86 replies to this topic

[Maloo]

I do indeed like to read. At the moment my Kindle is stuffed full of textbooks and the like for my course next year.
I shall google this mystery, though. Know the author?

Yep, Jostein Gaarder.
I'd say it is one of my favourite books of all times.

Edited by Maloo, 04 July 2011 - 04:43 PM.

[kittycat]

No.

It's not a correct application of Newton's Third Law. That is the problem.
Now I have provided you with that little nudge in the right direction, do you think perhaps you could google yourself an explanation as to why?
Or would you like me to spoon-feed you that, too?

Let me provide you with another clue. You can get off the relativity bus, because, as I said several posts ago, Einstein's remarkable improvements on Newton's work have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Frankly, I'm dubious about your ability to actually participate in this conversation.

The topic at hand /was/ basic misconceptions of science 'upset you' (are my posts, 'upsetting you?') which I responded to with my opinion that it isn't something to get upset over as it is efficiently taught when you take into consideration who it is being taught to instead of ~*~ living in a dream world ~*~. Would you spoon-feed me the current topic of this thread because you've derailed it so much that it's hard for me to understand your masterful command over words, to know what topic in this thread you're referring to. If your replies to my post is relevant to my judgments, than surely this post (which no doubt it is, or will be) relevant, as well.

I guess there isn't much sense to probe you with any questions on how saying Newton's third law is true (in it's context, that is spoken to, for no doubt if you're doing an advanced physics course you would understand the problems with saying such) as you will explain this all in your...what was this thread about again?

P.S since you are now my honorary physics professor will you please explain the errors in what I've said about relativity and why it has nothing to do with it? A 'no' from you, no doubt an authority, does not suffice if a generalization of saying Newton's laws are correct, does not. Sad kittycat.

Edited by kittycat, 04 July 2011 - 04:50 PM.

[Sweeney]

The topic at hand /was/ basic misconceptions of science 'upset you' (are my posts, 'upsetting you?') which I responded to with my opinion that it isn't something to get upset over as it is efficiently taught when you take into consideration who it is being taught to instead of ~*~ living in a dream world ~*~. Would you spoon-feed me the current topic of this thread because you've derailed it so much that it's hard for me to understand your masterful command over words, to know what topic in this thread you're referring to. If you're replies to my post is relevant to my judgments, than surely this post (which no doubt it is, or will be) relevant, as well.

I guess there isn't much sense to probe you with any questions on how saying Newton's third law is true (in it's context, that is spoken to, for no doubt if you're doing an advanced physics course you would understand the problems with saying such) as you will explain this all in your...what was this thread about again?

P.S since you are now my honorary physics professor will you please explain the errors in what I've said about relativity and why it has nothing to do with it? A 'no' from you, no doubt an authority, does not suffice if a generalization of saying Newton's laws are correct, does not. Sad kittycat.

I have no idea what you just said.
It's a clusterfuck of misinterpretation, and obfuscation.

The simple fact remains that you clearly don't understand why the example I gave in the first post was a basic misconception of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Relativity, special or otherwise, has nothing to do with that example, and your continued insistence on referring to it implies to me that you feel it's the only aspect of physics you feel capable of arguing. That assurance itself is something I doubt also.

Also, if the person who repped this monumentally obscure post could explain what it's supposed to mean to me, that would be marvellous.

[kittycat]

I have no idea what you just said.
It's a clusterfuck of misinterpretation, and obfuscation.

The simple fact remains that you clearly don't understand why the example I gave in the first post was a basic misconception of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Relativity, special or otherwise, has nothing to do with that example, and your continued insistence on referring to it implies to me that you feel it's the only aspect of physics you feel capable of arguing. That assurance itself is something I doubt also.

OK if you didn't get it by now I don't care about your ego trip of assessing my knowledge of physics that's completely irrelevant to my stance on your example: it's redundant!!! Clearly, you've swam around me pleading you to teach me the error of my ways enough that you must believe that it's a waste of time on your part to help me understand something, so how is it not a waste of time to explain the error in saying that Newton's third law is incorrect to an audience with the same level of understanding (or maybe even less, unfortunately) that I have emphasized in my posts?

