A&M have lampooned all sorts of things, including game shows. How sad then to see Armstrong compering that awful show, Pointless. So, while comedians may seem to be 'on your wavelength' over certain matters, never forget that they are motivated mainly by money and could be just as easily persuaded to make fun of something that you value highly.
This is pretty much every professor at my university. They are either too smart to talk with you or too busy to know you exist, and if you manage to get five words out of them you are pretty sure everything you previously knew about the universe was wrong...and that is a law professor
"Because Graham is on holiday and Chung Hiao is dead" - that line made me laugh more than anything I have ever heard - soo dry and dark at the same time!
@InnocenceExperience Well poor Chung Hiao surely doesn't like being dead to begin with ;) And also I somehow interpreted it as a sort of allusion that a chinese collegue who had been working on that with him had been deported or something. Thinking about it now I would say that that is maybe going a bit far though...
@deathbyfishstix Just as millions of children have enjoyed Gulliver's Travels; not realizing that it was a savage allegorical indictment of the society of Swift's time.
"Science is an ocean in which an elephant can bathe and from which a gnat can drink".
Just to say that this will be my final post here because I'm don't think we're getting anywhere now- as I've said, I largely agree with most things you have a problem with, I just disliked some of the implications for the reasons stated. Any model you like is an example of what I mean- it is naive at best to assume that this will not be improved upon and then considered "incorrect" by those with views similar to you in the future. Yet they are fine to use, because they are fit for purpose!
@2011bcrazy My basic objection is your generalization of the principle. Applied to big bang theory, I would certainly agree ('cosmologists are always certain and always wrong' as they say) but one has to have the hope of zeroing-in on the truth, or what is the point of trying? In the case of Newton's third law, there is no room for improvement. The application of relativity or quantum mechanics to it does not change its overall import. However, too many people just don't get it, even as it is!
@flowerbower The point that I think you're missing is that every single possibility that can be arrived at through science can never be considered truth as a pure term, but rather an approximation of truth. Science can only ever hope to suggest that something is caused by something else, as our knowledge is, has always been and will always be limited. You cannot say that anything as a pure fact, as you are in that relenting to acknowledge the potential and probable existance of unknown variables
@Just1Micky I am not missing it, but it is a mere philosophical point and I have no time for philosophy or philosophers. There have always been philosophers, but science (and therefore modern civilisation) never really 'took off' until the time of Bacon. Of course scientists know that their theories are never exact but they do not use that fact as an excuse to waffle interminably and never get anywhere. Philosophers are like the crafty lawyer who gets a valid case thrown out on a technicality.
@flowerbower You said it clear enough, you have no time for philosophers or philosophy, such are the words of any fool. Saying that something cannot be proven so is, and always will be, a valid point. For you to see, you must maintain open eyes, when there is potential for it to be otherwise, in accepting that there are other possibilities, you check and determine the most logical solution time and time again, forever enabling you to have solid basis for any further scientific advances!
@Just1Micky Why do physicists have to ruin everything good? Come on guys! It's funny can't you just enjoy it without trying to suck your own dick by having an 'intellectual debate'?
@Bowenwww Didn't you ever hear Feynman answer a similar slur to that one? An artist had said that he pitied Feynman because he could not simply enjoy the beauty of a flower. Feynman retorted that of course he could appreciate its superficial beauty but, unlike the mere artist, he could also experience its wonder at a much deeper level.
Doesn't it occur to you that 'fun' is here being used to make you pay attention to a more serious point? I guess that the strategy did not work in your case.
@flowerbower I did indeed hear that response, I fully understand the potency of such a statement, this is supported again by Tyson "Being scientifically literate empowers you"
@flowerbower You can look at things differently. But if we as scientists have to reduce everything we see to a logical, reasoned purpose then we lose all personality and all that makes us beautiful humans. It's fine to look at a piece of art and try and explain all its brush strokes, but in doing so, you miss the point of the art itself. Have fun never seeing any joyful soul in anything.
@Bowenwww That sounds like every dippy-Hippy and Hollywood cliche rolled into one. What's next, "why, Dr Jones, without your slide-rule you are beautiful"? You may believe, BTW, that yours is a 'classical' point of view. You should read Marcus Aurelius: in his Meditations, he says that one SHOULD reduce everything to banal 'nuts and bolts'.
I recall Mandelbrot claiming to see pattern in Pollock's moronic drip-fests: that is not 'deep', it is idiotic.
@flowerbower It only sounds idiotic because you can't understand it. Admit it, you're not the sort of person who can't just enjoy something for what it is, this may make you a very good scientist or linear thinker but will you ever just do something without thinking? be spontaneous? no. If you want to spend your time being told how to think by Aurelius then thats your choice. I, on the other hand, will be busy having infinitely more fun than you.
@Bowenwww Well, at least you managed to avoid using the expected 'philistine' taunt. How the truly great painters of antiquity must envy modern artists. No need for skill; just produce any old rubbish. Even better: the more vague and sloppy it is, the greater will be the tendency for certain people to perceive things therein which are not there (a glorified Rorschach test, lol). But it is always easier to elevate the trivial than to tackle difficult things. And before you ask: I am teetotal.
@Anteater1234567 What has this got to do with anything at all? I have read Feynman plenty of it. I don't really see why that means I have to take comedy seriously. Get a sense of humour or GTFO.
@Bowenwww As you are no doubt expecting to hear: I am a militant atheist who sees religion as nothing more than a festering sore on the human mind. The concept of an afterlife is just one of the tools of religious control.
@flowerbower "In the case of Newton's third law, there is no room for improvement. The application of relativity or quantum mechanics to it does not change its overall import. "
Except, you know, that they totally do change things. On a pretty staggering level.
@Terraval No, they don't. Newton's third law is really only a corollary of the 1st law of thermodynamics. So, I would say that a 'staggering' result would be an invalidation of the latter law. However, after 'the smoke has cleared', and a few terms have been re-defined, one finds that it is still there, inviolate, and so is Newton's 3rd.
@flowerbower Of course it's still a perfectly good conservation law once we bring in GR and QM, but the consequences of that law and the physical phenomena we can expect change drastically. Think we're arguing over nothing here really, just semantics.
Please reread my post- I have not defended such teaching. But your quote "Perhaps you do not understand that the correct model is often not more difficult than the incorrect one" shows that you incorrectly continue to claim that there is such a thing as a "correct model". Almost by definition of a model this is false, and this is the only issue that I am taking with your argument. Models can only be "better" (i.e. make correct verifiable predictions in more situations) NOT "correct".
@2011bcrazy Please drop the philosophical flim-flam: that is always the recourse of crackpots, and others who would rather keep on moving the goal-posts and sitting on the fence, etc. etc. instead of trying cases. I always give concrete examples of the sort of thing that I mean. Why don't you give a concrete example of what you mean? This wishy-washy attitude of yours serves only to paralyse practical action. Just look at how much time is fruitlessly spent on analyzing mechanical 'supertasks'.
[cont/] to say that you should not be using them, as obviously they are suitably fit for purpose at the moment, but the implication that they in themselves are not simplified models of what is really happening is just plain wrong. It is should be a matter of judging those who choose to apply the models in the wrong circumstances, rather than judging the models themselves! Not responding to the Godels point, as personally never come across the problem you mentioned- they would simply be dismissed
You seem to have misunterstood my point. Of course I am not trying to support or defend the use of models where they are unsuitable and can be shown to be so. However, this does not invavlidate my point that there is no "correct" model, as all of these are simply built on human observations and then refined over time. My overriding point is that following your argument, there would be no teaching- even the models you use now will be in some way incorrect and will be improved upon. That is not...
@2011bcrazy Perhaps you do not understand that the correct model is often not more difficult than the incorrect one, but time-serving clock-watching teachers are not interested in correcting errors. When it was pointed out to them some decades ago that there was a glaring error in a standard textbook diagram, the teachers were more intent on trying to find unlikely ad hoc situations in which the diagram might be correct than in simply admitting that they had never spotted the mistake. The ...
@2011bcrazy [cont] diagram has now disappeared entirely from new textbooks, thus sparing them embarrassment.
As I have already pointed out here, the 'Bernoulli' explanation for flight is now seen everywhere even though it is ludicrous. It is lucky that the Wrights were not exposed to it; they might never have got off the ground. The Wrights (and other aviation pioneers) used a simple inclined-plane model. Why is that not taught? After all, it is still retained for everything except aerofoils!
[cont/] A lot of things that have been said have reasonable points, but the implication that some are "wrong" whilst others are "right" is concerning- it suggests that an absolute thruth is gradually being achieved, rather than simply our understanding improving- a vital difference that involves going from worse to better than from wrong to right.
