Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #497423 > unrolled thread

Re: Fundamentals of Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Fundamentals of Physics Joe Genteel <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-06-03 01:16 +0000
    Re: Fundamentals of Physics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-06-03 05:09 +0000
    Re: Fundamentals of Physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 06:53 -0500
    Re: Fundamentals of Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-06-03 19:51 -0500
      Re: Fundamentals of Physics Joe Genteel <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-06-04 02:22 +0000
        Re: Fundamentals of Physics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-06-07 19:46 -0700
    Re: Fundamentals of Physics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-06-04 08:18 -0400

#497423 — Re: Fundamentals of Physics

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:45:46 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

>> ... and has been well known to science and engineering
>> students for decades as "the gold standard" of freshman-level physics
>> texts. In 2002, the American Physical Society named the work the most
>> outstanding introductory physics text of the 20th century.
> 

Throw this trash into the fire.

I can't believe that, after more than 20 years of http protocol, they
are still advocating paper books.

A hyper-text physics "virtual" book, containing vivid images, graphics,
and multimedia content that no paper-bound book could ever muster, is
the only way to present science -- and it would be free (no $$$) to boot.

C'mon people.  Get your heads out of your asses.  Let get with the modern
times.  Let's realize the true potential of the Internet.

We have MathML.  We have HTML5.  Yet we still insist on paper-bound textbooks
and their antiquated capabilities.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#497453

Joe Genteel <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:32:35 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> If the book is free, what motive is there for anyone to write it and proof
>> read it?
>>
> 
> Ever hear of Wikipedia?  It is the de facto reference for the
> entire Internet and it is totally free.

And worth every penny you pay for it.

<snip>

> Open source software, for example, has created an entire Unix-like
> and free operating system.

As well as a lucrative source of income for those supporting that free
software.

<snip>

> Also, the production of a paper textbook is highly constrained by
> many factors.  An on-line text has absolutely no constraints and
> could contain far more and better material.

Rubbish.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#497475

On 6/2/15 11:01 PM, Joe Genteel wrote:
> Ever hear of Wikipedia?  It is the de facto reference for the
> entire Internet and it is totally free.  The Wikipedia project
> produces some excellent textbooks as well.

I give Wikipedia an annual donation -- you should too.


-- 

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]

#497665

On 6/2/2015 8:16 PM, Joe Genteel wrote:
> Throw this trash into the fire.
>
> I can't believe that, after more than 20 years of http protocol, they
> are still advocating paper books.
>
> A hyper-text physics "virtual" book, containing vivid images, graphics,
> and multimedia content that no paper-bound book could ever muster, is
> the only way to present science -- and it would be free (no $$$) to boot.
>
> C'mon people.  Get your heads out of your asses.  Let get with the modern
> times.  Let's realize the true potential of the Internet.
>
> We have MathML.  We have HTML5.  Yet we still insist on paper-bound textbooks
> and their antiquated capabilities.

Writing a textbook takes between five and twenty years of an author's 
life. During this time, he is not remunerated for the effort, as far as 
I've been told by a friend who's been through this. An author makes this 
investment in time and enormous effort, as do reviewers, formatters, 
artists, purely on the risk that the book will be successful and the 
author will receive royalties from the sales of the book. I think you 
will find very few sensible people who will spend years of their life on 
something for nothing in return.

The only way anybody would create an online book for free is 
crowd-sourcing -- aka Wikipedia. And there, though it is a pretty 
powerful concept, the pedagogical value is horrible and the quality very 
mixed.

People who think that the internet is going to make all books free are 
still living in the early 1990s.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#497690

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:51:52 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Writing a textbook takes between five and twenty years of an author's 
> life.
>

You've got to be joking -- or else extremely deluded.

Textbooks are the most standardized objects in the academic
word.  One author merely copies the structure, organization,
and content of another in a nearly verbatim fashion.  They
may as well all be produced by the same cookie cutter.

I challenge you to acquire several textbooks, on any subject,
and compare them for essential differences.  You will find
little if any at all.

In your idealistic and distorted view, each textbook would be so
painstakingly crafted by its author as to be totally unique.
A perusal of any book store will quickly shatter that fantasy.  


>
> ... as do reviewers, formatters, 
> artists, purely on the risk that the book will be successful
>

These superfluous folks are there to make sure the textbook
contains equal representation for women, minorities, and
now homosexuals.  "Diversity" is the current formula for contemporary
college textbook material.
 
Is there a better reason to insist on free and independent authorship?


> 
> The only way anybody would create an online book for free is 
> crowd-sourcing -- aka Wikipedia. And there, though it is a pretty 
> powerful concept, the pedagogical value is horrible and the quality very 
> mixed.
> 

Ever hear of the Open Courseware project at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology?  Maybe you should check it out:

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Lecture notes, you should know, are just an "unofficial" kind of textbook.


