Idea: Start a University

Colleges actually make more money collecting on tuition the longer they keep their students. While there are educational models which can compress an entire degree program into a day's worth of work (Competency based learning and Prior Learning Assessment), short term programs aren't nearly as profitable for the college as longer term programs.

So sending people pieces of paper in the mail with "Diploma from the University College of Bakelite, Alaska" is less profitable than running a fully tutored education program.

Makes sense to me. Where do I send the money?

It's part of the reason why Harvard makes more per annum than General Motors and why the University of Phoenix is a billion dollar business.

Of course it is. Is there any way to stop you posting drivel?

So sending people pieces of paper in the mail with "Diploma from the University College of Bakelite, Alaska" is less profitable than running a fully tutored education program.

Yes. It's the difference between selling hand-held TVs for a hundred a pop and selling large screen plasmas for five thousand a pop. The large screen plasma manufacturer will make more money in any given month.

The College of Bakelite would need a 50 billion dollar endowment to compete with Harvard. Harvard makes a lot more money convincing elderly people to include the dear old university in their wills than it does selling diplomas.  It mounsts up when they've been doing this for 300 years. Then there's mucho foundations to hit up for funds. Go where the money is fellas and it isn't in tuition from undergrads.

Tom.  Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the curriculum might look like?  Which FE model do you plan on teaching? 

Quote

So sending people pieces of paper in the mail with "Diploma from the University College of Bakelite, Alaska" is less profitable than running a fully tutored education program.

Yes. It's the difference between selling hand-held TVs for a hundred a pop and selling large screen plasmas for five thousand a pop. The large screen plasma manufacturer will make more money in any given month.

Prove this. You're talking absolute nonsense. You have nothing to back this up with, in a similar fashion to almost all of your posts.

That comment has nothing to do with this discussion, whatsoever, you know as well as the rest of us that this "University" is a stupid idea, it'll never happen, and even if it did, what sort of idiot is going to enroll?

If someone is intelligent enough to be able to think for themselves, and not take everything they are told as gospel, you honestly think they're going to want to pay you, of all people, for a pointless, worthless degree?

Tom.  Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the curriculum might look like?  Which FE model do you plan on teaching?  

The generally accepted model on this website will be taught.

The undergraduate level will exist as a lecture-based curriculum split up into several sections. Each sub-section will have reference links which they are expected to read and educate themselves with. At the end of each section will be a test to ensure that they grasp the material. The curriculum might look something like this:

Zeteticism: Explained and Defined
                  |
                  |---- Introduction by Rowbotham
                  |---- Dangers of Appeals to Authority (Cigarettes, Witches, Flouride, Cough Syrup, Etc.)
                  |---- Thinking outside the box (Why Square Wheels are better than Round Wheels)
                  |---- Role of Hypothesis in Modern Science (Astronomy is devoid of experimentation I.e Hawking's works)

Why the earth may be flat
                  |
                  |---- Experimental Evidence against Convexity
                  |---- Evidence of a Conspiracy

Form and Magnitude of the earth
                  |---- Origins of Round Earth Theory (Aristotle's Three Proofs)
                  |---- Eratosthenes
                  |---- Circumnavigation in the Middle Ages (On Magellan and the Columbus Myth)
                  |---- Form of the Earth (Layout, Plates)
                  |---- Atmosphere
                  |---- Form and Function of Antarctica
 
Cosmos and the Universe
                  |
                  |---- Parallax - How the shape of the earth can shrink the universe
                  |---- Particulars of the Sun
                  |---- Particulars of the Moon (Eclipses and Phases)
                  |---- Solar System (Planets and Retrograde)
                  |---- Stars, a background (Multiple Systems, Composition, Red Shift, Blue Shift)

Astrophysics
                  |---- Gravity, a background, its function in RET (Newton's Force, GR, Gravitons)
                  |---- Dark Matter, a glue to hold Gravity together (RET fallacy)
                  |---- Equivalence Principle - On the nature of acceleration and SR
                  |---- Introduction to Dark Energy

At the graduate level there is no set curriculum. Having grasped the material the student is now the scientist and must contribute something to the university in some way. The student must step out into the world around them for their research. Tests will be made, research conducted, and papers will be written on observable phenomena.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 08:40:32 PM

Quote

So sending people pieces of paper in the mail with "Diploma from the University College of Bakelite, Alaska" is less profitable than running a fully tutored education program.