[cont/] true in the real sense of the word. There needs to be an acceptance that whichever models you are dealing with, they are just that- models. An attempt to explain what does happen and make verifiable predictions about what will happen in the future. Some will be better than others, but that is all relative and none can really be considered "perfect". Therefore, for example, simplified models of friction can do the job required at a basic level and then refined or changed as necessary....
Shame that this discussion is descending into petty insults. Whilst I enjoyed the sketch and do agree that it is ridiculous in some cases to expect a simplified explanation, I do think the overly generalised attack on simplified models in unwarranted. As a mathematician (predominantly a pure one) I certainly have a respect for absoute thruths, but this is the great gap between maths and any other science- all laws of physics are built up from observation and therefore cannot be claimed to be...
@2011bcrazy Simplified models are necessarily wrong models. Sure, that does not matter if one sees education as a system of merely parrotting back the wrong ideas so as to get a desirable piece of paper. This is not a question of airy-fairy philosophy but of pure utilitarianism: e.g. there are hundreds of patents for devices that promise reactionless propulsion. They have clearly involved many thousands of man-hours of work, considerable legal expenses and have consumed tons of paper. ALL of ...
@2011bcrazy [cont] them are based upon misinterpretations of rote-learned physics. The notorious Dean Drive of the 1960s impressed many people (including professional mathematicians and engineers) by its ability to scuttle across polished floors. Their positive reaction (pun intended) was due entirely to their belief in the silly 'little mountains' model of friction (which does not allow for non-linear effects, and fails the simplest thermodynamic analysis). The Dean Drive was still being ...
@2011bcrazy [cont] mentioned by NASA less than a decade ago: apparently because certain high-ups in the organisation still believed in it, so the engineers patiently had to dismiss it all over again.
Of course, I have given a very specialised example: but imagine it multiplied by the number of all defective models and it becomes a considerable waste of resources. It is not a matter of striving for perfection, but of hanging on to what is already known. BTW, doesn't it bother you that ...
@2011bcrazy [cont] Godel's unprovability theorem is universally misunderstood and misused? Crackpots are very fond of quoting it in order to undermine accepted theories so as to make their own theories look less loony. Everybody else seems sadly to agree with their interpretation of Godel. However, Godel's stated intent was exactly the opposite of what is now attributed to him: he was defending theories that relied upon mathematics, NOT attacking them!
"I have a great subject to write upon, but feel keenly my literary incapacity to make it easily intelligible without sacrificing accuracy and thoroughness". Francis Galton.
Just wasted about an hour searching for this video until I found the right search phrases and it was the first result. Gah. I have to improve my search skills.
As a physicist who has sometimes had to deal with media-people, I can confirm that this sketch is spot-on. Physics is so far beyond everyday experience that attempts to simplify it usually produce a horrible mess that helps no-one. Horizon is a prime example of the horrors of dumbing-down.
I agree that this was great. I on the other hand am not a Physicist by profession, however, I've studied Physics for many years. Funny enough, though, is that Ben Miller actually was a Physicist himself.
Yes, I know about Miller. That itself is a sad indictment of the status of science in the world at large. Perhaps when Miller has amassed enough money, he will finish his PhD work as a sort of hobby. That is what Brian May (the pop star) did, of course.
But career scientists are kind of stupid: we rush to tell people things for nothing. We should act more like lawyers and make clients pay through the nose, again and again, for every snippet of information; each time that it is asked for!
Funny. Yeah, I was thinking about doing that in the future, working for a degree in Physics. Even funnier though is how you mentioned being like lawyers. I'm actually planning on Law School. It's true though, that we scientists tend to want to just give information like it's nothing. I love how they made it clear, there really is no such thing as a simple answer. Yes it will take 11 years sometimes, and that's if you know something! Oh how superficial life can be. What I hate even more
... is how we like to say that there is a difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences. I don't know you're views, but I like to consider myself neutral. I don't believe we should quantify what is considered "science" because at one point or another, we too did not have solid facts. Even now if one thinks about it. We make facts to reason what we have. But in the end, it's still something we've reasoned out.
I think that it was Lord Rayleigh (referring to electromagnetism) who said that nothing can be considered a science until a standard system of units has been introduced. I tend to adhere closely to that rule and dismiss quite a few 'sciences' as being mere hand-waving.
But I mainly dislike 'science as fun'. Why does it have to be made fun? I see science as a form of accountancy, and I don't see the latter profession being 'sold' on its potential to amuse (pace A and M, that is).
Very profound of you to say, and I must admit that I concur. Science does not have to be fun, however, at times, it can be. I know I found learning about Ben Miller's PhD topic: Novel Quantum Mechanics in Quasi Zero-Dimensional Mesoscopic Electron Systems rather interesting and fun for me, but I delved within it to find a truth.
Science of all disciplines don't have to be fun, but for those of us who study it, we tend to make it, not on purpose, rather it becomes so.
Quite: 'fun' is not an absolute. But one has to draw a line between the sort of science-fun that involves blowing up caravans and the sort of science-fun that is on a par, say, with the fun of playing fairy-chess against the clock, or breaking a coded message.
@flowerbower never to disappoint- I was beginning to wonder-and you never commented on my "dress up" John Searl link I sent you. Now-there's an actor! I am trying to gently urge you onto the stage-but you resist. Resistance is futile...
@mrbeanaswell What should I be doing? Solving the mysteries of the universe? I regard this as worthy missionary work among the scientifically challenged.
@flowerbower "missionary work"?? You're not challenging anyone, you're posting clips on the net and watching vids. Get a life, and, preferably, a job along with it.
@mrbeanaswell Not challenging anyone? I think that Searl and other nutters would beg to differ. I have posted one clip, and I have the strange habit of actually watching other clips before I criticise. Finally, some of us are quite capable of holding down full-time jobs and of working on several other projects at the same time. I have had to give up simultaneous chess though.
@mrbeanaswell Spoken like a true idiot... And where should physicists spend time? There's no rule against them being on Youtube. I'm a mathematician who happens to enjoy watching clips on youtube.
@rlinfinity Quite. However, even in the formal physics-teaching situation there is a 'tradition', of using models which are flawed, simply because the student does not yet have the other skills (mathematics, etc.) to understand the best treatment. Friction, for instance, is treated appallingly; even in undergraduate textbooks. I am writing a book about antigravity crackpots and, although some of the proponents are outright fraudsters, others have simply 'built on incorrect conceptions'. It is
@rlinfinity [cont] often found that inventors of such machines believe that they are exploiting Newton's laws when, in fact, they are being defeated by them. Even worse, the inventors frequently picked up their incorrect notions during an early undergraduate course on mechanics, but went on to specialise in another subject, thus leading to the awful spectacle of someone with a BSc, PhD (even a professorship) claiming to have invented a 'reactionless propulsion device'. Because of their ...
@rlinfinity [cont] perceived authority, they may then attract media attention or even official funding for their crackpot schemes; thereby confusing the lay public even more. After all, who is going to say nay? A 'science journalist' (the ultimate 'master of no trade')? A time-serving patent agent (I know of several who have patented their own screwball invention!)? A member of the government (only one MP in the last government had any sort of science degree). It is a real mess.
@flowerbower idc about iu liv becy indst loetha pilivw aianeru ieov ur u sedy bihrt flah gme pe3irnetm edeppehare wowur uve jswt firj gor ron ur laiaick dya htt sw owon id ti esf un3knecalx it mirreon ecawtf imhttinanveerhtoiseifhe-r0eeu=E
@flowerbower I'm currently studying physics at Cambridge and I disagree. Physics documentaries, if done well, can at least give people a basic notion of the fundamental laws that govern the Universe, even if they're always going to be lightweight. And, most importantly of all, they have the potential to inspire people to do physics and learn it properly - and for that reason alone, they're well worth making.
@BreachedWall As I mentioned elsewhere here, I was inspired by 'boring' programmes such as one by Bragg himself illustrating the effect of point defects in crystals by playing with a model of a BBC 'outside-broadcast van' stuck in a traffic-jam of Dinky-toy cars. I don't think that those who need soaring music, actorly voice-overs and helicopter shots, to be inspired, really have the right mind-set for physics in the first place. However, a bigger problem is that a 'good teacher' can ...
@BreachedWall [cont] promulgate nonsense in a convincing manner. Take the 'Bernoulli' explanation for flight. The first 'professor for the public understanding of science' once got a 40min prime-time TV slot within which to explain it. What a pity then that the Bernoulli explanation is nonsense. I used to 'dramatise' this by showing, reductio ad absurdam, that it predicted an anti-gravity effect. I later found that someone had patented an 'antigravity machine'; based upon the same idea! ...
@BreachedWall [cont] Even worse was the Christmas (Faraday) lecture by Professor Eric Laithwaite. Look around YouTube, and the internet in general, and you will find that his 'inspiring' lecture about gyroscopes 'truly defying gravity' still leads hundreds of people down blind alleys. As a student, you are perhaps not yet aware of just how much incorrect information you have been fed by school-teachers. Some years ago, a report appeared on 'errors in school textbooks'. It was some 30 pages ...
