Lightfuzz

[Lightfuzz]

Hi, I'm Lightfuzz (This could means something, I might post it here if I think it makes sense.) I'm from Sydney and I'm in Year 7. I'm interested in Science (mainly Physics and Maths) and my main goal here for now is try to get advice with the order of learning in Physics and Maths. You see, I learned polynomial algebra on Christmas last year and now in January I learned calculus without any experience on Trigonometry before (and I still don't really know my geometry). I read A Brief History of Time and learned relativity and quantum mechanics before I learned classical physics (I'm still learning). Now I realise the problem: I'm good at nothing. So I desperately need help from you guys, please.

[Moontanman]

Welcome fuzz, I am sure you will find some direction here. please do not concentrate too hard on being very good at one thing. I think one of the flaws of modern knowledge is the tendency for people to arrive at a pinnacle of knowledge about one subject but know very little about anything else. This causes many problems both from the individuals perspective and for science in general. Welcome lightfuzz, join in and have fun.

[pamela]

hello lightfuzz,

hmmmn you say that you are good at nothing....is it possible to be bad at nothing? and what exactly is nothing? ...no thing.....well as i see it you are pretty darn good at something because you have made me ponder nothing for 10 minutes and that dear lightfuzz is a really good something:)

welcome!!

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Lightfuzz! :hihi:

 

Curious choice of name – want to explain it, or leave it for us to guess at?

You see, I learned polynomial algebra on Christmas last year and now in January I learned calculus without any experience on Trigonometry before (and I still don't really know my geometry).

You experience is a bit like mine, with the dramatic difference that my 7th year of school was in 1972-73, about a decade before the birth of what could be compared to the present day internet, so much of the math I learned was from people (occasionally even teachers) and stumbling upon such things as trig tables included in model rocket accessory kits. For a few hours, before talking to a classmate who’d had it, I actually believe I’d personally discovered differential calculus, and was destine for mathematical fame and celebrity!

I read A Brief History of Time and learned relativity and quantum mechanics before I learned classical physics (I'm still learning).

That’s not a bad approach, as, as I suspect you’ve already learned, classical physics is merely a collection of empirical laws approximated and arising statistically from relativistic and quantum mechanics. Classical physics is also small, in the sense that it’s fundamental definitions take up very few lines of symbols, with all the rest derivable from them.

Now I realise the problem: I'm good at nothing. So I desperately need help from you guys, please.

Using physics to explain and predict phenomena is much of what goes on at hypography, and arguably (if you ignore the philosophical side of it) what constitutes physics being good for anything. Hang out here enough, and I suspect you’ll begin to feel pretty handy yourself before too long. :eek_big:

[Lightfuzz]

Welcome fuzz, I am sure you will find some direction here. please do not concentrate too hard on being very good at one thing. I think one of the flaws of modern knowledge is the tendency for people to arrive at a pinnacle of knowledge about one subject but know very little about anything else. This causes many problems both from the individuals perspective and for science in general. Welcome lightfuzz, join in and have fun.

 

I think you do have a point there but please expand on your point. I might get a go at biology some days.

 

hello lightfuzz,

hmmmn you say that you are good at nothing....is it possible to be bad at nothing? and what exactly is nothing? ...no thing.....well as i see it you are pretty darn good at something because you have made me ponder nothing for 10 minutes and that dear lightfuzz is a really good something:)

welcome!!

 

Well, maybe I did exaggerate this but I'm not good at anything (Actually, I can cope with things in my level very well, but I'm aiming to self-teach myself).

 

Welcome to hypography, Lightfuzz! :naughty:

 

Curious choice of name – want to explain it, or leave it for us to guess at?

You experience is a bit like mine, with the dramatic difference that my 7th year of school was in 1972-73, about a decade before the birth of what could be compared to the present day internet, so much of the math I learned was from people (occasionally even teachers) and stumbling upon such things as trig tables included in model rocket accessory kits. For a few hours, before talking to a classmate who’d had it, I actually believe I’d personally discovered differential calculus, and was destine for mathematical fame and celebrity!

 

That’s not a bad approach, as, as I suspect you’ve already learned, classical physics is merely a collection of empirical laws approximated and arising statistically from relativistic and quantum mechanics. Classical physics is also small, in the sense that it’s fundamental definitions take up very few lines of symbols, with all the rest derivable from them.

Using physics to explain and predict phenomena is much of what goes on at hypography, and arguably (if you ignore the philosophical side of it) what constitutes physics being good for anything. Hang out here enough, and I suspect you’ll begin to feel pretty handy yourself before too long. :steering:

 

Mathematical fame and celebrity? I think I had an experience like that once but I'll probably never face actual fame.

 

Classical physics is easier than relativity or quantum mechanics because for instance you need tensors in Einstein's field equations (something I haven't learnt yet). That's why I want to build up my skill with order.

 

So would my questions go in physics and maths? Sorry about my quoting but I don't really get it yet.