Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #524213 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:19 -0500
Re: green stars john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 06:30 -0700
Re: green stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:59 -0500
Re: green stars benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 12:24 -0400
Re: green stars HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 10:19 -0700
Re: green stars Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-03 12:14 +0200
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-02 14:40 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-02 22:18 +0000
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:45 -0500
Re: green stars Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-05 08:30 -0700
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:02 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 02:29 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:29 -0700
Re: green stars Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2015-10-03 23:49 -0300
Re: green stars "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 08:48 +0100
Re: green stars Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 11:07 -0500
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 12:50 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:54 -0700
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 13:21 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-04 11:15 -0600
Re: green stars Stumpy <perilmung@spamnet.con> - 2015-10-05 13:39 -0700
Re: green stars "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 09:27 -0400
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:45 -0400
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:40 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:51 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 21:54 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:24 -0700
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:46 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:15 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 14:27 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 16:53 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 13:02 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-05 14:39 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 14:24 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-07 13:18 +0000
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 19:27 -0400
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-07 19:43 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-08 01:58 -0600
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 01:11 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 13:49 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:20 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 22:04 -0700
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-08 08:19 -0400
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 08:59 -0700
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0600
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 13:19 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-09 21:27 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-10 20:12 -0600
Re: green stars Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 19:08 -0500
Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 17:20 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 01:09 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 22:21 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 02:33 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 23:03 -0400
Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 22:03 -0700
Re: green stars Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> - 2015-10-08 19:38 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-08 22:19 +0000
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:16 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 17:33 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 19:59 -0700
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:36 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-09 04:19 +0000
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 11:12 -0700
Re: green stars scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 14:05 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 18:57 -0400
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:57 -0700
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:41 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 13:43 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-02 22:38 -0400
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:37 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:52 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:36 -0500
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:39 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:55 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:07 -0500
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 23:52 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 10:24 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 12:35 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:20 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:15 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:31 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:12 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:34 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-07 00:49 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:24 -0700
Re: green stars "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: green stars "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:58 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5616F969.713B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525335 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> >> > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >>> >> >>>> painting. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >>> >> > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >>> > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >>> > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >>> were all guys. > >> > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > maybe? 1920 http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993?size=_original#caption
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 17:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7677403-1e5f-4006-928a-44ff26723b7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #525341 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > >>> > > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > >>> >> > > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > > >>> >> >>>> painting. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > > >>> > > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > > >>> > > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > > >>> were all guys. > > >> > > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > > maybe? > > 1920 > http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993?size=_original#caption Well, 1920 wasn't WW2...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56172764.3BB5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525350 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > > > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > > > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > > >>> > > > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > > > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > > > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > > > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > > > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > > > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > > > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > > > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > > > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > > > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > > > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > > > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > > > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > > > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > > > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > > > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > > > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > > > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > > > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > > > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > > > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > > > >>> >> >>>> painting. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > > > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > > > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > > > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > > > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > > > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > > > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > > > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > > > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > > > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > > > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > > > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > > > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > > > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > > > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > > > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > > > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > > > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > > > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > > > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > > > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > > > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > > > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > > > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > > > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > > > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > > > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > > > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > > > >>> > > > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > > > >>> > > > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > > > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > > > >>> were all guys. > > > >> > > > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > > > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > > > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > > > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > > > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > > > > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > > > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > > > maybe? > > > > 1920 > > http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993?size=_original#caption > > Well, 1920 wasn't WW2... I understand that, but that is what it says here... http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/computing-power-used-to-be-measured-in-kilo-girls/280633/ under the photo reads: Women at work tabulating during World War II (Shorpy) wat do you expect from people who write about in www.theatlantic.com, technology, computing-power articles, genuieses??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4541a483-e10a-4149-9646-ca5939705287@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #525367 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 7:33:07 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, 1920 wasn't WW2... > > I understand that, but that is what it says here... > http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/computing-power-used-to-be-measured-in-kilo-girls/280633/ > > under the photo reads: Women at work tabulating during World War II > (Shorpy) I see your point. However, another version of this photo says "about 1920", and yet another fellow says it might be from as early as 1911. I've got no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the clothing worn by the women in the picture was definitely NOT from the 1940's, which would be WW2... just sayin'...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 21:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3080e417586feca2989ba4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #525335 |
In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> >> > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >>> >> >>>> painting. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >>> >> > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >>> > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >>> > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >>> were all guys. > >> > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > maybe? There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says 1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked "Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to IBM. If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company that would put it between 1896 and 1911. In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on "view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually "computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on <http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 04:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvxqoy.6Gq@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #525364 |