@flowerbower Having gone most of the way through the second year of Cambridge (where we move through topics pretty damn fast), I'm quite a way past the pathetic amount I did at school. As I type here I'm actually distracting myself away from my rendezvous with Cartesian Tensors. Still elementary stuff (and I have far to go) but I'd like to think that I have encountered some real physics by now (done some Maxwell, Quantum, classical dynamics etc).
@flowerbower Errors are bad...but at the end of the day, when you start off learning science, you tend to learn the simplest models rather than jumping in the deep end. So while these models are generally wrong, they work on one level. In that sense they can often be useful. After all, none of our current theories can be said to be completely true.
I guess you're criticising simplified models that are misleading - and in such cases I'd agree. Defining such cases is the hard part.
@BreachedWall [cont] long. The unpublished appendix was 500 pages long! Another pet hate of mine is 'hands-on science centres'. They often translate misconceptions into concrete form. When one tries to suggest 'plores' that will demonstrate the correct physics, one is told that, "it would confuse the pupils and annoy the teachers because it contradicts their textbooks". I realise that I have strayed slightly off-topic but, you see, if the teaching is poor, what is the point of 'inspiring TV'?
@flowerbower Indeed, I'm aware of how an explanation through the Bernoulli effect is not the right one, as I understand it, Newton's 3rd law is much better at explaining flight...not that I have any idea how you can demonstrate anti-gravity if Bernoulli's effect were true!
To be honest, I did get inspired to get into physics because of dramatic documentaries and pop sci books. Not sure I'd be doing it now if it weren't for them. So despite their simplicity, I still appreciate them.
@BreachedWall I somehow missed your reply earlier. It is easy to disprove the Bernoulli explanation: imagine that the aerofoil is contained within a closed-circuit wind-tunnel having an incredibly high power/weight ratio. Then there is NOTHING in the typical Bernoulli explanation that prevents the aerofoil from lifting itself AND the wind-tunnel. Most illustrations do not even indicate any diversion of the airflow. There is in fact an 'anti-gravity' patent 'based' upon my reductio ad absurdam.
@flowerbower I don't quite see how that's anti-gravity. Obviously if it was lifting itself without any energy being supplied it would be anti-gravity, but in this case isn't energy being supplied to cause the lift? I'm probably missing a more subtle point...
@BreachedWall I define antigravity (in my book on the subject) as anything which does not obey Newton's third law: that avoids a lot of silly crackpot objections and covers both levitation and propulsion.
Even the loony-tunes admit that energy would have to be used. However, their main ambition/claim is to do away with reaction-mass. In my 'closed-circuit wind-tunnel', the reaction mass is used again and again, which is impossible (although there are patents based on that idea as well!).
@flygweilo Sure, but engineering is not physics. It is hard to think of a practical device (the goal of engineers, after all) whose operation is impossible to explain in simplified terms. The closest example that I can recall is a device from the days of steam which could inject water into a vessel which was at a higher pressure. Many scientists thought that it was a scam at first!
@flygweilo Not sure what you mean by that; physics subsumes all other disciplines. Of course, the other disciplines don't like to admit it. Electrical engineers, in particular, are liable to question well-established principles of physics at the 'drop of a gyroscope'; thus explaining why there is an especially large overlap between electrical engineers and 'cranks who believe in perpetual motion and/or anti-gravity'. Eric Laithwaite was very much the poster-boy for this tendency. Sometimes ...
@flowerbower The over-unity boys are as much a bane on the reputation of the physics community as that of the engineers.
As for physics subsuming engineering - you're right. Engineers could neither have designed nor built the LHC for CERN without a thorough knowledge and understanding of all the theoretical physics underlying. After all, you can't design and build a system to detect and measure something if you don't understand what you're looking for.
@flygweilo Gettiing back to the original topic: there was a BBC Radio 4 documentary about Richard Feynman yesterday, and it recalled the on-screen testiness which he had exhibited with the producer of one of his filmed talks. It pretty much followed the scenario of the above clip: Feynman had appeared to be unable to explain magnetic attraction, but nowadays the director realises that Feynman was just too 'honest' to talk about 'invisible elastic bands' or some other such 'palliative'.
@flygweilo other displines try their hands at what they are pleased to call physics. For instance, biologists once noticed that the muscle movements required for flight in some species had to occur faster than the nerve impulses could travel to trigger them. Rather than thinking laterally, at least one author proposed that the solution involved impulses travelling backwards in time! A nice nod to (unproven) tachyon theory for sure, but REALLY.
@flowerbower Interesting - but engineering is one discipline that includes a thorough understanding of physics not as an end in itself, but as a pre-requisite means to another end.
Ultimately, I find the words: "It's too complicated for you to understand" as a pretext for an inability to communicate preposterous, and an excuse to disguise the proponents own lack of complete understanding.
I think your story above about 'paranormal' explanations rather proves my point! :)
@flygweilo Not quite sure which side you are on now: are you suggesting that Feynman had to use such an excuse, rather than truly believing that the questioner would both be 'short-changed' by rubber-band analogies and baffled by the full force of chromoelectrodynamics?
BTW, I have seen engineers explain elasticity in terms of interatomic potential energy, and then go on to use rubber as an example. Major fail: rubber elasticity is an entropy effect; not an energy one.
@flowerbower I was not aware there were any sides.
I do not accept the "I can't explain this to anyone because everyone's so stupid except me" argument - it merely tells me that someone doesn't truly understand their subject.
Your conclusion is thus syllogistic.
Plus,, entropy in thermodynamics is a measure of the energy not available to perform work. Elasticity is an analogy to illustrate potential energy as a concept. Analogies are neither intended nor required to be congruent.
@flygweilo Now you are descending into philosophical double-talk. Firstly, you have missed the point of the Feynman anecdote: it is not about stupidity, it is about formal logic (since you bring it up) - specifically, 'begging the question' - and learned skills. If Feynman had employed a rubber-band analogy, he would have been using, as the 'explanation', a concept which was ultimately what the questioner wanted to be illuminated about in the first place. Admittedly, it is a point which is ...
@flowerbower Never use one word where two or three thousand will do,
Not that we are discussing Feynman, but he was an impatient and testy character, who was little given to explanations, other than on his own terms.
I digress - an analogy is used to explain a point, not an entire theory. I would wager that you have used analogies yourself, with frequency - as indeed you do, in your attempted rebuttal.
You employ volume as a substitute for clarity - the danger of a little learning, I fear.
@flygweilo I have no intention of apologizing for your short attention-span. Where do you get the idea that Feynman was testy and impatient? The case that I mentioned stood out starkly precisely because he was renowned for being so laid back in general. Perhaps Brian Cox is more 'your speed'; you know, the overgrown schoolboy who starts a sentence in one continent and finishes it another (not that one can hear him clearly over the dramatic music). Missed the point again, haven't you? If I ...
@flygweilo [cont] use an analogy, it is simpler than the original concept. Feynman's point was that (whether the questioner could appreciate his dilemma or not) rubber-band behaviour is just as difficult a concept as magnetic attraction. I cannot be any clearer than that and, believe it or not, I am noted for my clarity of exposition. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.
BTW, you claimed to be a physicist and yet give your profession as 'airline pilot'. That is rather like Mrs Thatcher ...
@flygweilo My motto is, "nobody else gets the last word on my turf".
And again I am in awe at your inability to 'read between the lines'. Think: editor - publishing - deadlines. I have a journal to bring out by Monday, how does that equate to 'so much time to waste'? But I am never trying to convince my interlocutors: this is all for the benefit of casual readers. The intelligent ones will draw the correct conclusions.
The last time that I argued with an 'aerospace expert' on Youtube, it ...
@flowerbower Then I suggest you return to the journal you have to complete by Monday. You are horribly impressed with yourself - much more so than anyone else on here, I'll warrant.
@flygweilo [cont] became clear that he not only subscribed to the ridiculous but popular 'Bernoulli' theory of flight but had also confused the law of static equilibrium with Newton's 3rd law. But, hey, that doesn't matter: the first successful passenger-carrying aircraft was designed by someone who thought that gravity was a suction force!
My connection with Aerospace is that I was originally employed as a metallurgist to work on missiles and other military kit, and even my theoretical ...
@flygweilo So will they: the Bernoulli 'explanation' has been highly criticised in a number of papers, and has been dropped by informed physicists. It continues to be used only by engineers, journalists, and the like. You know, the sort of people who value 'communication' over truth.
@flowerbower And the SFEE continues to be used and relied upon successfully by aerospace engineers and university physicists, and has led to the design of aircraft for over 100 years.
