Science > Physics > Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
05 Feb 2007 12:05:14 PM |
| Object: |
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
05 Feb 2007 12:24:35 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 1:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Isn't Sir Francis Bacon (dates roughly contemporary, 1561-1626)
generally
credited with formulating the scientific method?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
07 Feb 2007 02:34:31 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 2:24 pm, "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Isn't Sir Francis Bacon (dates roughly contemporary, 1561-1626)
generally credited with formulating the scientific method?
I recall reading Bacon in college, and being amazed at the modernity
of his outlook.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Drake" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
07 Feb 2007 01:03:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:31 UTC, "Edward Green"
<spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:24 pm, "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 5, 1:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Isn't Sir Francis Bacon (dates roughly contemporary, 1561-1626)
generally credited with formulating the scientific method?
I recall reading Bacon in college, and being amazed at the modernity
of his outlook.
Commonly they're given some sort of joint credit: the practice and the
philosophy of science. The practice of getting his hands dirty by *doing*
experiments, though not quite unique or unprecedented, gives Galileo high
standing for many people. (The idea tht he didn't really do any
experiments, popular 40 years ago, survives only among those who don't
mind being 40 years out of date.)
--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
11 Feb 2007 06:12:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Actually a good phrasing, not falling into the usual Galileian hyperbole.
Some related reading:
Harold I. Brown
"Do physicists need myths?"
American Journal of Physics 74(5), 382-385 (2006)
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
12 Feb 2007 10:41:09 PM |
|
|
On Feb 12, 8:12 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Actually a good phrasing, not falling into the usual Galileian hyperbole.
Some related reading:
Harold I. Brown
"Do physicists need myths?"
American Journal of Physics 74(5), 382-385 (2006)
--
Timo Nieminen
Here's my view on the subject:
Galileo was the "Father of physics",
but considering that Maxwell:
1. Was the first to observe that the new (At the time)
statistics being used by business and government,
was necessary to model multi-body systems.
2. Postulated point source objects that could be
assembled into more complex structures.
3. Developed "Dimensional Analysis"
which is the basic framework that ALL
physics models must conform to.
4. Conceived "Maxwell's Equations"
that modeled all known electro-magnetic activity.
5. Conceived the means by which electro-magnetic waves
travel through space (Displacement current).
6. Developed the links between the electro-magnetic properties
and the mechanical properties (Permittivity and Permeability).
7. Developed "Maxwell Statistics" to model multi-body systems.
( Later Bose slightly modified Maxwell's statistics
in order to model the statistics of integer spin objects,
and Fermi slightly modified Maxwell's statistics
in order to model the statistics of half-integer spin objects.)
I suggest that Maxwell is the "Father of **MODERN** physics.
And of course, DeBroglie was the father of Quantum Mechanics
and Bohr was its' nurse maid.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 06:52:53 AM |
|
|
In article <1171341669.462628.33170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:12 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Actually a good phrasing, not falling into the usual Galileian hyperbole.
Some related reading:
Harold I. Brown
"Do physicists need myths?"
American Journal of Physics 74(5), 382-385 (2006)
--
Timo Nieminen
Here's my view on the subject:
Galileo was the "Father of physics",
but considering that Maxwell:
Have you corrected the errors on your self-declared physics web
page?
<snip--no point until corrections are applied>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 07:11:30 AM |
|
|
On Feb 13, 6:52 am, wrote:
In article <1171341669.462628.33...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:12 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Actually a good phrasing, not falling into the usual Galileian hyperbole.
Some related reading:
Harold I. Brown
"Do physicists need myths?"
American Journal of Physics 74(5), 382-385 (2006)
--
Timo Nieminen
Here's my view on the subject:
Galileo was the "Father of physics",
but considering that Maxwell:
Have you corrected the errors on your self-declared physics web
page?