Now I know you don't care about my judgement, when you don't seem like you want to argue against it because... apparently you're agreeing to it!

That is all ~*~*~~*~*~*~*~**~

[artificial]

Sweeney is perhaps the only person I ever see using the term 'clusterfuck'.

/leaves thread.

[Sweeney]

saying that Newton's third law is incorrect to an audience with the same level of understanding

For the very last time;
THIS. IS. NOT. THE. PROBLEM. WITH. THE. EXAMPLE.

Not that Newton's Third Law is wrong.
That it is misapplied. The forces that are described are not a Newtonian pair.
That is not how the Law works. That is the misconception.

Your utterly irrelevant tirade about overcomplicated physics is not applicable.
So kindly, when attempting to criticise my attitudes towards pedagogy, try to actually understand the point at hand first, before making yourself look the fool.

[Maloo]

Sweeney is perhaps the only person I ever see using the term 'clusterfuck'.

/leaves thread.

Clusterfuck is too rude..you guys should say Charlie Foxtrot

[kittycat]

For the very last time;
THIS. IS. NOT. THE. PROBLEM. WITH. THE. EXAMPLE.

Not that Newton's Third Law is wrong.
That it is misapplied. The forces that are described are not a Newtonian pair.
That is not how the Law works. That is the misconception.

Your utterly irrelevant tirade about overcomplicated physics is not applicable.
So kindly, when attempting to criticise my attitudes towards pedagogy, try to actually understand the point at hand first, before making yourself look the fool.

I got a rep out of it (surely misclicked) so I'm happy la la la!!!

[Tanuki]

My biggest pet peeve is the common misconception that scientific theorems (or paradigms, even) are like a tower of cards: you find evidence against one part, therefore the whole theory collapses. This is especially evident in the climate change debate. One piece of evidence does not destroy an entire paradigm.

I'm guessing that's not what you want by this though, judging by your previous posts.

Maybe something like the idea that fats are terribad. I don't think a lot of people really understand the difference between transfats, saturated fats, etc. and how important fats can be, biologically.

I don't really understand your opposition to the evolution one though? Maybe just say from the outset "If you don't think evolution happens, GTFO" at the beginning 'cause it'd be interesting to talk about evolution not necessarily about getting more complex, or "better", always, but just being enough to survive in their current environment.

Oh here's another one that another thread reminded me of. The fact that apoptosis is bad and scary. Sure sounds it. But cell death is awesome and so important.

Edited by Tanuki, 04 July 2011 - 06:00 PM.

[Sweeney]

I got a rep out of it (surely misclicked) so I'm happy la la la!!!

Then you're sad, shallow and pathetic, and I welcome your exit from my otherwise civilised thread.

[kittycat]

Then you're sad, shallow and pathetic, and I welcome your exit from my otherwise civilised thread.

Whoa! Lil harsh, guess I gotta start putting in (!)s after my posts.

[Sweeney]

Whoa! Lil harsh, guess I gotta start putting in (!)s after my posts.

What you may want to consider is stopping any characters from going into your posts at all.

[kittycat]

What you may want to consider is stopping any characters from going into your posts at all.

Stop bullying me!!!

[Sweeney]

Stop bullying me!!!

Stop shitting up my topic, then?

[WharfRat]

I have no idea what you just said.
It's a clusterfuck of misinterpretation, and obfuscation.

The simple fact remains that you clearly don't understand why the example I gave in the first post was a basic misconception of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Relativity, special or otherwise, has nothing to do with that example, and your continued insistence on referring to it implies to me that you feel it's the only aspect of physics you feel capable of arguing. That assurance itself is something I doubt also.

Also, if the person who repped this monumentally obscure post could explain what it's supposed to mean to me, that would be marvellous.

I agree completely. I was like "wah?" I actually use the word clusterfuck in casual conversation frequently... but I thank you for the word obfuscation. I never use that word in conversation, so I'm going to make it my goal to slip it in somewhere tomorrow! (/randomness)

To remain on topic, I don't really have too many general science misconceptions that I hear often... I can think of countless drug related misconceptions that are based upon false studies or worse, hearsay. I do completely know what you're going for here, and if you want to include drug related material, I can provide you with a ton... (But what gets under my skin even more is when people state historical events inaccurately.)