Yes. It's the difference between selling hand-held TVs for a hundred a pop and selling large screen plasmas for five thousand a pop. The large screen plasma manufacturer will make more money in any given month.

Prove this. You're talking absolute nonsense. You have nothing to back this up with, in a similar fashion to almost all of your posts.

That comment has nothing to do with this discussion, whatsoever, you know as well as the rest of us that this "University" is a stupid idea, it'll never happen, and even if it did, what sort of idiot is going to enroll?

If someone is intelligent enough to be able to think for themselves, and not take everything they are told as gospel, you honestly think they're going to want to pay you, of all people, for a pointless, worthless degree?

There won't be any problem with a lack of students. At traditional colleges it's always the out-of-the-box and "fun" classes which are overflowing with students. For example, you can now get college credit for taking a course on "The Philosophy of The Simpsons" and "Superhero Science - How the powers work".

People are interested in Flat Earth Theory. And if the price is right, or very right, people will sign up for anything.

I have 2 questions for you then.

Can you firstly please explain why square wheels are better than round ones? As someone who competes in motorsport events, i'd be really intrigued to hear if there could be some benefit for me here.

And secondly, can you please explain, how you will explain to your class, perpetual sunlight, in the antarctic, in their summer, as i've never had a straight answer out of you yet, on the matter.

Square wheels are much better for riding along on a series of scallops. Everyone knows that.

That wasn't the question, nor the statement. Why are square wheels better than round ones?

Because if you're riding along on a series of scallops, the axle height would remain the same if one had had the foresight to install square wheels.

Mrs. Peach is correct. It's all about the form of the road.

If we significantly reworked the surface of our roads, turning them into a series of arcs, or "scallops", square wheels actually would be better for screeching to a halt in order to avoid a fatal accident.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040403/mathtrek.asp



Think of all the lives which could be saved when cars can stop on a dime instead of skidding 12 feet on the pavement when a child steps out into traffic.

Indeed, but you never mentioned anything about scalloped roads.

Also, one of the things i quite like about flat roads and round wheels is the ability to steer, to avoid a crash, instead of relying on my brakes, and hoping my wheels don't lock on this scalloped road, which would reduce my braking force to the friction of square wheels bouncing about on this scalloped, and very expensive road.

So once again, please explain why you think square wheels are a better idea?

I didn't say anything about the expense of the road, the unrealistic logistics of changing the roads, or the possibility of doing stunts to avoid hitting something.

I just said that scalloped roads would be better when screeching to a halt.

Indeed, but you never mentioned anything about scalloped roads.

Also, one of the things i quite like about flat roads and round wheels is the ability to steer, to avoid a crash, instead of relying on my brakes, and hoping my wheels don't lock on this scalloped road, which would reduce my braking force to the friction of square wheels bouncing about on this scalloped, and very expensive road.

So once again, please explain why you think square wheels are a better idea?

But that's the thing, you wouldn't be bouncing about.  Look at Tom's animation; the axle is not bouncing, therefore the chassis (and the driver) is not bouncing about.

No you didn't, all you said was

"Why Square Wheels are better than Round Wheels"

which they are not. You can only drive along on them perpendicular to the orientation to the scallops on the road, will result in a vastly more expensive system and won't really prevent any accidents, as even if you assume these "squeels" never lock up, which you can't, you would still have no way of avoiding said object as you would be unable to steer away from it.

So, once again i ask, why are square wheels better?

What you're really doing here, is taking what you're told, and believing it, as opposed to thinking about it for yourself, and realising the flaws. Which kinda goes against the whole point of this "University" doesn't it?

And Peach, you aren't paying enough attention. If you lock up round wheels, on a flat road, the car will slide fairly evenly, although the suspension will transmit some movement as the friction at the front wheels reduces and the dampers extend a bit, but if you were to lock the wheels on a square wheeled car, you're right up sh1t creek without a paddle. On the animation the wheels aren't locking, there isn't a large braking force being applied. It's a fairly pointless animation tbh.

The point of the proposal was to think of alternatives and to envisage something that was outside of ordinary experience.  It wasn't necessarily about square wheels and scalloped roads.  I learned something even if you did not.  That's sort of what we do here.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering. You think i've never seen this idea before?