@flygweilo [cont] work for a doctorate in physics was related to a revolutionary new concept in gas-turbine blades (Shhh!). Can't tell you any more, having signed the Official Secrets Act three times.
Lucky that I never got my dream-job, eh? I applied to work at Porton Down when I was still a schoolboy.
I think you are still a schoolboy, for all the maturity you display here. You keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole - you'd be well advised to stop digging.
@flygweilo [cont] claiming to be a chemist. Completing a physics course (even to first-degree level) years before and then doing something entirely different does not make one a physicist. A physicist does physics.
And now you descend as far as using an off-the-peg quote. Well, at least you managed not to write 'knowledge' (the usual mistake made by 'bar-room pundits'). Of course, one can still be inventive with old sayings: 'stick to your last, or end up talking cobblers'. Neat, eh?
@flygweilo My profile would clearly lead an intelligent observer to the opposite conclusion. And no time is wasted if it corrects the misconceptions of even a single reader.
What is embarrassing is someone who wanders unarmed into a technical discussion and tries to use the sort of smug rhetoric that is better suited to 'office politics'. Have you 'been on a course'?
@flowerbower Your profile would lead even a modestly intelligent observer to believe that (a) you don't know what you're talking about, because (b) you're still 14 years old and in school. Age 65 ... ? No-one who's 65 years old uses the phrase "major fail".
@flowerbower But you don't believe in communicating with those you feel less competent or knowledgeable than yourself ... and as for your use of English, I think it accurate to say that almost all 14 year olds passed your level of grammatical competence at age 12.
@flygweilo [cont] lost on laymen. Which leads us to the second aspect: if someone is not already schooled in the rigors of scientific thought, he will not even realise that he is being cheated by being given an explanation which is actually just as complicated as the original puzzle. It is even worse if there is no hand-waving explication to be had and only phasor-theory, say, will suffice. It may well be that the questioner IS too stupid to master the necessary skills but that is not the point.
@flygweilo Another descent into fine-sounding waffle on the rubber front, but unfortunately this is a clear-cut situation and not open to obfustication. In the case of most materials, one can make a straightforward link between the potential-energy versus separation curve for interatomic forces and the macroscopic elastic properties. But rubber is an unruly polymer which prefers to maximise its disorder and it is the energy required to impose order (straightening, not extending, chains) which ..
@flygweilo Well that is kind of what the profile is for. Big secret!
What was covered at your school; the Treloar explanation for rubber elasticity? Better tell that to the Doring-Kindersley publishing company: one of their glossy popular-science encyclopedias gives the interatomic potential energy explanation for elasticity, and then immediately gives rubber as a practical example. No wonder that there are so many crackpot inventors on YouTube, if that is the quality of their education.
@flygweilo If you think that that is impressive, or if you think that I am making any special effort, you have clearly been moving in some pretty low-rent circles. Oh dear, 'low-rent'; is that too street, or does it count as a neologism? Do tell.
Perhaps you are confused by finding idealism in someone beyond middle age who has not had his brain softened by complacency and too many chota-pegs.
@flygweilo I see that you 'loathe personal abuse', and yet that seems to be your only operating mode. Oh yes, that and the amateurish psychology. As I have explained many times before, my main purpose on YouTube is to collect, and thus be able to pre-empt in my books, every sort of pseudoscientific response that might be forthcoming from the lunatic fringe. I am afraid that you are not fit even for that purpose.
@flowerbower I do loathe it - but it's not personal abuse when it's the truth. You have lied about who you are and how old you are.
If you seek to discredit sustained scientific theory, then you oblige readers to choose between your own crackpot meanderings and well-respected scientific figures.
You seem, also, to have wholly misunderstood Ben Miller's comedy skit. But since you're only 14 or 15, it's easy to understand why.
@flygweilo As I thought, you are basically a crackpot; making claims without proof and repeating them in the face of obvious counter-evidence. So I am slightly younger than the profile claims; big deal, that is the only inaccuracy. Following your inane theory, I must have been only 11 when I joined Youtube. So go back (nothing gets deleted) and prove that my comments then were those of an 11-year old.
More seriously, you seem to have lost the plot. I don't 'seek to discredit ... science' ..
@flygweilo [cont] Why would I; it is my job. What I always try to do is to point out that the 'science' which is presented by science-writers, 'scientific journalists' and even student textbooks is often far from science as understood by working scientists. Those who once took a science course, but now do something else, are prime victims of this tendency, aren't you? In fact, I have met people like you before: I once almost came to blows in a bookshop after pointing out to another browser ...
@flygweilo [cont] that a diagram in the hydrostatics textbook which he was reading was wildly incorrect (and that the error had been reproduced for some 80 years). He was incensed because he was a civil engineer 'who had built dams'. HE used the term, 'idiot'. However, he could not argue with a quick mathematical analysis of the situation.
BTW, that hydrostatic error began to appear at about the same time as the silly Bernoulli explanation for flight. I blame both on lazy teachers. Finally, ..
@flygweilo [cont] if I have 'misunderstood the skit' perhaps you would care to explain why my initial comment on it has received an approval rating of about 50.
You are fighting a losing battle; I never claim anything which does not have the backing of mainstream peer-reviewed literature. Of course, much confusion is caused in the lay mind by the fact that not everyone who wears a white coat is a bona fide scientist: there is some awful nonsense to be found in the non-physics literature!
@flygweilo [cont] informs its macroscopic behaviour. This is why rubber becomes cooler when it is stretched, contrary to what happens in most materials. It also shrinks (ah, the logic of it) when heated; watch carefully the surface of a partially deflated party balloon when put near to a flame. Gee, this should all be Physics-101. It was, in the past. Have standards fallen so low?
Shit.
1982rf 1 week ago
its simple life the universe and pretty much every thing= 42
DaniStarEngland 1 week ago
@mejk13 "if you don't understand humour, fuck off back to Germany!" Einstein
mheslop 3 weeks ago
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough” Einstein
mwjk13 2 months ago 3
A&M have lampooned all sorts of things, including game shows. How sad then to see Armstrong compering that awful show, Pointless. So, while comedians may seem to be 'on your wavelength' over certain matters, never forget that they are motivated mainly by money and could be just as easily persuaded to make fun of something that you value highly.
flowerbower 2 months ago
This is pretty much every professor at my university. They are either too smart to talk with you or too busy to know you exist, and if you manage to get five words out of them you are pretty sure everything you previously knew about the universe was wrong...and that is a law professor
WilfNelson1 2 months ago
Guys is a fkng joke, please discuss science on the science area of u tube
barbariangoth 3 months ago
@barbariangoth Yeah, we watched the show, now we're having a discussion.
LokiClock 2 months ago
did he just quote the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?
sledgehammer4321 5 months ago 2
@sledgehammer4321 Yups, he did.
piranha031091 3 months ago
theoreticalphysics.webs.com
paginipro 7 months ago
"Because Graham is on holiday and Chung Hiao is dead" - that line made me laugh more than anything I have ever heard - soo dry and dark at the same time!
aModernDandy 7 months ago 34
@aModernDandy what's the dark part?
InnocenceExperience 7 months ago
@InnocenceExperience Well poor Chung Hiao surely doesn't like being dead to begin with ;) And also I somehow interpreted it as a sort of allusion that a chinese collegue who had been working on that with him had been deported or something. Thinking about it now I would say that that is maybe going a bit far though...
aModernDandy 7 months ago
Does this argument thread really belong under this video!?
ender1347 7 months ago
You know Ben Miller actually began studying PhD in solid-state physics.
drewcwhitehead 9 months ago
@drewcwhitehead I made that point one year ago.
flowerbower 8 months ago
Hahaha, i love the irony of the top comments!
toolworks 9 months ago
Hi my name's Dave! I'm ignoring the argument below me and enjoying the Armstrong and Miller Sketch! :)
deathbyfishstix 9 months ago 111
@deathbyfishstix Just as millions of children have enjoyed Gulliver's Travels; not realizing that it was a savage allegorical indictment of the society of Swift's time.
"Science is an ocean in which an elephant can bathe and from which a gnat can drink".
flowerbower 9 months ago
@deathbyfishstix Nobody cares.
Supermassively 7 months ago
@Supermassively i care, im somebody
cheezey777 5 months ago
Just to say that this will be my final post here because I'm don't think we're getting anywhere now- as I've said, I largely agree with most things you have a problem with, I just disliked some of the implications for the reasons stated. Any model you like is an example of what I mean- it is naive at best to assume that this will not be improved upon and then considered "incorrect" by those with views similar to you in the future. Yet they are fine to use, because they are fit for purpose!