Here is another fine example, of which there are many, many more:

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net


>
> People who think that the internet is going to make all books free are 
> still living in the early 1990s.
>

The facts, sir, completely destroy your assertions.

*You* are the throwback.  Your anachronistic perspectives are being
demolished as we speak.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#498563

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 2:03:14 PM UTC-4, Joe Genteel wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:10 -0700, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> >
> > How many different ways can there
> > be to discuss Sadi Carnot's Second Law of ThermoD(y)namics afterall?
> > 
> 
> Hoorah!  Very well spoken!

Shhh... Stop being nice to me Joe. People will get the wrong idea...
Btw and fwiw, the string door Door DOOR means far Far FAR in Hindi+.
 
> Actually, the Second Law is an excellent example of the disgusting
> uniformity found in virtually all textbooks.

Well, disgusting wasn't what I was going for, but your point well
taken. Monotony is to Monogamy as ... the old, an overplayed joke.
 
I did just find this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_god today.
When one slams shut, to music no less, in your face {G,E,T,S,M,A,R,T}!

> After reading many, many textbooks on thermodynamics, and finding
> the exact same presentation and argument, I realized that I did
> not really understand the essence of the Second Law.  It was only
> after discovering a highly visual explanation within a "popular"
> treatise that it all fell into place.

Visualization is over-rated, it's a human limited cognition thing.
Though I do love visuals Visuals VISUALS. Contemplation worth more.
Regardless, I/am too find myself working on some animations as of late.

Yes, the old that forever has been essence of the Second Law, well
known only to @#manKind (TM, SM, and BMW) ...youKnow I had to do it
hereNow... since Sadi Carnot's days. With all due respect {S, Q, T}
captures it. That essence thing, throw in a d or 2.

> The necessary imagery is this:
> 
> Although the component molecules of a thermodynamic fluid are
> moving violently in all possible directions, useful work output
> involves only the component of motion in a single direction.

An de+inflating balloon does work -- useful or otherwise -- in all
directions. Explain please this single direction limitation?

> This kind of description never occurs in any of the hundreds,
> or even thousands, of available standard textbooks, most likely
> because of its intuitive and hence non-rigorous nature.  I challenge
> anyone to find it.

Is that like me asking you for homework from your college days?
It's a STEM and <up|[...]|down> to physics joke, nothing more.
 
> But anyway, unless one is a blinded and deranged idiot, the world
> of commercial textbooks is a sorry mess of stale uniformity.

The stale uniformity is controlled by the state, Thermodynamic State!
Be afraid, be very Very VERY... ...youKnow^3!.

Conclusion: Being paranoid does not help. Since The(y) theirs' there be.
 
> A single textbook, suitably updated, can apply to any situation and
> can last forever, and the most efficient method for production and
> distribution is electronic (digital).

The Single Pyramid Book Structure updated in time, digitally of course.
The HitchHiker's Guide To The Final Universe Dream (FUD).

> All dissenters will soon be buried along with their typewriters,
> pneumatic tubes, and adding machines.

Must you Joe?! Old technologies, like past is predicate, tech.  

Perhaps, more likely, one's audience is a function of one's technology.

-- Mahipal 'One who travels more has more Mone(y) Tech tech TECH!'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#497727

On 4 Jun 2015 05:37:54 GMT, Joe Genteel wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:27:57 -0700, GogoJF wrote:
>
>> 
>> Will there be credit where credit is due- or will this beast reign
>> of its' own creation?  Will it become an idea stealing machine?
>>
>
>If I understand you correctly (and it is always difficult to decipher
>the jabber of a psychotic idiot) I will only say the following:
>
>Knowledge belongs to no one.
>
>Any corporation that presumes to own knowledge for its pecuniary
>interests should be summarily destroyed -- with extreme prejudice.
>
>If you want to make some bucks then build a better mousetrap.
>Do not peddle your printed rehash of Newton's Laws as if you
>have an exclusive right.

Then you would be okay with a physics book that says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
Newton's 1st Law
Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi
uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur
statum illum mutare.

Oh, you want that translated from Latin -- for free?
Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving
uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to
change its state by force impressed.

Oh, you want that paraphrased to more contemporary language -- for
free?
The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all
forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object
is constant. 

Oh, you want that paraphrased into something more easily
understandable -- for free?
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law1.html
An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced
force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and
in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Some people very good at explaining things. Some people with vast
amounts of knowledge are very bad at explaining what they know.

You want someone to produce a multi-hundred page book that explains a
wide range of knowledge clearly and concisely.

Why do you think they shouldn't get paid for it?

Why do you think you should get paid for doing your job?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web