We discussed it at length, and came to the conclusion that square wheels are not better than round wheels, for all the reasons i've detailed. That is what you do in a real university, a learning institution

It seems you have not learned anything. Just because it's different to the norm, doesn't make it better. It has been researched and has been shown not to be a better solution. You should apply this reasoning to your views in the shape of the earth. You'd find that just because flat is different, it is not automatically correct, and that if adequate research and discussion was carried out, you'd see it is in fact highly un-plausible.

Not sure if Zetetic education is for you, but you certainly need some sort of education.

The wheels can't "lock up" on scalloped roads.

And if you think that there's a problem with not turning, you're not thinking far enough out of the box.

Our trains don't turn left or right, and they have significant problems screeching to a halt when a track is bent or when the constructor sees something on the tracks. Many lives have been lost from train catastrophes. If railroads were scalloped, or better yet sawtoothed, the constructor could stop at the drop of a hat. That's an instance where the shape of the tracks could have saved countless lives lost in train accidents.

As far as regular roads go, they could operate the same way as train networks do. Transformable roads, switches, and forks. If it were choreographed with enough engineering, there would probably be less annoying traffic in cities.

... You think i've never seen this idea before?

I really didn't think the proposal was aimed at you personally and as my degree is in fine arts, I had no idea about a catenary curve.  So you're wrong, I did learn something.

The wheels can't "lock up" on scalloped roads.

Of course they can. What a stupid comment.

And stopping at the drop of a hat? Well, the wheels might stop, but what about the rest of a couple of hundred tonnes worth of train. You're not looking at the big picture, instead focusing on the little details, and still getting that wrong too.

Go and look up "momentum" and read a bit, oh, and of course, post less.

I see you edited your post to add more stupidity.

You think roads like that would be a good idea? Do you honestly believe that is a good idea? I didn't think it possible for my opinion of you to sink any lower, but you're doing a good job of persuading me here.
Aside from the obvious problems i have pointed out with the system, the cost, and obvious disruption to the entire road network would be immense. Actually, when i put it like that, i'm not surprised you think it's a good idea, given the mentality you display on here.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 02:53:38 AM

The wheels can't "lock up" on scalloped roads.

Of course they can. What a stupid comment.

And stopping at the drop of a hat? Well, the wheels might stop, but what about the rest of a couple of hundred tonnes worth of train. You're not looking at the big picture, instead focusing on the little details, and still getting that wrong too.

Go and look up "momentum" and read a bit, oh, and of course, post less.

On a sawtoothed road, if the wheels stop, the train stops. The train would need to plow through the sawteeth in order to stop. At that level I would suggest making the sawteeth out of Carbon Fiber. With Carbon Fiber wheels and tracks, it's possible for the tracks to resist hundreds of tons of force. That's why the main supporting beams in those skyscrapers designed to withstand full scale hurricanes are made from Carbon Fiber.

I see you edited your post to add more stupidity.

You think roads like that would be a good idea? Do you honestly believe that is a good idea? I didn't think it possible for my opinion of you to sink any lower, but you're doing a good job of persuading me here.
Aside from the obvious problems i have pointed out with the system, the cost, and obvious disruption to the entire road network would be immense. Actually, when i put it like that, i'm not surprised you think it's a good idea, given the mentality you display on here.

No. It's well known that if the traffic in cities was controlled by computers on a high level and not by people, traffic would be significantly less and almost non-existent. A train track-like road system with transformable roads, switches, and forks could exist.

Getting to the shopping mall in the next town over could be a work of art. If computers were controlling the road systems it might be possible to get there without stopping even once.

You have little to no idea what you are talking about, i suggest you stop talking now.

Comparing train tracks to sky scrapers? Irrelevant. With sawtoothed tracks and appropriate wheels, the wheels can still lock. the tooth on the cog/wheel, can lift out of the rack/track, and then you're well and truly f*cked. Of course that's assuming that this immense stopping firce, which according to you will not shear the teeth off the track or wheels, doesn't result in some other component in the braking/suspension/chassis shearing, causing catastrophic failure. Or is the whole train going to be build from CF?