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy My basic objection is your generalization of the principle. Applied to big bang theory, I would certainly agree ('cosmologists are always certain and always wrong' as they say) but one has to have the hope of zeroing-in on the truth, or what is the point of trying? In the case of Newton's third law, there is no room for improvement. The application of relativity or quantum mechanics to it does not change its overall import. However, too many people just don't get it, even as it is!
flowerbower 9 months ago
@flowerbower The point that I think you're missing is that every single possibility that can be arrived at through science can never be considered truth as a pure term, but rather an approximation of truth. Science can only ever hope to suggest that something is caused by something else, as our knowledge is, has always been and will always be limited. You cannot say that anything as a pure fact, as you are in that relenting to acknowledge the potential and probable existance of unknown variables
Just1Micky 9 months ago
@Just1Micky I am not missing it, but it is a mere philosophical point and I have no time for philosophy or philosophers. There have always been philosophers, but science (and therefore modern civilisation) never really 'took off' until the time of Bacon. Of course scientists know that their theories are never exact but they do not use that fact as an excuse to waffle interminably and never get anywhere. Philosophers are like the crafty lawyer who gets a valid case thrown out on a technicality.
flowerbower 9 months ago
@flowerbower You said it clear enough, you have no time for philosophers or philosophy, such are the words of any fool. Saying that something cannot be proven so is, and always will be, a valid point. For you to see, you must maintain open eyes, when there is potential for it to be otherwise, in accepting that there are other possibilities, you check and determine the most logical solution time and time again, forever enabling you to have solid basis for any further scientific advances!
Just1Micky 9 months ago
@Just1Micky Why do physicists have to ruin everything good? Come on guys! It's funny can't you just enjoy it without trying to suck your own dick by having an 'intellectual debate'?
Bowenwww 8 months ago
@Bowenwww Didn't you ever hear Feynman answer a similar slur to that one? An artist had said that he pitied Feynman because he could not simply enjoy the beauty of a flower. Feynman retorted that of course he could appreciate its superficial beauty but, unlike the mere artist, he could also experience its wonder at a much deeper level.
Doesn't it occur to you that 'fun' is here being used to make you pay attention to a more serious point? I guess that the strategy did not work in your case.
flowerbower 8 months ago
@flowerbower I did indeed hear that response, I fully understand the potency of such a statement, this is supported again by Tyson "Being scientifically literate empowers you"
Bowenwww 8 months ago
@flowerbower You can look at things differently. But if we as scientists have to reduce everything we see to a logical, reasoned purpose then we lose all personality and all that makes us beautiful humans. It's fine to look at a piece of art and try and explain all its brush strokes, but in doing so, you miss the point of the art itself. Have fun never seeing any joyful soul in anything.
Bowenwww 8 months ago
@Bowenwww That sounds like every dippy-Hippy and Hollywood cliche rolled into one. What's next, "why, Dr Jones, without your slide-rule you are beautiful"? You may believe, BTW, that yours is a 'classical' point of view. You should read Marcus Aurelius: in his Meditations, he says that one SHOULD reduce everything to banal 'nuts and bolts'.
I recall Mandelbrot claiming to see pattern in Pollock's moronic drip-fests: that is not 'deep', it is idiotic.
flowerbower 8 months ago
@flowerbower It only sounds idiotic because you can't understand it. Admit it, you're not the sort of person who can't just enjoy something for what it is, this may make you a very good scientist or linear thinker but will you ever just do something without thinking? be spontaneous? no. If you want to spend your time being told how to think by Aurelius then thats your choice. I, on the other hand, will be busy having infinitely more fun than you.
Bowenwww 8 months ago
@Bowenwww Well, at least you managed to avoid using the expected 'philistine' taunt. How the truly great painters of antiquity must envy modern artists. No need for skill; just produce any old rubbish. Even better: the more vague and sloppy it is, the greater will be the tendency for certain people to perceive things therein which are not there (a glorified Rorschach test, lol). But it is always easier to elevate the trivial than to tackle difficult things. And before you ask: I am teetotal.
flowerbower 8 months ago
@Bowenwww Read some Richard Feynman or GTFO
Anteater1234567 7 months ago
@Anteater1234567 What has this got to do with anything at all? I have read Feynman plenty of it. I don't really see why that means I have to take comedy seriously. Get a sense of humour or GTFO.
Bowenwww 7 months ago
@flowerbower On a side note, are you an Athiest/do you believe in an afterlife?
Bowenwww 8 months ago
@Bowenwww As you are no doubt expecting to hear: I am a militant atheist who sees religion as nothing more than a festering sore on the human mind. The concept of an afterlife is just one of the tools of religious control.
flowerbower 8 months ago
Comment removed
Just1Micky 9 months ago
@flowerbower "In the case of Newton's third law, there is no room for improvement. The application of relativity or quantum mechanics to it does not change its overall import. "
Except, you know, that they totally do change things. On a pretty staggering level.
Terraval 2 months ago
@Terraval No, they don't. Newton's third law is really only a corollary of the 1st law of thermodynamics. So, I would say that a 'staggering' result would be an invalidation of the latter law. However, after 'the smoke has cleared', and a few terms have been re-defined, one finds that it is still there, inviolate, and so is Newton's 3rd.
flowerbower 2 months ago
@flowerbower Of course it's still a perfectly good conservation law once we bring in GR and QM, but the consequences of that law and the physical phenomena we can expect change drastically. Think we're arguing over nothing here really, just semantics.
Terraval 2 months ago
@Terraval OK.
flowerbower 2 months ago
Please reread my post- I have not defended such teaching. But your quote "Perhaps you do not understand that the correct model is often not more difficult than the incorrect one" shows that you incorrectly continue to claim that there is such a thing as a "correct model". Almost by definition of a model this is false, and this is the only issue that I am taking with your argument. Models can only be "better" (i.e. make correct verifiable predictions in more situations) NOT "correct".
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy Please drop the philosophical flim-flam: that is always the recourse of crackpots, and others who would rather keep on moving the goal-posts and sitting on the fence, etc. etc. instead of trying cases. I always give concrete examples of the sort of thing that I mean. Why don't you give a concrete example of what you mean? This wishy-washy attitude of yours serves only to paralyse practical action. Just look at how much time is fruitlessly spent on analyzing mechanical 'supertasks'.
flowerbower 9 months ago
[cont/] to say that you should not be using them, as obviously they are suitably fit for purpose at the moment, but the implication that they in themselves are not simplified models of what is really happening is just plain wrong. It is should be a matter of judging those who choose to apply the models in the wrong circumstances, rather than judging the models themselves! Not responding to the Godels point, as personally never come across the problem you mentioned- they would simply be dismissed
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
You seem to have misunterstood my point. Of course I am not trying to support or defend the use of models where they are unsuitable and can be shown to be so. However, this does not invavlidate my point that there is no "correct" model, as all of these are simply built on human observations and then refined over time. My overriding point is that following your argument, there would be no teaching- even the models you use now will be in some way incorrect and will be improved upon. That is not...
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy Perhaps you do not understand that the correct model is often not more difficult than the incorrect one, but time-serving clock-watching teachers are not interested in correcting errors. When it was pointed out to them some decades ago that there was a glaring error in a standard textbook diagram, the teachers were more intent on trying to find unlikely ad hoc situations in which the diagram might be correct than in simply admitting that they had never spotted the mistake. The ...
flowerbower 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy [cont] diagram has now disappeared entirely from new textbooks, thus sparing them embarrassment.
As I have already pointed out here, the 'Bernoulli' explanation for flight is now seen everywhere even though it is ludicrous. It is lucky that the Wrights were not exposed to it; they might never have got off the ground. The Wrights (and other aviation pioneers) used a simple inclined-plane model. Why is that not taught? After all, it is still retained for everything except aerofoils!
flowerbower 9 months ago
[cont/] A lot of things that have been said have reasonable points, but the implication that some are "wrong" whilst others are "right" is concerning- it suggests that an absolute thruth is gradually being achieved, rather than simply our understanding improving- a vital difference that involves going from worse to better than from wrong to right.
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
[cont/] true in the real sense of the word. There needs to be an acceptance that whichever models you are dealing with, they are just that- models. An attempt to explain what does happen and make verifiable predictions about what will happen in the future. Some will be better than others, but that is all relative and none can really be considered "perfect". Therefore, for example, simplified models of friction can do the job required at a basic level and then refined or changed as necessary....
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
Shame that this discussion is descending into petty insults. Whilst I enjoyed the sketch and do agree that it is ridiculous in some cases to expect a simplified explanation, I do think the overly generalised attack on simplified models in unwarranted. As a mathematician (predominantly a pure one) I certainly have a respect for absoute thruths, but this is the great gap between maths and any other science- all laws of physics are built up from observation and therefore cannot be claimed to be...