P.s. kitty, I'd suggest just finding another topic if you feel bullied in this one. No one is forcing your hand into typing gibberish.

[Frizzle]

The misconception that science is enjoyable

[ThreeDollarBill]

I have some other misconceptions that are typically stated where I live:
1.- Dogs and bees can "smell" fear.
2.- Ethilic alcohol helps to desinfect and cure wounds.
3.- Diabetes mellitus is "obtained" by consuming drinks or sugary food after receiving a big emotional shock. This applies to everyone.

[Maloo]

The misconception that science is enjoyable

Yeah, let's just forget about science and go watch "Keeping up with the Kardashians". It's much more enjoyable.

Edited by Maloo, 05 July 2011 - 04:52 PM.

[Frizzle]

Yeah, let's just forget about science and go watch "Keeping up with the Kardashians". It's much more enjoyable.

As sarcastic as that is, it's true.

[Donaldmax]

lol at kitty and sweeney. That was pretty funny. dw sweeney bullies a lot of people. cough.

[Sweeney]

lol at kitty and sweeney. That was pretty funny. dw sweeney bullies a lot of people. cough.

I'm not sure how you can comment on a conversation which, I'd be willing to bet, you understood less than a quarter of.

[ToxicS]

How each piece of vegetable represents the body part it looks like? (It improves on it)

I think that's false.

[Narcissa]

I once had a teacher in highschool who said that the pendulum was created by Einstein, that the first castles were in Egypt, and that the harpsichord didn't actually exist.


... then again she was also charged some years later after I graduated with making, selling, and using meth so it explained a lot later down the road.

[chess211]

This brings up a deeper point about the nature of knowledge.
The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is not an inviolable decree scribed into the foundations of nature itself, but a description that accounts for every applicable, verifiable observation ever made.

Were something to arise that contradicted it (QM *cough*) the Law would be revised, not the evidence ignored.

Many, many people do not seem to understand this.

However, even this basic epistemological reasoning is far above the kind of thing I'm really aiming for xD

The Conservation of Energy is as fundamental as our current understanding of the laws of physics. It is based on the application of Noether's Theorem onto the laws, which basically since the laws are time independent under continuous time transformation that there is an associated conserved quantity associated with the symmetry, and the conserved quantity associated with time is energy, so since the current model of the hamiltonian is time independent, then energy is conserved. This holds even in quantum mechanics, as the energy operator, the Hamiltonian, is time independent so the expectation value of energy is time independent as well.

The only location were the violation of the conservation of energy can occur in the current model of physics is through the uncertainty principle applied to the energy time relationship.


Also, while the theory of physics is hardly complete, there are two aspects involved that while incompatible form a description of almost everything that has been observed, General Relativity, and the Standard Model. General Relativity was formed with the requirement of energy conservation built into the theory, in the terms of the theory the energy-momentum tensor must be covariant divergence-free, which is a requirement of the theory, as that is how the theory was created, to force that tensor to be divergence-free. In the standard model, the Conservation of Energy is also found in its construction, due to the Poincare symmetry, and it a global symmetry so energy is conserved on a global scale by virtue of the theory.


So Conservation of Energy is a fact of our physical theories, and is part of the construction of the theories, anything that violates conservation of energy can only be done at a local, not global level, so any violation must balance itself out in the end. Anything else is relaying on physics beyond our current knowledge and while it is possible that something would allow for it to happen, it is currently beyond the realm of observations and theory for a global violation of energy. So the claim that conservation of energy is not written into the fundamental laws of nature is misleading, as that is only true because we do not know the fundamental laws of nature, if it is even possible to ever know such a thing, but the conservation of energy is written into our current understanding of the most fundamental laws of nature.

[Sweeney]

(a lot of unnecessary text)

Do you agree that "The Law of Conservation of Energy" is a description of our applicable observations of the way the universe works?
The law is not theoretically inviolable. It is a fundamental, and well supported, part of our understanding of the universe, yes, but it is not theoretically impossible for it to be violated, proven incomplete, and thus discarded or amended, yes?

To say that the law itself is not written into the foundations of nature is not misleading, it is true.
It's a human construct, nothing more.