A friend of mine took his rally car out on a particularly wet day, and hit a puddle and sooked up a load of water into the engine. Naturally the engine stopped rotating instantly, water doesn't compress in the way that air/fuel mixture does.

This caused  the crank pulley to sieze, instantly. It is a toothed pulley, i.e. one of your wheels. And the timing belt, is remarkably similar to one of your tracks. Please explain then, how the belt managed to skip 3 or 4 teeth on the pulley?

Quote from: d00gz on December 07, 2009, 03:02:59 AM

I see you edited your post to add more stupidity.

You think roads like that would be a good idea? Do you honestly believe that is a good idea? I didn't think it possible for my opinion of you to sink any lower, but you're doing a good job of persuading me here.
Aside from the obvious problems i have pointed out with the system, the cost, and obvious disruption to the entire road network would be immense. Actually, when i put it like that, i'm not surprised you think it's a good idea, given the mentality you display on here.

No. It's well known that if the traffic in cities was controlled by computers on a high level and not people, traffic would be significantly less. A train track-like road system with transformable roads, switches, and forks could exist.

Getting to the shopping mall in the next town over could be a work of art. If computers were controlling the road systems it might be possible to get there without stopping even once.

On some level, yes, it might work. The point is, you seem to think this is a better idea than what we currently have, except i have pointed out many reasons why it is not. But you will not listen. And you think people will listen to you, and believe what you tell them, at this institution of yours?

You have little to no idea what you are talking about, i suggest you stop talking now.

Comparing train tracks to sky scrapers? Irrelevant. With sawtoothed tracks and appropriate wheels, the wheels can still lock. the tooth on the cog/wheel, can lift out of the rack/track, and then you're well and truly f*cked. Of course that's assuming that this immense stopping firce, which according to you will not shear the teeth off the track or wheels, doesn't result in some other component in the braking/suspension/chassis shearing, causing catastrophic failure. Or is the whole train going to be build from CF?

That is little more than an engineering problem. If the majority of the train's structure needs to be built from CF, so be it. CF can be made on a massive scale now. Entire structural support beams in skyscrapers are made from them.

A friend of mine took his rally car out on a particularly wet day, and hit a puddle and sooked up a load of water into the engine. Naturally the engine stopped rotating instantly, water doesn't compress in the way that air/fuel mixture does.

This caused  the crank pulley to sieze, instantly. It is a toothed pulley, i.e. one of your wheels. And the timing belt, is remarkably similar to one of your tracks. Please explain then, how the belt managed to skip 3 or 4 teeth on the pulley?

Belts and chains are dynamic. They can squish and bend to move away from the gears.

A track built into the ground is static. It cannot bend. A gear moving along the ground will never seize.

"Belts are dynamic. They can squish and bend to move away from the gears.

A track built into the ground is static. It cannot bend. A gear moving along the ground will never seize."

Wrong. Completely wrong.

Why can't you admit you know nothing about engineering and give up, because you're talking nonsense.

A track built into the ground cannot bend? There is nothing that cannot bend. CF is enormously expensive, yet you want to build entire trains out of it, and think this is the best solution?

"The wheels can't "lock up" on scalloped roads."

"Belts are dynamic. They can squish and bend to move away from the gears."

It was a kevlar timing belt. Make up your mind, can a tooth skip or not?

You have no idea, you're just trying to make it up as you go along, only someon who knows better came along, and now you're just making yourself look more and more stupid with every post.

Skyscrapers bending has little to do with the sort of shear forces you're talking about applying to your toothed tracks.

Thats like saying "rubber doesn't fracture much, lets use that to make tea cups with, so they won't break when people drop them. I mean, it's true, yes, but it's irrelevant.

Quote from: d00gz on December 02, 2009, 05:44:16 AM

You will find that most people don't go to university just to learn. For most people, university is a step along the way to where they want to be in the end. And it seems that the "Zetetic University" won't actually help with that, since the degree is essentially useless.

Who says it would be useless?

Colleges have the right to teach whatever they want in their curriculum. Degrees simply represent a course of study and nothing more.

Employers do not sign up to college courses to "doublecheck" the content to see if it matches up with their belief system.

Yes they do, its called accreditation and dialog from a professional organization. Many teaching positions in engineering school are held temporarily by experts who work in industry.