2011bcrazy 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy Simplified models are necessarily wrong models. Sure, that does not matter if one sees education as a system of merely parrotting back the wrong ideas so as to get a desirable piece of paper. This is not a question of airy-fairy philosophy but of pure utilitarianism: e.g. there are hundreds of patents for devices that promise reactionless propulsion. They have clearly involved many thousands of man-hours of work, considerable legal expenses and have consumed tons of paper. ALL of ...
flowerbower 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy [cont] them are based upon misinterpretations of rote-learned physics. The notorious Dean Drive of the 1960s impressed many people (including professional mathematicians and engineers) by its ability to scuttle across polished floors. Their positive reaction (pun intended) was due entirely to their belief in the silly 'little mountains' model of friction (which does not allow for non-linear effects, and fails the simplest thermodynamic analysis). The Dean Drive was still being ...
flowerbower 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy [cont] mentioned by NASA less than a decade ago: apparently because certain high-ups in the organisation still believed in it, so the engineers patiently had to dismiss it all over again.
Of course, I have given a very specialised example: but imagine it multiplied by the number of all defective models and it becomes a considerable waste of resources. It is not a matter of striving for perfection, but of hanging on to what is already known. BTW, doesn't it bother you that ...
flowerbower 9 months ago
@2011bcrazy [cont] Godel's unprovability theorem is universally misunderstood and misused? Crackpots are very fond of quoting it in order to undermine accepted theories so as to make their own theories look less loony. Everybody else seems sadly to agree with their interpretation of Godel. However, Godel's stated intent was exactly the opposite of what is now attributed to him: he was defending theories that relied upon mathematics, NOT attacking them!
flowerbower 9 months ago
"I have a great subject to write upon, but feel keenly my literary incapacity to make it easily intelligible without sacrificing accuracy and thoroughness". Francis Galton.
flowerbower 10 months ago
Comment removed
WBlandy27 10 months ago
Wow, so that's what it looks like when two educated physicists troll each other ...
beardedartisan 10 months ago
@beardedartisan Not really. Physicists do physics; not some 'displacement activity'
flowerbower 10 months ago
....no.
Misterzen87 1 year ago
Oh gee, that's sad. Ben Miller was on Horizon today (10-01-11) doing just the sort of dumbed-down explication that they are lampooning here.
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower There is a difference between dumbing down and making a subject or a branch accessible.
xenon1987 10 months ago
@xenon1987 Then I guess that you are either a victim or a perpetrator of that cosy fallacy.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower You just keep on guessing :)
xenon1987 10 months ago
Just love Ben Miller's delivery at 0:38.
beardedartisan 1 year ago
"It'll take quite a long time"
"How long?"
"11 years" XD XD XD XD
seandahornet 1 year ago
Just wasted about an hour searching for this video until I found the right search phrases and it was the first result. Gah. I have to improve my search skills.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
If you understand it, you're not doing it right.
goldieken 1 year ago
Love it !
Just like talking to Searls lot !!
1BustedMyth 2 years ago
As a physicist who has sometimes had to deal with media-people, I can confirm that this sketch is spot-on. Physics is so far beyond everyday experience that attempts to simplify it usually produce a horrible mess that helps no-one. Horizon is a prime example of the horrors of dumbing-down.
flowerbower 2 years ago 52
I agree that this was great. I on the other hand am not a Physicist by profession, however, I've studied Physics for many years. Funny enough, though, is that Ben Miller actually was a Physicist himself.
JDBMW1 2 years ago
Yes, I know about Miller. That itself is a sad indictment of the status of science in the world at large. Perhaps when Miller has amassed enough money, he will finish his PhD work as a sort of hobby. That is what Brian May (the pop star) did, of course.
But career scientists are kind of stupid: we rush to tell people things for nothing. We should act more like lawyers and make clients pay through the nose, again and again, for every snippet of information; each time that it is asked for!
flowerbower 2 years ago
Funny. Yeah, I was thinking about doing that in the future, working for a degree in Physics. Even funnier though is how you mentioned being like lawyers. I'm actually planning on Law School. It's true though, that we scientists tend to want to just give information like it's nothing. I love how they made it clear, there really is no such thing as a simple answer. Yes it will take 11 years sometimes, and that's if you know something! Oh how superficial life can be. What I hate even more
JDBMW1 2 years ago
... is how we like to say that there is a difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences. I don't know you're views, but I like to consider myself neutral. I don't believe we should quantify what is considered "science" because at one point or another, we too did not have solid facts. Even now if one thinks about it. We make facts to reason what we have. But in the end, it's still something we've reasoned out.
JDBMW1 2 years ago
your*
JDBMW1 2 years ago
I think that it was Lord Rayleigh (referring to electromagnetism) who said that nothing can be considered a science until a standard system of units has been introduced. I tend to adhere closely to that rule and dismiss quite a few 'sciences' as being mere hand-waving.
But I mainly dislike 'science as fun'. Why does it have to be made fun? I see science as a form of accountancy, and I don't see the latter profession being 'sold' on its potential to amuse (pace A and M, that is).
flowerbower 2 years ago
Very profound of you to say, and I must admit that I concur. Science does not have to be fun, however, at times, it can be. I know I found learning about Ben Miller's PhD topic: Novel Quantum Mechanics in Quasi Zero-Dimensional Mesoscopic Electron Systems rather interesting and fun for me, but I delved within it to find a truth.
Science of all disciplines don't have to be fun, but for those of us who study it, we tend to make it, not on purpose, rather it becomes so.
JDBMW1 2 years ago
Quite: 'fun' is not an absolute. But one has to draw a line between the sort of science-fun that involves blowing up caravans and the sort of science-fun that is on a par, say, with the fun of playing fairy-chess against the clock, or breaking a coded message.
I'll get me anorak.
flowerbower 2 years ago
@flowerbower SOD OFF F.B. did you take your dose of twerp medication today-? looks like you overdosed-be careful.
steviemovie 1 year ago
@steviemovie You sound like the sort of audience that the anchor-man above was aiming at: pseudo-intelligent
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower never to disappoint- I was beginning to wonder-and you never commented on my "dress up" John Searl link I sent you. Now-there's an actor! I am trying to gently urge you onto the stage-but you resist. Resistance is futile...
steviemovie 1 year ago
@flowerbower apparently you're a 64-year-old physicist. Why are you spending your time on youtube?
mrbeanaswell 1 year ago
@mrbeanaswell What should I be doing? Solving the mysteries of the universe? I regard this as worthy missionary work among the scientifically challenged.
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower "missionary work"?? You're not challenging anyone, you're posting clips on the net and watching vids. Get a life, and, preferably, a job along with it.
mrbeanaswell 1 year ago
@mrbeanaswell Not challenging anyone? I think that Searl and other nutters would beg to differ. I have posted one clip, and I have the strange habit of actually watching other clips before I criticise. Finally, some of us are quite capable of holding down full-time jobs and of working on several other projects at the same time. I have had to give up simultaneous chess though.
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower The insults in that were slightly too subtle for me to comprehend.
mrbeanaswell 1 year ago
@mrbeanaswell QED (and mate)!
flowerbower 1 year ago
@mrbeanaswell Spoken like a true idiot... And where should physicists spend time? There's no rule against them being on Youtube. I'm a mathematician who happens to enjoy watching clips on youtube.
rlinfinity 1 year ago
@flowerbower What's worse is when a layperson reads one of these superficial explanations and gets it into their heads that they understand it.
rlinfinity 1 year ago
@rlinfinity Quite. However, even in the formal physics-teaching situation there is a 'tradition', of using models which are flawed, simply because the student does not yet have the other skills (mathematics, etc.) to understand the best treatment. Friction, for instance, is treated appallingly; even in undergraduate textbooks. I am writing a book about antigravity crackpots and, although some of the proponents are outright fraudsters, others have simply 'built on incorrect conceptions'. It is
flowerbower 1 year ago
@rlinfinity [cont] often found that inventors of such machines believe that they are exploiting Newton's laws when, in fact, they are being defeated by them. Even worse, the inventors frequently picked up their incorrect notions during an early undergraduate course on mechanics, but went on to specialise in another subject, thus leading to the awful spectacle of someone with a BSc, PhD (even a professorship) claiming to have invented a 'reactionless propulsion device'. Because of their ...
flowerbower 1 year ago
@rlinfinity [cont] perceived authority, they may then attract media attention or even official funding for their crackpot schemes; thereby confusing the lay public even more. After all, who is going to say nay? A 'science journalist' (the ultimate 'master of no trade')? A time-serving patent agent (I know of several who have patented their own screwball invention!)? A member of the government (only one MP in the last government had any sort of science degree). It is a real mess.
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower idc about iu liv becy indst loetha pilivw aianeru ieov ur u sedy bihrt flah gme pe3irnetm edeppehare wowur uve jswt firj gor ron ur laiaick dya htt sw owon id ti esf un3knecalx it mirreon ecawtf imhttinanveerhtoiseifhe-r0eeu=E
t479921 1 year ago
@t479921 Is there some sort of prize for solving these coded messages?
flowerbower 1 year ago
@flowerbower lol no ahaha etc= Elol this is one it int iown little way etc and so no
t479921 1 year ago
@flowerbower I'm currently studying physics at Cambridge and I disagree. Physics documentaries, if done well, can at least give people a basic notion of the fundamental laws that govern the Universe, even if they're always going to be lightweight. And, most importantly of all, they have the potential to inspire people to do physics and learn it properly - and for that reason alone, they're well worth making.