In article <MPG.3080e417586feca2989ba4@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >> In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, >> Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >>> >> >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, >> >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >>> >> >> >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >> >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >> >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >> >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >> >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >> >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything >past Newton. >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >> >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Yes. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >> >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >> >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >> >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >> >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >> >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >> >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >> >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >> >>> >> >>>>> do now. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >> >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >> >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >> >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >> >>> >> >>>> painting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >> >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >> >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >> >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >> >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >> >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >> >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >> >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >> >>> >> >>> Thursday section. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >> >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >> >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >> >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >> >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >> >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >> >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >> >>> >> >>> more from the final. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >> >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >> >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >> >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >> >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >> >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >> >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >> >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >> >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >> >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >> >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >> >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male >engineers >> >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? >> >>> > >> >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. >> >>> >> >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does >> >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers >> >>> were all guys. >> >> >> >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. >> >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that >> >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". >> > >> >Here are some of those computers at work: >> > >> >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg >> > >> >> Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles >> look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s >> maybe? > >There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says >1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked >"Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith >founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form >the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to >IBM. > >If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company >that would put it between 1896 and 1911. > >In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on >"view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually >"computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. > >Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on ><http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly >read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section". I sent the photo to my daughter, who is savvy about such things, and she said, "Those hairstyles are about 1920. Just because the hemlines reach the floor doesn't mean it's the tweens. Remember Evie Carnahan in the first Mummy movie? Finger waves and ankle hemlines. The dropped waist and shorter skirts were TRES risque, wouldn't have been accepted in an office." -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5618039A.7510@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525381 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > In article <MPG.3080e417586feca2989ba4@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> > >> In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > >> Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> >>> > >> >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >> >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >> >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >> >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >> >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >> >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> >>> >> >>>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >> >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything > >past Newton. > >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >> >>> >> >>>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >> >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >> >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >> >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >> >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >> >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >> >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >> >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >> >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >> >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >> >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >> >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >> >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >> >>> >> >>>> painting. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >> >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >> >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >> >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >> >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >> >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >> >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >> >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >> >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >> >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >> >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >> >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >> >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >> >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >> >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >> >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >> >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >> >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >> >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >> >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >> >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >> >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >> >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >> >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >> >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >> >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >> >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male > >engineers > >> >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >> >>> > > >> >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >> >>> > >> >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >> >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >> >>> were all guys. > >> >> > >> >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > >> > > >> >Here are some of those computers at work: > >> > > >> >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > >> > > >> > >> Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > >> look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > >> maybe? > > > >There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says > >1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked > >"Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith > >founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form > >the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to > >IBM. > > > >If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company > >that would put it between 1896 and 1911. > > > >In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on > >"view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually > >"computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. > > > >Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on > ><http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly > >read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section". > > I sent the photo to my daughter, who is savvy about such things, whose daughter 'isn't' savvy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8RPRx.88318$qn.14786@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #525364 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles >> look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s >> maybe? > >There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says >1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked >"Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith >founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form >the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to >IBM. > >If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company >that would put it between 1896 and 1911. > >In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on >"view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually >"computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. > >Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on ><http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly >read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section". Ah, rows of Burroughs Class 1 (style 3) adding machines, with beveled glass front and sides. I have one in my office from 1908, and one at home from 1911; both still working. While both of mine are manual, the ones in the photo are motorized versions. Would have been very noisy working conditions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 18:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3080bf042dc55fa3989ba3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #525294 |
In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, fwbrown@bellsouth.net says... > > In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> > >> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> >> > >> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Yes. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >> >> >>>>> do now. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >> >> >>>> painting. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >> >> >>> Thursday section. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >> >> >>> more from the final. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >> >> > >> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >> > > >> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >> > >> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >> were all guys. > > > > People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > > Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > > era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > Here are some of those computers at work: > > http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg Good find.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005216FC0AD0999@aca41669.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #524804 |
Dimensional Traveler wrote: > On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>>> Bonehead English. >>>>> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>>> do now. >>>>> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>> painting. >>> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>> At which I was not very good either. >>> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>> Thursday section. >>> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>> more from the final. >>> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> > No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. You don't know what you're talkking about. Those women worked hard. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5296F888F39Ataustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #524492 |
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nvp65o.1ID2@kithrup.com:
> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>,
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>
>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10,
>>> aka Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past
>>> Newton. I haven't had to. I take it on faith.
>>
>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really
>>"Physics [ten]?"
