried to tell you what the truth is. Your experiment is cute, but I believe you are miss-reading the outcome.

www.thebigview.com...

Gravity is not a force like magnetism is. You cannot simply state that they are the same simply because their effects are similar.

Case closed.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


I will tell you, when someone says "Case closed", it most certainly isn't.


I think it is well known that GR is flawed, and in need of replacing. I also think it is well known that there are several models out there that are recieving attention (superstring, supergravity, etc).

So what i will ask is for you to provide proof against the theory of the OP. It is not proof to insist that it is false just because it is cannot be true, and then state "case closed".

From where i stand, the OP has presented loads of information supporting his theory. You have presented mostly shallow insistance with little information.

Some light reading to help you understand why i am so skeptical of your viewpoint:

preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com...

www.cnn.com...

and my personal favorite (provided via Pegasus Research internal communications):

www.spaceandmotion.com...




Einstein's General Relativity requires a finite spherical universe (it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite).
Two problems;
a) What surrounds this finite spherical universe? (Einstein used his spherical ellipsoidal geometry of General Relativity to propose curved space - if you travel in any one direction you will curve around and eventually return to your starting point - subtle, clever, weird, wrong).
b) What stops finite spherical universe gravitationally collapsing (thus Einstein's Cosmological / Antigravity Constant).




I will tell you that my own research on Ning Li, Podkletnov, Wallace, Noevers, et al....i have noticed (as have they) an intrinsic connection between EM energy and gravitational effect. In particular, the Podkletnov/Li approach is astounding. The concept of "lattice ions" creating a gravitatonal/quasi-gravitational field is exciting, and meshes well with what Allis0ne is saying. If you want more info on that, u2u me and i will be happy to provide you volumes of reference.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Promecus
 


From where i stand, the OP has presented loads of information supporting his theory. You have presented mostly shallow insistance with little information.


It's not shallow if you actually read the documents that my URLs point to. They're pretty good links, you should read them.


Here is what I believe this experiment is really doing. The magnet is pointing towards true north, through the Earth. There is a reason why a compass needle is on a leveling pin.

A picture is worth 1K words.



Case closed. (haw!)



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I like the link to space and motion. Good stuff.

However, speaking of shallow, your other two links do very little except try to debunk Einstein himself. One is a news cast about how light is supposedly slowing down. The other is someone's public blog. The links I provided are a bit more than that. Most are true articles put online by actual people with an education.


[edit on 18-7-2008 by Promecus]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by Promecus]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


As i said, i have quite a bit of research into the "electrogravitic force". I don't see any u2u's from you, so i assume you don't want to see the "published papers" that i have. I was just trying to give you a glimpse into some of the topics that form my mindset. You brought up Einstein theory, i wanted to show you what many people actually thought about GR. Somewhere i have a link to several important pieces of dissent from Einsteins peers. If i can find it i will share.

BTW, that wasn't just "some news article". That was CNN. I could also give you BBC, if you would like.

Tell you what....

go here to see some of the research i have mentioned.

Much of what you have posted parrots your previous posts. Those have been contended, and you should not rely on restating a rehash as a defense. I have read them.


I would also point out that the primary point of the OP has yet to be addressed: all things are made of EM quantum particles, and are thus EM in nature.



[edit on 18-7-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Promecus]
fixing typos. Hey, I'm a tech not an English major...



It would seem to me by your posts that you need to fix your 'typos' as a tech as much as in English



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
Here is what I believe this experiment is really doing. The magnet is pointing towards true north, through the Earth. There is a reason why a compass needle is on a leveling pin.

A picture is worth 1K words.



Case closed. (haw!)


Promecus, what you are trying to describe, but failing, is called "magnetic declination". Supposedly the "lines of force" from Earth are making it tilt downward, because the lines are curved. If you would have read the whole thread you would know we already talking about it, and I already gave an examle of why it is not 100% true.

If you actually did the experiment too, you will see that the needle has a downward tilt even when it is not pointing to one of Earth poles. What this means is, no matter what direction the needles is pointing, there will always be a tilt. Even if the needle is forced to point East and West, there will be an angle on the needle.

This proves that it is not magnetic declination.



[edit on 18-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Promecus,

I'm not here to defend ALLis0NE nor is this something against you personally either.

But, even though you might take pride in your EE degree and what you know and are really good at it, I personally knew EEs who did not know how to change a power outlet on the wall, or a light bulb socket.

Granted, you might say that changing power outlets might not be really something EEs do (or is it?). Never the less, it means to me that with all the knowledge and their EE degree these people were incapable to apply it to a real life situation and screw two or three wires to a piece of plastic.

I personally believe that simple things like this should not be beyond the reach of EEs, when other non-EE people know how to do them. Therefore, having an EE degree is not an indication of one's knowledge but only of their status in the society...

Just my 2c.




top topics



 
52
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join