2000 more teachers

[Winston001]

Whats in lightning? Or light bulbs? Or a warm element on the stove?

They are easier to spot than you think. Just the same as air is. You just need the right medium.

Actually Av, gotta go with Bandit on this.

In the macro world we can only observe the actions of electrons when they release energy and that takes the form of photons.

Or work such as when an electric motor spins.

The light from a bulb and a hot element is comprised of excited photons but not electrons.

Purely as a matter of interest, the ghost images (floaters) we see when our eyes are closed are electron releases but we still can't see electrons. Bastards.

On the quantum level its more complicated and just amazes me. Why the heck should photons decide to appear in low energy radio waves or high energy gamma rays? Its nuts.

[avgas]

Lightning - we see the light, not the electrons. Same with light bulbs. WE see the glow on the stove or feel the heat - we do not see electrons.

In the words of Morpheus - you think that is air you are breathing?

In ALL things we only see, feel, smell...the effect of things. Not the actual thing. So yes you are seeing light - as an indications of electrons. But they are a very specific spectrum of light (so much so you can differentiate a bolt of lightning from a Forrest fire or the sun). So yes you can see electrons the same way as you can see X-rays, heat, sound and other things. By their interactions with an environment.

So what is light? What are things made up of? What is in-between those things?
If you answer those 3 questions you can see an electron. Honest.

This might sound a bit chicken-and-egg. But there are very specific reasons why we use these mediums to "see electrons". The number one being something Mandelbrot touched on while drawing maps.

You also forgot the second part about lightning - it makes a sound. Ever wonder why? Its the same reason why you can hear a flickering light-bulb or an arc welder.

[avgas]

In the macro world we can only observe the actions of electrons when they release energy and that takes the form of photons.

This is common for lots of things. Doesn't mean we can't see them, means we unable to process what we are seeing.
As mentioned in another post - if we need to see something, and it is not visible - we simple make is visible.

I guess I am being semantic here - but seeing vs visible are 2 different things.
I can see actions from effect, but the action may not be visible to me.

See has 2 meaning - one is something you can visualize, the other is when you have processed and deduced (mentally).
Don't believe me - look it up. It's science 101.

"I can see where they got that idea from"
Doesn't mean you have the idea written out in front of you.

I can't see electrons means that you are blocking them mentally from your thought process - i.e. its voodoo.

[Akzle]

the school of kb.

Would make for an excellent next generation.

[The Pastor]

Half truth. There is a problem with society when a parent does their best to put their kids through school but it unable to help to their potential.

Then there is the other side - the parents who don't give a fuck. Who in all honesty should just lose their kids and their rights to have kids.

But its hard to paint parents with the same brush when the texture of society is so poorly maintained.

The thing with national standards (talking primary here) is that it is an average. That means 50% of the students will (and should) fail it. For your kid to be above standard the parent has to extend learning in the home time, as they have to put in more effort than the rest of the class to get 'on track'.

I think only about 5% of parents actually do any type of at home learning with their kids,

One of the suckiest things is when a kid is well below at the start of the year, and through good teaching, the kid gets excited and motivated and goes up 1, 2 or several levels, but his/her report card will still say "below standard". It crushes the under achivers and does not reward hard work and effort.

The national standard isnt a flat line, it is always going up, so if you are behind, you have to accelerate your leanring compared to the rest of the country. Eg if you are a level 1 and the class if level 5, you have to learn twice as fast as the class as by the time your at level 5, the class is level 10. This is almost impossible for low students, as there is a reason they are low, and its not because they are quick learning....

[Banditbandit]

In the words of Morpheus - you think that is air you are breathing?

In ALL things we only see, feel, smell...the effect of things. Not the actual thing.

Oh .. OK .. let's do philosophy of knowledge then ...

How do we know we can rely on our senses? They can easily be deceived ... people who have lost limbs get phantom pains in that area - they feel pains in a foot that has been lost, in arms, in legs .. if you can feel something that is there and feel it when it is not there, which one is real? We can deceive our senses with drugs, with many things ..

How do we know the world around us is "real"? We don't ...

This has been the position of sceptical philosophers since Pyrrho of Elis, who was a contemporary of Aristotle, and remains in the philosophies of contemporary skeptics such as Feyerabend ..

Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" was exactly that - the only thing we experience directly and can truly know is our own mind. Everything else is received through the senses, which can be deceived and therefore unreliable.