Hilarious sketch btw.
BreachedWall 11 months ago
@BreachedWall As I mentioned elsewhere here, I was inspired by 'boring' programmes such as one by Bragg himself illustrating the effect of point defects in crystals by playing with a model of a BBC 'outside-broadcast van' stuck in a traffic-jam of Dinky-toy cars. I don't think that those who need soaring music, actorly voice-overs and helicopter shots, to be inspired, really have the right mind-set for physics in the first place. However, a bigger problem is that a 'good teacher' can ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@BreachedWall [cont] promulgate nonsense in a convincing manner. Take the 'Bernoulli' explanation for flight. The first 'professor for the public understanding of science' once got a 40min prime-time TV slot within which to explain it. What a pity then that the Bernoulli explanation is nonsense. I used to 'dramatise' this by showing, reductio ad absurdam, that it predicted an anti-gravity effect. I later found that someone had patented an 'antigravity machine'; based upon the same idea! ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@BreachedWall [cont] Even worse was the Christmas (Faraday) lecture by Professor Eric Laithwaite. Look around YouTube, and the internet in general, and you will find that his 'inspiring' lecture about gyroscopes 'truly defying gravity' still leads hundreds of people down blind alleys. As a student, you are perhaps not yet aware of just how much incorrect information you have been fed by school-teachers. Some years ago, a report appeared on 'errors in school textbooks'. It was some 30 pages ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Having gone most of the way through the second year of Cambridge (where we move through topics pretty damn fast), I'm quite a way past the pathetic amount I did at school. As I type here I'm actually distracting myself away from my rendezvous with Cartesian Tensors. Still elementary stuff (and I have far to go) but I'd like to think that I have encountered some real physics by now (done some Maxwell, Quantum, classical dynamics etc).
BreachedWall 11 months ago
@flowerbower Errors are bad...but at the end of the day, when you start off learning science, you tend to learn the simplest models rather than jumping in the deep end. So while these models are generally wrong, they work on one level. In that sense they can often be useful. After all, none of our current theories can be said to be completely true.
I guess you're criticising simplified models that are misleading - and in such cases I'd agree. Defining such cases is the hard part.
BreachedWall 11 months ago
@BreachedWall [cont] long. The unpublished appendix was 500 pages long! Another pet hate of mine is 'hands-on science centres'. They often translate misconceptions into concrete form. When one tries to suggest 'plores' that will demonstrate the correct physics, one is told that, "it would confuse the pupils and annoy the teachers because it contradicts their textbooks". I realise that I have strayed slightly off-topic but, you see, if the teaching is poor, what is the point of 'inspiring TV'?
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Indeed, I'm aware of how an explanation through the Bernoulli effect is not the right one, as I understand it, Newton's 3rd law is much better at explaining flight...not that I have any idea how you can demonstrate anti-gravity if Bernoulli's effect were true!
To be honest, I did get inspired to get into physics because of dramatic documentaries and pop sci books. Not sure I'd be doing it now if it weren't for them. So despite their simplicity, I still appreciate them.
BreachedWall 11 months ago
@BreachedWall I somehow missed your reply earlier. It is easy to disprove the Bernoulli explanation: imagine that the aerofoil is contained within a closed-circuit wind-tunnel having an incredibly high power/weight ratio. Then there is NOTHING in the typical Bernoulli explanation that prevents the aerofoil from lifting itself AND the wind-tunnel. Most illustrations do not even indicate any diversion of the airflow. There is in fact an 'anti-gravity' patent 'based' upon my reductio ad absurdam.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower I don't quite see how that's anti-gravity. Obviously if it was lifting itself without any energy being supplied it would be anti-gravity, but in this case isn't energy being supplied to cause the lift? I'm probably missing a more subtle point...
BreachedWall 10 months ago
@BreachedWall I define antigravity (in my book on the subject) as anything which does not obey Newton's third law: that avoids a lot of silly crackpot objections and covers both levitation and propulsion.
Even the loony-tunes admit that energy would have to be used. However, their main ambition/claim is to do away with reaction-mass. In my 'closed-circuit wind-tunnel', the reaction mass is used again and again, which is impossible (although there are patents based on that idea as well!).
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower Mind you ... as an emininent research engineer once said; "If a man truly understands his subject, he can explain it to his gardner."
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo Sure, but engineering is not physics. It is hard to think of a practical device (the goal of engineers, after all) whose operation is impossible to explain in simplified terms. The closest example that I can recall is a device from the days of steam which could inject water into a vessel which was at a higher pressure. Many scientists thought that it was a scam at first!
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower No ... but unless you studied it, the underlying theory is as complex as physics.
And i say that as a physicist ...
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo Not sure what you mean by that; physics subsumes all other disciplines. Of course, the other disciplines don't like to admit it. Electrical engineers, in particular, are liable to question well-established principles of physics at the 'drop of a gyroscope'; thus explaining why there is an especially large overlap between electrical engineers and 'cranks who believe in perpetual motion and/or anti-gravity'. Eric Laithwaite was very much the poster-boy for this tendency. Sometimes ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower The over-unity boys are as much a bane on the reputation of the physics community as that of the engineers.
As for physics subsuming engineering - you're right. Engineers could neither have designed nor built the LHC for CERN without a thorough knowledge and understanding of all the theoretical physics underlying. After all, you can't design and build a system to detect and measure something if you don't understand what you're looking for.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo Gettiing back to the original topic: there was a BBC Radio 4 documentary about Richard Feynman yesterday, and it recalled the on-screen testiness which he had exhibited with the producer of one of his filmed talks. It pretty much followed the scenario of the above clip: Feynman had appeared to be unable to explain magnetic attraction, but nowadays the director realises that Feynman was just too 'honest' to talk about 'invisible elastic bands' or some other such 'palliative'.
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flygweilo other displines try their hands at what they are pleased to call physics. For instance, biologists once noticed that the muscle movements required for flight in some species had to occur faster than the nerve impulses could travel to trigger them. Rather than thinking laterally, at least one author proposed that the solution involved impulses travelling backwards in time! A nice nod to (unproven) tachyon theory for sure, but REALLY.
Even paranormal solutions have been proposed!
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Interesting - but engineering is one discipline that includes a thorough understanding of physics not as an end in itself, but as a pre-requisite means to another end.
Ultimately, I find the words: "It's too complicated for you to understand" as a pretext for an inability to communicate preposterous, and an excuse to disguise the proponents own lack of complete understanding.
I think your story above about 'paranormal' explanations rather proves my point! :)
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo Not quite sure which side you are on now: are you suggesting that Feynman had to use such an excuse, rather than truly believing that the questioner would both be 'short-changed' by rubber-band analogies and baffled by the full force of chromoelectrodynamics?
BTW, I have seen engineers explain elasticity in terms of interatomic potential energy, and then go on to use rubber as an example. Major fail: rubber elasticity is an entropy effect; not an energy one.
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower I was not aware there were any sides.
I do not accept the "I can't explain this to anyone because everyone's so stupid except me" argument - it merely tells me that someone doesn't truly understand their subject.
Your conclusion is thus syllogistic.
Plus,, entropy in thermodynamics is a measure of the energy not available to perform work. Elasticity is an analogy to illustrate potential energy as a concept. Analogies are neither intended nor required to be congruent.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo Now you are descending into philosophical double-talk. Firstly, you have missed the point of the Feynman anecdote: it is not about stupidity, it is about formal logic (since you bring it up) - specifically, 'begging the question' - and learned skills. If Feynman had employed a rubber-band analogy, he would have been using, as the 'explanation', a concept which was ultimately what the questioner wanted to be illuminated about in the first place. Admittedly, it is a point which is ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Never use one word where two or three thousand will do,
Not that we are discussing Feynman, but he was an impatient and testy character, who was little given to explanations, other than on his own terms.
I digress - an analogy is used to explain a point, not an entire theory. I would wager that you have used analogies yourself, with frequency - as indeed you do, in your attempted rebuttal.
You employ volume as a substitute for clarity - the danger of a little learning, I fear.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo I have no intention of apologizing for your short attention-span. Where do you get the idea that Feynman was testy and impatient? The case that I mentioned stood out starkly precisely because he was renowned for being so laid back in general. Perhaps Brian Cox is more 'your speed'; you know, the overgrown schoolboy who starts a sentence in one continent and finishes it another (not that one can hear him clearly over the dramatic music). Missed the point again, haven't you? If I ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Pompous, much ... ? :)
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] use an analogy, it is simpler than the original concept. Feynman's point was that (whether the questioner could appreciate his dilemma or not) rubber-band behaviour is just as difficult a concept as magnetic attraction. I cannot be any clearer than that and, believe it or not, I am noted for my clarity of exposition. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.
