CluCalc, Windowz only
looks quite good, unfortunately I'm now a "OSX" guy only.
Guess as an undrgrad I never paid attention to the complete "family tree", but looking back at a few notes and some text books, I'm sure I've forgotten it all(well almost as I have never worked in the physics field, although completed my major in Physics. I never did any of the liberal arts requirements and thus didn't graduate). And that was 20 years ago or so.
OOPs, I guess "Div, Grad, Curl, and All That"(Schey) covered all of that stuff...a great book that was wasted on me in my "youdth"(in my best Joe Pesci NJ accent)
As I stated, not trying to create any arguments, and perhaps exposing my true ignorance
popilin: quite true, anyone can make science. Some of the smartest people I have met have no more than a grade six education: one acquaintance in particular quit school in grade 6 , as his father passed away and he quit school to work the farm and support his mother and two sisters. He is an amazing man, and is by far one of the best "engineers" I have ever met. In fact compared to most P.Engs out there he is sharper than most (I've met and interacted with perhaps a few hundred of them).
The important thing is to be curious, thoughtful and creative.
looks quite good, unfortunately I'm now a "OSX" guy only.
Guess as an undrgrad I never paid attention to the complete "family tree", but looking back at a few notes and some text books, I'm sure I've forgotten it all(well almost as I have never worked in the physics field, although completed my major in Physics. I never did any of the liberal arts requirements and thus didn't graduate). And that was 20 years ago or so.
OOPs, I guess "Div, Grad, Curl, and All That"(Schey) covered all of that stuff...a great book that was wasted on me in my "youdth"(in my best Joe Pesci NJ accent)
As I stated, not trying to create any arguments, and perhaps exposing my true ignorance
popilin: quite true, anyone can make science. Some of the smartest people I have met have no more than a grade six education: one acquaintance in particular quit school in grade 6 , as his father passed away and he quit school to work the farm and support his mother and two sisters. He is an amazing man, and is by far one of the best "engineers" I have ever met. In fact compared to most P.Engs out there he is sharper than most (I've met and interacted with perhaps a few hundred of them).
The important thing is to be curious, thoughtful and creative.
Last edited:
The big problem is that it is only a matter of time, regarding chance and potential that science ends up moving into dead ends.
it is like an unspoken expectation or rule... that people think that..if you map out a road in perfection, via analysis of the past and mapping it out..that this will be 100% the perfect indicator of the future of this 'road'.
This is entirely valid, IMO, but the fallacy is to think that the road will always follow it's past history. It is like trying to look forward and see into the potentials of the future and the now..by driving Solely via looking in the rear view mirror. It is only a matter of time before the view ahead has nothing to do with the map created via "rear view mirror driving."
Sooner or later, science and physics fails in this methodology.
The question is --- if this is one of those times, or not.
Proper science is an arrow the self corrects in flight.
It is not an arrow that steers by looking at the rear view mirror, a methodology which is a human desire, it is inherently dangerous and dogmatic ---and is not logical.
it is like an unspoken expectation or rule... that people think that..if you map out a road in perfection, via analysis of the past and mapping it out..that this will be 100% the perfect indicator of the future of this 'road'.
This is entirely valid, IMO, but the fallacy is to think that the road will always follow it's past history. It is like trying to look forward and see into the potentials of the future and the now..by driving Solely via looking in the rear view mirror. It is only a matter of time before the view ahead has nothing to do with the map created via "rear view mirror driving."
Sooner or later, science and physics fails in this methodology.
The question is --- if this is one of those times, or not.
Proper science is an arrow the self corrects in flight.
It is not an arrow that steers by looking at the rear view mirror, a methodology which is a human desire, it is inherently dangerous and dogmatic ---and is not logical.
If you (KBK) had ever done any science, you would realise what a misunderstanding you are putting forward in your quaint way. In the 20th century there were a number of major leaps forward in science, which were quite unlike what had gone before. For example, the tiny size of the nucleus, special relativity, quantum mechanics. According to you this does not happen, because 20th century physicists would have been locked into 19th century classical physics.
Actually, it is the cranks and critics who are more likely to be hanging on the old paradigms and refusing to accept the new ones. At the heart of many SR-deniers there is a longing for the certainties of classical physics. Unfortunately for them, the universe just doesn't work like that. 20th century physics will one day be replaced by something better, but it is likely to be even more counter-intuitive and couched in even less familiar mathematical language.