<snip--no point until corrections are applied>
/BAH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If Max Faget was the "Father of the Space Shuttle", does that make Ann
the Shuttle's sister?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 10:02:37 AM |
|
|
On Feb 13, 8:52 pm, wrote:
In article <1171341669.462628.33...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:12 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Sam Wormley wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Actually a good phrasing, not falling into the usual Galileian hyperbole.
Some related reading:
Harold I. Brown
"Do physicists need myths?"
American Journal of Physics 74(5), 382-385 (2006)
--
Timo Nieminen
Here's my view on the subject:
Galileo was the "Father of physics",
but considering that Maxwell:
Have you corrected the errors on your self-declared physics web
page?
<snip--no point until corrections are applied>
/BAH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am pleased to see that BAH
continues to be a faithful visitor to my "physics web page",
and that she has found errors.
I will be looking forward to seeing BAH
point out the errors she has found,
with an explanation of why she thinks [sic]
these are errors.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
14 Feb 2007 05:49:30 AM |
|
|
In article <1171382557.152002.60520@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:52 pm, wrote:
In article <1171341669.462628.33...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Potter" <tdp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Here's my view on the subject:
Galileo was the "Father of physics",
but considering that Maxwell:
Have you corrected the errors on your self-declared physics web
page?
<snip--no point until corrections are applied>
/BAH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am pleased to see that BAH
continues to be a faithful visitor to my "physics web page",
and that she has found errors.
I will be looking forward to seeing BAH
point out the errors she has found,
with an explanation of why she thinks [sic]
these are errors.
In other words, you have not correct the errors pointed out to
you five years ago. I thought so.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 07:23:41 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Here's my view on the subject:
[snip--we don't need to read your views any more--once was too much]
Hey Potter--why do you call De Anza College (Cupertino, CA) third
rate? What is your criteria?
I see you are still registered as a crank (crackpot) is several
categories at crank dot net. Oh, and thanks for registering, Potter.
And make sure you stay at least 2000 feet from any schools or
institutions of learning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 10:32:51 AM |
|
|
On Feb 13, 9:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
Here's my view on the subject:
[snip--we don't need to read your views any more--once was too much]
Hey Potter--why do you call De Anza College (Cupertino, CA) third
rate? What is your criteria?
I see you are still registered as a crank (crackpot) is several
categories at crank dot net. Oh, and thanks for registering, Potter.
And make sure you stay at least 2000 feet from any schools or
institutions of learning.
I am pleased to see that Sam Wormley
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts,
but I am surprised to see that he considers
De Anza College (Cupertino, CA)
to be in the class with Cal Tech, MIT,
and the other first and second tier colleges.
Perhaps Sam likes that school,
because Erich Max Francis,
the unemployed programmer,
who is his primary reference
took some data processing classes there.
As Erich the unemployed programmer
and Sam Wormley, the ex-stress analysis grunt
pretend to be knowledgeable in physics,
I will be looking forward to seeing them
demonstrate their knowledge of physics
by actually engaging in dichotomies on physics issue.
It seems to me that setting up flame web sites,
and making nasty, childish comments about posters,
is more of an indication of a psychological problem,
than of a knowledge of physics.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 02:52:16 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
On Feb 13, 9:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
Here's my view on the subject:
[snip--we don't need to read your views any more--once was too much]
Hey Potter--why do you call De Anza College (Cupertino, CA) third
rate? What is your criteria?
I see you are still registered as a crank (crackpot) is several
categories at crank dot net. Oh, and thanks for registering, Potter.
And make sure you stay at least 2000 feet from any schools or
institutions of learning.
I am pleased to see that Sam Wormley
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts,
but I am surprised to see that he considers
De Anza College (Cupertino, CA)
to be in the class with Cal Tech, MIT,
and the other first and second tier colleges.
Perhaps Sam likes that school,
because Erich Max Francis,
the unemployed programmer,
who is his primary reference
took some data processing classes there.
As Erich the unemployed programmer
and Sam Wormley, the ex-stress analysis grunt
pretend to be knowledgeable in physics,
I will be looking forward to seeing them
demonstrate their knowledge of physics
by actually engaging in dichotomies on physics issue.