>
> Yes.
>
> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities
> Majors". Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and
> Sciences, who wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take
> it. In a similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if
> they couldn't pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in
> which case they'd take the standard lower-division English
> courses like the rest of us) would take English 10, which of
> course was called Bonehead English.
>
> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what
> they do now.
>
I'm reminded of the discussions of Calculus for Business Majors,
which my math professor referred to as Baby Calculus. We did one
night of it. Only, where business majors basically had to memorize
the formulae and what they did, we had to understand the guts of
it. Most nightmarish couple of hours of math I've ever had.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 10:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1juk6bxjiyi18.1tdgwein746qw$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #524483 |
On 4 Oct 2015 06:46:00 -0400, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in<news:mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com> in rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics: > In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics >> 10, aka Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand >> anything past Newton. I haven't had to. I take it on >> faith. > Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course > really "Physics [ten]?" Why not? The first-year language courses at Pomona when I was a student there were, for instance, German 1a (first semester French) and German 1b (second semester French); these were followed by German 51a and 51b. The serious first-year physics course was Physics 51a and 51b (or 61a and 61b, if you were taking it with a more rigorous lab). Brian -- It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss, haggisss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 13:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <murog0$ii0$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #524504 |
In article <1juk6bxjiyi18.1tdgwein746qw$.dlg@40tude.net>, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> said: > William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote >> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> >>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics >>> 10, aka Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand >>> anything past Newton. I haven't had to. I take it on >>> faith. >> >> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course >> really "Physics [ten]?" > > Why not? The first-year language courses at Pomona when I > was a student there were, for instance, German 1a (first > semester French) and German 1b (second semester French); > these were followed by German 51a and 51b. The serious > first-year physics course was Physics 51a and 51b (or 61a > and 61b, if you were taking it with a more rigorous lab). It's just that Foo 101 is such a common cliche -- and as a cliche is presumably based on widespread occurrence in real life -- that I thought a typo was a very real possibility. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 22:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <munf37$hol$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #524312 |
In article <nvM5yI.1sLq@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't > possible. In this universe anyway. I don't know. They can do some pretty amazing things with lime Jell-O these days. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QYudnQDAGrU9143LnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524312 |
On 02/10/2015 6:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible. In > this universe anyway. Why not? As a matter of fact, our own star, The Sun, is primarily radiating in the green range. That's why plants on Earth are green, they are reflecting the strongest portion of the Sun's radiation, because it is too much energy for them to take in. The Sun looks yellow within the atmosphere because of atmospheric scattering of the sunlight. The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our vision. Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA528975C4C77Etaustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #524435 |
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:QYudnQDAGrU9143LnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com:
> On 02/10/2015 6:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible. In
>> this universe anyway.
>
> Why not? As a matter of fact, our own star, The Sun, is
> primarily radiating in the green range. That's why plants on
> Earth are green, they are reflecting the strongest portion of
> the Sun's radiation, because it is too much energy for them to
> take in.
>
> The Sun looks yellow within the atmosphere because of
> atmospheric scattering of the sunlight. The Sun looks white in
> space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's primarily because
> it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our vision.
>
There is literally no single fact in your post that it correct.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q5idna_9-v7LxY3LnZ2dnUU7-fcAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524435 |
On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's > primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our > vision. No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making white. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 01:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5612374A.44@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #524444 |
Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's > > primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our > > vision. > > No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved > with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the > yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making > white. plenty of red and blue does not make white. The reason why they see red shifts is because red is the weakest color...it's the first to go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 01:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56123AF1.23A8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #524619 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > > The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's > > > primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our > > > vision. > > > > No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved > > with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the > > yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making > > white. > > plenty of red and blue does not make white. > > The reason why they see red shifts is because red is the weakest > color...it's the first to go. hottest stars are blue, while coldest stars are red. http://www.astrophysical.org/starclassification.php that would mean the green stars are ...just right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 01:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56123237.6ADB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #524435 |
Yousuf Khan wrote: > > On 02/10/2015 6:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible. In > > this universe anyway. > > Why not? As a matter of fact, our own star, The Sun, is primarily > radiating in the green range. That's why plants on Earth are green, they > are reflecting the strongest portion of the Sun's radiation, because it > is too much energy for them to take in. > > The Sun looks yellow within the atmosphere because of atmospheric > scattering of the sunlight. The Sun looks white in space, from outside > the atmosphere, but that's primarily because it's so close to us, all > colours look saturated in our vision. > > Yousuf Khan so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web