Actually, it is the cranks and critics who are more likely to be hanging on the old paradigms and refusing to accept the new ones. At the heart of many SR-deniers there is a longing for the certainties of classical physics. Unfortunately for them, the universe just doesn't work like that. 20th century physics will one day be replaced by something better, but it is likely to be even more counter-intuitive and couched in even less familiar mathematical language.
Last edited:
fortunately there are less sophisticated applications of Geometric Algebra in Classical Mechanics - think freshman physics on steroids – or Robotics motion description
looks like there are Linux distributions for the earlier 4.3 version of CluClac
I am very slowly working through Hestenses Foundations of Classical Mechanics book - strictly the Euclidean 3-D version - which should probably be taught as early as high school AP classes
a promise of the system is that it smoothly extends to higher dimensions, mixed signatures - hopefully making 4-D Minkowski Space Time Algebra accessible without Tensor's confusing everything from the start
looks like there are Linux distributions for the earlier 4.3 version of CluClac
I am very slowly working through Hestenses Foundations of Classical Mechanics book - strictly the Euclidean 3-D version - which should probably be taught as early as high school AP classes
a promise of the system is that it smoothly extends to higher dimensions, mixed signatures - hopefully making 4-D Minkowski Space Time Algebra accessible without Tensor's confusing everything from the start
For some reason I always struggled with geometry. Algebra and calculus fine, but as soon as space stopped being flat I got confused. I managed to pass my third-year gravitation and cosmology module, and even did a bit of research into quantum gravity, but I never felt comfortable with it. Maybe my brain isn't wired in the right way!
You remind me of this thing, which most here have seen before - it's an interactive zoom-thing showing the scales of different objects, much like the Philip Morrison/Scientific American Library book "Powers of Ten" but this goes further than I recall the book going:
The Scale of the Universe - An Interactive Flash Animation
It's got some "nice" new-age music that plays, but it can become incessant so you may want to turn down your volume.
I'm somehow more fascinated with the small than with the large. What's very noticable is there are about 11 orders of magnitude between the Plank Length and Quantum Foam," and the next largest known thing, the neutrino.
I do not believe in the fact that the universe would be anthropocentric disregarding this.
A useful perspective is to look back in history,say 500 years, and consider the level of scientific understanding that was available then and compare that with what we assume to be true now.
Now look forward 500 years into the future and consider what we might know to be true then, in comparison with what we know in the present.
Do we really think that current knowledge is reaching its "end game" and that nothing really new is to be discovered!? Who can say for sure?
I for one will bet good money that we have only experienced the smallest glimpse of what the Universe has to offer and in 500 years time we will look back at 2011 AD with the same perspective as we look back at 1511 AD
Now look forward 500 years into the future and consider what we might know to be true then, in comparison with what we know in the present.
Do we really think that current knowledge is reaching its "end game" and that nothing really new is to be discovered!? Who can say for sure?
I for one will bet good money that we have only experienced the smallest glimpse of what the Universe has to offer and in 500 years time we will look back at 2011 AD with the same perspective as we look back at 1511 AD
These two articles are really a nice example of a scientific debate:
(Though they are independent works, not a direct debate)
[1109.4980] Superluminal neutrinos in long baseline experiments and SN1987a
[1109.5368] Inconsistence of super-luminal Opera neutrino speed with SN1987A neutrinos burst and with flavor neutrino mixing
(Though they are independent works, not a direct debate)
[1109.4980] Superluminal neutrinos in long baseline experiments and SN1987a
[1109.5368] Inconsistence of super-luminal Opera neutrino speed with SN1987A neutrinos burst and with flavor neutrino mixing
While I agree with the spirit of this, IMHO the numbers should be changed, as the rate of change of human knowledge/understanding is increasing with time, thus the amount of change from 500 years ago to now may be equivalent to the amount of change from now to only 50 years into the future.
That approach cost them 100 million US dollars, 1.5 years delay as they repaired an 8 billion dollar machine, and major egg on their face. And all over one solder joint.
It is important the researchers have a good understanding of the engineering involved, AND it is important the engineers have a good understanding of the physics involved. Believe me, that scenario provides the best environment for brainstorming new solutions as well. A very enjoyable work environment.
Cheers, jn
- Status
- Not open for further replies.