It seems to me that setting up flame web sites,
and making nasty, childish comments about posters,
is more of an indication of a psychological problem,
than of a knowledge of physics.
--
Tom Potter
Ewww... stinky horse *****, Potter!
Would you like to discuss the relativistic corrections engineered
into GPS satellites and receivers, Potter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 07:30:54 PM |
|
|
On Feb 14, 4:52 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
On Feb 13, 9:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tom Potterwrote:
Here's my view on the subject:
[snip--we don't need to read your views any more--once was too much]
Hey Potter--why do you call De Anza College (Cupertino, CA) third
rate? What is your criteria?
I see you are still registered as a crank (crackpot) is several
categories at crank dot net. Oh, and thanks for registering, Potter.
And make sure you stay at least 2000 feet from any schools or
institutions of learning.
I am pleased to see that Sam Wormley
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts,
but I am surprised to see that he considers
De Anza College (Cupertino, CA)
to be in the class with Cal Tech, MIT,
and the other first and second tier colleges.
Perhaps Sam likes that school,
because Erich Max Francis,
the unemployed programmer,
who is his primary reference
took some data processing classes there.
As Erich the unemployed programmer
and Sam Wormley, the ex-stress analysis grunt
pretend to be knowledgeable in physics,
I will be looking forward to seeing them
demonstrate their knowledge of physics
by actually engaging in dichotomies on physics issue.
It seems to me that setting up flame web sites,
and making nasty, childish comments about posters,
is more of an indication of a psychological problem,
than of a knowledge of physics.
--
Tom Potter
Ewww... stinky horse *****, Potter!
Would you like to discuss the relativistic corrections engineered
into GPS satellites and receivers, Potter?- Hide quoted text -
As people knowledgeable in physics know
the OBSERVED frequency of an oscillator
is a function of many things, including:
distance - Hubble Effect
velocity - Doppler Effect.
acceleration - Galileo Effect
Of course, these effects were taken into consideration
by the people who designed the GPS system,
and they are taken into account by the
technicians, engineers, and users of the system.
For example as the acceleration "g",
is a function of the distance a body is from the Earth,
the designers took the Galileo Effect into account
when designing the GPS system.
It is interesting to see that General Relativity
lumps all of these effects (And more)
into one extremely difficult to solve equation,
and then in order to use the results has to
break out, and account for all of the effects
such as the Hubble Effect, the Doppler Effect, the Galileo Effect,
etc.
When you have a set of orthogonal properties,
it is more simple, more clear, and more practical,
more time expedient, and less costly,
to attack each orthogonal property separately,
than it is to mix them all together,
and then resort them out again later.
Using GTR to solve these problems
is like making sausage, and then
separating out the components to
find the weight of the end product.
In other words,
while it would take a layman a few minutes to determine
the observed frequency of a moving body
using the combined Hubble, Doppler, and Galileo effects,
it would take a GTR Guru days to determine it using GTR.
And of course, some GTR Gurus on the taxpayer dole
lump up to 13 real and imagined effects into the GTR model,
and make some real serious sausage, that accounts for
frequency variations far beyond man's capacity
to measure, or even compute.
Considering that the GTR gang claim to
possess powerful, esoteric knowledge,
I wonder when they will go into the private sector,
like the Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Motorola, Google, Yahoo people did,
and make billions of dollars?
Time is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
13 Feb 2007 09:17:28 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
As people knowledgeable in physics know
the OBSERVED frequency of an oscillator
is a function of many things, including:
distance - Hubble Effect
velocity - Doppler Effect.
acceleration - Galileo Effect
Measured changes in wavelength...
Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
Time Dilation (relative velocity and gravitation)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/TimeDilation.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RelativisticRedshift.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
08 Feb 2007 01:00:47 PM |
|
|
Sam I think we just have to go back to the spacetime of Bohr,and
Einstein,as to the start of mordern science. I could also throw in the
superstring theory with names like Greene and Witten,but I won't Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
08 Feb 2007 03:23:18 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam I think we just have to go back to the spacetime of Bohr,and
Einstein,as to the start of mordern science. I could also throw in the
superstring theory with names like Greene and Witten,but I won't Bert
That's good, Herb, because superstring theory is not yet science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
09 Feb 2007 08:17:09 AM |
|
|
Sam Tell that to Greene,Witten,Schwarz,,Ning, Tung,Scherk and those are
just those that come to mind. Superstring theory will never
go away.,and you should be smart enough to know that. It will in the
near future be the heart of describing vibrating submicroscopic
filaments that we in the macro realm refer to as point
particles(building blocks) Bert,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
09 Feb 2007 09:31:07 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam Tell that to Greene,Witten,Schwarz,,Ning, Tung,Scherk and those are
just those that come to mind.
I think those folks are frustratingly away of the lack of testability
of the string theories.
Superstring theory will never
go away.,and you should be smart enough to know that. It will in the
near future be the heart of describing vibrating submicroscopic
filaments that we in the macro realm refer to as point
particles(building blocks) Bert,
Herb, in a hundred years, string theories could be relegated to
the dust bin. Time will tell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
09 Feb 2007 04:52:04 PM |
|
|
Sam No theory can last forever. None are carved in stone. QED Got
Feynman a nobel,but he had to fudge the math. (Renomalization) QM has
meet every test but it is very poorly understood. We use accelerators to
smash the atoms nucleus,and see its parts go by as streaks of energy.
Like you read that is like looking at the inners of a swiss watch after
hitting it with a sledge hammer. and the parts exploding. Sam we know
why the superstring theory is so good. You have just a Google brain so
you would not understand. Beert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
09 Feb 2007 05:54:26 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam No theory can last forever. None are carved in stone. QED Got
Feynman a nobel,but he had to fudge the math. (Renomalization) QM has
meet every test but it is very poorly understood. We use accelerators to
smash the atoms nucleus,and see its parts go by as streaks of energy.
Like you read that is like looking at the inners of a swiss watch after
hitting it with a sledge hammer. and the parts exploding. Sam we know
why the superstring theory is so good.
Just why is it so good, Herb? So far it's good for nothing. What do
you like about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
10 Feb 2007 02:49:23 PM |
|
|
Sam To me vibrating fibers(strings) give life to the sub-micro world. A
point(dot) for a sub-particle as defined by QM has little
substance(meaning) in my minds eye. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Models are like maps, your milage may vary. |
09 Feb 2007 05:21:44 PM |
|
|
Hi Bert, Sam seldom reads the links he posts,
certainly not well enough to paraphrase ( or even quote ) from them.
All the same, I have enjoyed many of his links
( and even some of his comments )... I've seen much worse in Sci.Physics.
String theory is _ Not _ one of the better, more useful models.
Models are like maps, your milage may vary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Models are like maps, your milage may vary. |
09 Feb 2007 06:23:47 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2007_Feb_9_5_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Bert, Sam seldom reads the links he posts,
certainly not well enough to paraphrase ( or even quote ) from them.
All the same, I have enjoyed many of his links
( and even some of his comments )... I've seen much worse in Sci.Physics.
String theory is _ Not _ one of the better, more useful models.
Models are like maps, your milage may vary.
And your map is blank
--
<-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
05 Feb 2007 12:25:00 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book
written in the early 1900s:
"What we may properly call the birth of modern physics, however,
dates from Galileo (1564-1642), one of the most remarkable men who
ever lived. More than any one of his predecessors or contemporaries
he introduced 'controlled experiment' as a means of gaining knowledge
of nature".
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
05 Feb 2007 12:30:38 PM |
|
|
In article <45C7767C.4020800@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
Bit worrying about what it implies about the Mother of Modern Physics ;-)
--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
05 Feb 2007 04:15:19 PM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-524597.18303805022007@news.octanews.com...
In article <45C7767C.4020800@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of
planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the
application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern
Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is
considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
Bit worrying about what it implies about the Mother of Modern Physics ;-)
According to Google, it's Curie. Google "Father of modern physics" and you
get Galileo.