And we are only seeing the effects of something - that we believe to be electrons - a re4asonable assumption .. however, we can not directly see electrons, even with all our flash technology ...

So back to my point .. If there's a leak in your electrical system on the bike, there's no pool of electrons under the engine ... you can't see them running out of the wires ... you can't see an electron stain on the frame ..

I can't see electrons means that you are blocking them mentally from your thought process - i.e. its voodoo.

Not what I meant at all .. I meant the empirical "see" as in visually see them, not mentally get the concept.

[buggerit]

So back to my point .. If there's a leak in your electrical system on the bike, there's no pool of electrons under the engine ... you can't see them running out of the wires ... you can't see an electron stain on the frame ..



.

Try it with 24v, you will def see an electron stain on the frame

[mansell]

Oh .. OK .. let's do philosophy of knowledge then ...

How do we know we can rely on our senses? They can easily be deceived ... people who have lost limbs get phantom pains in that area - they feel pains in a foot that has been lost, in arms, in legs .. if you can feel something that is there and feel it when it is not there, which one is real? We can deceive our senses with drugs, with many things ..

How do we know the world around us is "real"? We don't ...

This has been the position of sceptical philosophers since Pyrrho of Elis, who was a contemporary of Aristotle, and remains in the philosophies of contemporary skeptics such as Feyerabend ..

Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" was exactly that - the only thing we experience directly and can truly know is our own mind. Everything else is received through the senses, which can be deceived and therefore unreliable.


And we are only seeing the effects of something - that we believe to be electrons - a re4asonable assumption .. however, we can not directly see electrons, even with all our flash technology ...

So back to my point .. If there's a leak in your electrical system on the bike, there's no pool of electrons under the engine ... you can't see them running out of the wires ... you can't see an electron stain on the frame ..



Not what I meant at all .. I meant the empirical "see" as in visually see them, not mentally get the concept.

Time for a bit of a reality check here, the electron is smaller than the wavelength of visible light which means we wouldn't be able to see them anyway.

But back to the topic, we need more teachers in the class room teaching our children. I have read all the rhetoric about class size not mattering, written of cause by academics who have never had to deal with a class of 30+ teenage boys, with about 20% disengaged (for what ever reason) who demand more time and effort from the teacher distracting him (or her) from the disadvantaged students who do want to learn. Class numbers is a no brainer, the smaller the class size the better the teaching experience.

[bluninja]

Oh .. OK .. show me pictures of a few of them then.

Lightning - we see the light, not the electrons. Same with light bulbs. WE see the glow on the stove or feel the heat - we do not see electrons.



I have the luxury of teaching at tertiary level - no parents involved.

So none of your students are parents????

[bogan]

however, we can not directly see electrons, even with all our flash technology ...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...ing-a-nucleus/

next...

[Banditbandit]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011...ing-a-nucleus/

next...

Still no .. that's "the electron pathways, presented as darker gray bands in the other two images at center and upper left." That shows an effect, not the electron

[Banditbandit]

Class numbers is a no brainer, the smaller the class size the better the teaching experience.

No - I once has a class of three people. with a 66% absenteeism rate ... not a good experience for me or the students. That's just too small ..

[bogan]

Still no .. that's "the electron pathways, presented as darker gray bands in the other two images at center and upper left." That shows an effect, not the electron

No it shows the electron's path; it is the electron itself in multiple positions. Like those time-lapse photos of brake lights; photo is still of brake lights.

Anyway, it seem you're going all hipster philosophical to try and sound smart. This is why philosophical discussions should start with a disclaimer. Maybe something like "I'm a pretentious twat who craves to assert my superiority by using misunderstandings in the english language"

[Banditbandit]

Maybe something like "I'm a pretentious twat who craves to assert my superiority by using misunderstandings in the english language"

.. yeah, I'd have to put up my hand for that .. sorry, but it goes with being an academic ... (fuck me, you should see some of the pretentious twats I work with)

[Oscar]

Maybe something like "I'm a pretentious twat who craves to assert my superiority by using misunderstandings in the english language"

The pretentious twat is however slightly preferable to the attitude that spelling and grammar aren’t important.
Basically, making excuses for a failing in either skill makes you look stupid.
But not as stupid as actually failing in either discipline.

You’re essentially telling the world that you are too stupid to load a spell check, and you don’t care that your message may not be understood.

This is not a dig at you by the way, and not that related to your comment, I'm just tired of looking at some of the more illiterate posts here and this seemed like a good thread to vent in...