BTW, you claimed to be a physicist and yet give your profession as 'airline pilot'. That is rather like Mrs Thatcher ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower And you give yours as 'Aerospace' ... I take it that we are both referring to our training. Or, rather, I am referring to mine.
Aerospace applies physics as it concerns and underpins engineering - very much my point all along.
And i am happy concede that your powers of explanation are not readily to be admired. :)
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo My motto is, "nobody else gets the last word on my turf".
And again I am in awe at your inability to 'read between the lines'. Think: editor - publishing - deadlines. I have a journal to bring out by Monday, how does that equate to 'so much time to waste'? But I am never trying to convince my interlocutors: this is all for the benefit of casual readers. The intelligent ones will draw the correct conclusions.
The last time that I argued with an 'aerospace expert' on Youtube, it ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Then I suggest you return to the journal you have to complete by Monday. You are horribly impressed with yourself - much more so than anyone else on here, I'll warrant.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] became clear that he not only subscribed to the ridiculous but popular 'Bernoulli' theory of flight but had also confused the law of static equilibrium with Newton's 3rd law. But, hey, that doesn't matter: the first successful passenger-carrying aircraft was designed by someone who thought that gravity was a suction force!
My connection with Aerospace is that I was originally employed as a metallurgist to work on missiles and other military kit, and even my theoretical ...
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower And if you're going to claim to invalidate Bernoulli's SFEE, you will have far many more serious disputants with whom to argue than me.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo So will they: the Bernoulli 'explanation' has been highly criticised in a number of papers, and has been dropped by informed physicists. It continues to be used only by engineers, journalists, and the like. You know, the sort of people who value 'communication' over truth.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower And the SFEE continues to be used and relied upon successfully by aerospace engineers and university physicists, and has led to the design of aircraft for over 100 years.
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] work for a doctorate in physics was related to a revolutionary new concept in gas-turbine blades (Shhh!). Can't tell you any more, having signed the Official Secrets Act three times.
Lucky that I never got my dream-job, eh? I applied to work at Porton Down when I was still a schoolboy.
flowerbower 11 months ago
I think you are still a schoolboy, for all the maturity you display here. You keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole - you'd be well advised to stop digging.
flygweilo 11 months ago
I long ago signed the Official Secrets Act. And i long ago ceased to be impressedbyt the fact.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] claiming to be a chemist. Completing a physics course (even to first-degree level) years before and then doing something entirely different does not make one a physicist. A physicist does physics.
And now you descend as far as using an off-the-peg quote. Well, at least you managed not to write 'knowledge' (the usual mistake made by 'bar-room pundits'). Of course, one can still be inventive with old sayings: 'stick to your last, or end up talking cobblers'. Neat, eh?
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower 'Least said, soonest mended' is the directly applicable aphorism that you seem to have ignored with utter carelessness.
It is a homily that might have spared you considerable embarrassment, had you paid attention.
having looked at your profile, I now see why you have so much time to waste on pointless pontification.
flygweilo 11 months ago
@flygweilo My profile would clearly lead an intelligent observer to the opposite conclusion. And no time is wasted if it corrects the misconceptions of even a single reader.
What is embarrassing is someone who wanders unarmed into a technical discussion and tries to use the sort of smug rhetoric that is better suited to 'office politics'. Have you 'been on a course'?
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower Your profile would lead even a modestly intelligent observer to believe that (a) you don't know what you're talking about, because (b) you're still 14 years old and in school. Age 65 ... ? No-one who's 65 years old uses the phrase "major fail".
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo Jeez, don't you know that one has to try to use the language of those with whom one is trying to communicate?
OTOH, how many 14-year olds could write grammatical English even if they wanted to? You have no idea how much it pains me even to write "don't".
But after all that, you are correct: I am not 65. I am 63; this is not my account.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower But you don't believe in communicating with those you feel less competent or knowledgeable than yourself ... and as for your use of English, I think it accurate to say that almost all 14 year olds passed your level of grammatical competence at age 12.
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] lost on laymen. Which leads us to the second aspect: if someone is not already schooled in the rigors of scientific thought, he will not even realise that he is being cheated by being given an explanation which is actually just as complicated as the original puzzle. It is even worse if there is no hand-waving explication to be had and only phasor-theory, say, will suffice. It may well be that the questioner IS too stupid to master the necessary skills but that is not the point.
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flygweilo Another descent into fine-sounding waffle on the rubber front, but unfortunately this is a clear-cut situation and not open to obfustication. In the case of most materials, one can make a straightforward link between the potential-energy versus separation curve for interatomic forces and the macroscopic elastic properties. But rubber is an unruly polymer which prefers to maximise its disorder and it is the energy required to impose order (straightening, not extending, chains) which ..
flowerbower 11 months ago
@flowerbower Giving your age away again... this was all covered at my school at age 14.
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo Well that is kind of what the profile is for. Big secret!
What was covered at your school; the Treloar explanation for rubber elasticity? Better tell that to the Doring-Kindersley publishing company: one of their glossy popular-science encyclopedias gives the interatomic potential energy explanation for elasticity, and then immediately gives rubber as a practical example. No wonder that there are so many crackpot inventors on YouTube, if that is the quality of their education.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower Definitely you are no more than 14 years old - 15, at the very most.
You are trying far too hard to impress - this can only be put down to adolescent insecurity.
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo If you think that that is impressive, or if you think that I am making any special effort, you have clearly been moving in some pretty low-rent circles. Oh dear, 'low-rent'; is that too street, or does it count as a neologism? Do tell.
Perhaps you are confused by finding idealism in someone beyond middle age who has not had his brain softened by complacency and too many chota-pegs.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower You might as well display a neon-sign that says: "I'm insecure and I haven't a clue".
As for your self-attributed (and self-serving) supposed 'idealism' - you clearly need a dictionary.
And a life.
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo I see that you 'loathe personal abuse', and yet that seems to be your only operating mode. Oh yes, that and the amateurish psychology. As I have explained many times before, my main purpose on YouTube is to collect, and thus be able to pre-empt in my books, every sort of pseudoscientific response that might be forthcoming from the lunatic fringe. I am afraid that you are not fit even for that purpose.
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flowerbower I do loathe it - but it's not personal abuse when it's the truth. You have lied about who you are and how old you are.
If you seek to discredit sustained scientific theory, then you oblige readers to choose between your own crackpot meanderings and well-respected scientific figures.
You seem, also, to have wholly misunderstood Ben Miller's comedy skit. But since you're only 14 or 15, it's easy to understand why.
You have much to learn.
flygweilo 10 months ago
@flygweilo As I thought, you are basically a crackpot; making claims without proof and repeating them in the face of obvious counter-evidence. So I am slightly younger than the profile claims; big deal, that is the only inaccuracy. Following your inane theory, I must have been only 11 when I joined Youtube. So go back (nothing gets deleted) and prove that my comments then were those of an 11-year old.
More seriously, you seem to have lost the plot. I don't 'seek to discredit ... science' ..
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] Why would I; it is my job. What I always try to do is to point out that the 'science' which is presented by science-writers, 'scientific journalists' and even student textbooks is often far from science as understood by working scientists. Those who once took a science course, but now do something else, are prime victims of this tendency, aren't you? In fact, I have met people like you before: I once almost came to blows in a bookshop after pointing out to another browser ...
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] that a diagram in the hydrostatics textbook which he was reading was wildly incorrect (and that the error had been reproduced for some 80 years). He was incensed because he was a civil engineer 'who had built dams'. HE used the term, 'idiot'. However, he could not argue with a quick mathematical analysis of the situation.
BTW, that hydrostatic error began to appear at about the same time as the silly Bernoulli explanation for flight. I blame both on lazy teachers. Finally, ..
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] if I have 'misunderstood the skit' perhaps you would care to explain why my initial comment on it has received an approval rating of about 50.
You are fighting a losing battle; I never claim anything which does not have the backing of mainstream peer-reviewed literature. Of course, much confusion is caused in the lay mind by the fact that not everyone who wears a white coat is a bona fide scientist: there is some awful nonsense to be found in the non-physics literature!
flowerbower 10 months ago
@flygweilo [cont] informs its macroscopic behaviour. This is why rubber becomes cooler when it is stretched, contrary to what happens in most materials. It also shrinks (ah, the logic of it) when heated; watch carefully the surface of a partially deflated party balloon when put near to a flame. Gee, this should all be Physics-101. It was, in the past. Have standards fallen so low?
flowerbower 11 months ago