Marcus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
06 Feb 2007 07:15:45 AM |
|
|
In article <84GdnRg8_pweMVrYnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@-i-posted-to.com> wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-524597.18303805022007@news.octanews.com...
In article <45C7767C.4020800@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of
planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the
application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern
Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is
considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
Bit worrying about what it implies about the Mother of Modern Physics ;-)
According to Google, it's Curie. Google "Father of modern physics" and you
get Galileo.
Based on the labor she did, I'd have classified the work as chemistry.
She cooked tons of dirt. I can't imagine doing that day after day,
year after year, just to get a small vial of stuff.
People tend to admire the "discovery"; I admire the mind-numbing
work done without any guarantee of a product.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
06 Feb 2007 09:08:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <84GdnRg8_pweMVrYnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@-i-posted-to.com> wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-524597.18303805022007@news.octanews.com...
In article <45C7767C.4020800@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of
planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the
application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern
Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is
considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
Bit worrying about what it implies about the Mother of Modern Physics ;-)
According to Google, it's Curie. Google "Father of modern physics" and you
get Galileo.
Based on the labor she did, I'd have classified the work as chemistry.
She cooked tons of dirt. I can't imagine doing that day after day,
year after year, just to get a small vial of stuff.
People tend to admire the "discovery"; I admire the mind-numbing
work done without any guarantee of a product.
/BAH
Well, they didn't have TV back then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
07 Feb 2007 07:04:10 AM |
|
|
In article <eqa5f715s@enews5.newsguy.com>,
Greg Hansen <glhansen@tcq.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <84GdnRg8_pweMVrYnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@-i-posted-to.com> wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-524597.18303805022007@news.octanews.com...
In article <45C7767C.4020800@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of
planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the
application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern
Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is
considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
Bit worrying about what it implies about the Mother of Modern Physics ;-)
According to Google, it's Curie. Google "Father of modern physics" and you
get Galileo.
Based on the labor she did, I'd have classified the work as chemistry.
She cooked tons of dirt. I can't imagine doing that day after day,
year after year, just to get a small vial of stuff.
People tend to admire the "discovery"; I admire the mind-numbing
work done without any guarantee of a product.
/BAH
Well, they didn't have TV back then.
They had other kinds of entertainments that would gag the
current pussyfoots.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Quoting from my dad's old college General Physics book |
06 Feb 2007 12:28:26 PM |
|
|
In article <eqa5f715s@enews5.newsguy.com>, Greg Hansen <glhansen@tcq.net> writes:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <84GdnRg8_pweMVrYnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt.com>,
"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@-i-posted-to.com> wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-524597.18303805022007@news.octanews.com...
In article <45C7767C.4020800@mchsi.com>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Galileo is known as the "Father of Modern Physics".
Similarly Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) discovered his laws of
planetary
motion and is widely acknowledged as the "Father of Modern Physics"
for his use of observational data (mostly Brahe's) and the
application
of mathematical modeling to astronomical data.
Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the "Father of Modern
Physics"!
Copernicus, Nicolaus - a Polish mathematician and economist, is
considered
by many to be the "father of modern astronomy" due to his detailed
explanation of the heliocentric (Sun-centered) solar system.
Well the title of "Father" is a bit ambiguous.
Bit worrying about what it implies about the Mother of Modern Physics ;-)
According to Google, it's Curie. Google "Father of modern physics" and you
get Galileo.
Based on the labor she did, I'd have classified the work as chemistry.
She cooked tons of dirt. I can't imagine doing that day after day,
year after year, just to get a small vial of stuff.
People tend to admire the "discovery"; I admire the mind-numbing
work done without any guarantee of a product.
/BAH
Well, they didn't have TV back then.
Indeed:-) Not to mention email, instant messaging, cell phones ....
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
