I'll reply for him, since secondary school teachers rarely have any knowledge beyond the lesson plan. "Energy" has many different forms in thermodynamics and it's important to keep straight which sort you're talking about.
The energy that is minimized is Gibbs Free Energy, which takes entropy into account. G = H - TS, where S is the entropy and H is the enthalpy.
Yes..agreed..
Most teachers I know are so battered with "Doing it right"...Make it look good...make it pass the observation...Dosn't matter so much about the learner..just get past the next required outcome. Its all about retention and outcomes.
How does the (powers that be address the issue?) Add more paper work and spread sheets to be completed to the already overloaded teacher who wants to do a good job..to make sure he/she is doing it right..
Then say do a tutorial to bridge the gaps if students have problems..
If the teacher was left to teach there would be no need for the tutorial.
I do think we are in danger of becoming robots..(just complete the build, don't think about it just do it) Where is the philosophy in this..?
Its not important<<its just the future of mankind..and its all spread sheet and data based paperwork..
Rant over..
..Regards
M. Gregg
Well said, though I'd like to add to that a bit.Just my thoughts.
Science is what we know of the universe now..I guess it will change and has changed as time progresses. However I do believe we must keep one foot firmly in science as we know it now.
We have to accept that science will take long time to find the answers.
Why because it gives us a grounded reference point.<<This is Very, Very, important.
Science hasn’t got all the answers, Then again I don’t believe anything has.
Man must dream because technology is the stuff of dreams.
The open minded bit is the acceptance that others have other ideas..if you believe or not that’s personal choice. However it must be grounded. This is a major point of science today.
Without it we are cast adrift with no point of reference.
Anything that prevents a link to science is in my mind missing the point. Again think of this as a duality and walking the middle road. Moral truth is an issue.
Anything that blocks the understanding of science is not the way forward. Think of it as a filing cabinet that stores what we know to be true today.
Without it the structure of the human race will lose order. (perhaps it already is)
Teaching now there is a point of contention..Most of (How to teach) is based upon philosophy...and the red tape of "good ideas" is preventing progress..the paperwork is another wall of confusion..
Regards
M. Gregg
The common understanding is that science is a body of knowledge, but I think the fundamental knowledge on which science itself is based is really a way of thinking - the so-called scientific method.
Richard Feynman said that all physics, all the math and hypotheses, isn't truth itself, but just estimations. He was also famous for saying he thought his greatest strength was knowing the difference between knowing something and understanding something, which he demonstrated over and over during his life.
Anyone who looks to any body of knowledge as the only and final truth is suffering under dogmatism, pure and simple. That's not to say science is bad or that we can't understand anything, but I am saying the instant we stop looking at what is actually going on around us is the instant we step out of life and into a fantasy world - whether we feel it is based on science or religion.
Science is a very powerful tool, but is it the only and final truth? Science, in the common understanding, is the study of Systems. Is it logical? Is it verifiable? We have learned a lot through this questioning, but there seems to be a tendency to then think of reality as just a big System - as people as just systems. This is why there is no morality in science as it stands today.
Morality seems to come from the soul. Is the soul a system? Is it just a metaphysical machine which responds in a repeatably set way to any specific stimulus? I don't think so, and I think the fact that the more sophisticated science becomes the more sophisticated it sees the universe points to a future understanding where it will be seen the universe transcends System - where it becomes alive, where it gains a soul.
But is that logical? Is it verifiable? That's where we are today, and it seems for the majority of us we still need to crunch all the numbers and check all the boxes on our long slow grind to where our knowledge catches up to our understanding.
IMO.
Last edited:
Is the dichotomy necessary? Can't "I shouldn't mix the ammonia with the chlorine. That would be the wrong thing to do" and "I shouldn't take my neighbor's lawnmower. That would be the wrong thing to do" use virtually the same thought process?
I don't think there can be morality in science; only in scientists.
I don't think there can be morality in science; only in scientists.
I agree..
However both are governed by rules..some written others not..
Who can write the rules for something discovered..ie no rule yet written.
The morality is "in" the scientists or should I say what they believe to be moral. Where does morality come from? Philosophy?
Regards
M. Gregg
The same thought process, yes. The same valuations, I should hope not - meaning I agree with your second point..
An example of philosophy,
Geneva Convention...
The problem with philosophy is it must move with the times and discoveries. Trouble is we tend to lock it in place like a precious jewel.
I think that could be a problem.
Philosopy--------(belief )(42)------science
Yes it would be interesting to remove philosophy.
(wipe it from ever existing)<<
All wars would never have happened...???
Conflict would not happen???
Arguments would not happen???
I want that i'll take it...survival of the fittest?
Humm a world based entirely on science..now there is a thought..
no geneva convention then..
Culture..(philosophy)..
Isn't it a pain when philosophy gets it wrong..
I wonder if aliens have philosophy?
All just for fun..
Regards
M. Gregg
Geneva Convention...
The problem with philosophy is it must move with the times and discoveries. Trouble is we tend to lock it in place like a precious jewel.
I think that could be a problem.
Philosopy--------(belief )(42)------science
Yes it would be interesting to remove philosophy.
(wipe it from ever existing)<<
All wars would never have happened...???
Conflict would not happen???
Arguments would not happen???
I want that i'll take it...survival of the fittest?
Humm a world based entirely on science..now there is a thought..
no geneva convention then..
Culture..(philosophy)..
Isn't it a pain when philosophy gets it wrong..
I wonder if aliens have philosophy?
All just for fun..
Regards
M. Gregg
IMO, the essence of philosophy is the separation of phenomena, while the essence of spirituality is the union of phenomena.
Just a thought.
What about Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis in philosophy?
I can understand and accept it for teachers of some strict rules, for example how to operate some machine. But for teachers of science?
When I was teaching electronics I liked tough questions. Tough questions are great gifts from students to teachers, to steer emotions, to draw attention, to involve thinking. Teacher must master the art of utilizing tough questions. My usual trick was, after a tough question involve the whole group in solving the problem, then take a sponge as if I need to soak it (I used chalkboard), go out of the class and wait until they solve the problem, or stuck with something difficult.
It was fun!
Philosophy is a catalog of conceptualizations, as differentiated from spirituality being Being.
I suppose why you do it is up to you - which I can't argue with, either way.Right, but Philosophy by definition is Love of Wisdom about Being, no?
I suppose why you do it is up to you - which I can't argue with, either way.
Well, Cogito ergo sum!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Did he expect from you to know about Local VS Global extremes and equilibrium?
We covered the G=H-TS in Chemistry - useful, as you can rearrange to find the temperature at which a reaction becomes feasible (dG = 0).
I wouldn't've thought it could be applied in nuclear physics.
Then again, I can see no reason why it can't be applied in nuclear physics. Hmm..
Just remembered - I believe we were talking about nuclear binding energy - 56Fe has (according to the graph I have here) the smallest binding energy per nucleon, making it the most stable.
The bit about entropy is only relevant to the teacher's mention of nature tending toward its most stable state.
My conclusion (at this late hour) would be that, while fusion and fission occur to produce the most stable element, the entropy of the system as a whole (in this case, the universe) must increase, as energy is released (as kinetic energy in other particles) to wreak havoc elsewhere.
I'm going to bed now.
Chris
PS - this was A-level (16-18 yrs) stuff.
Chris; if you knew more than that poor teacher you should not ask him.
I myself did that once. You may be heard of Defense Cathedral in Russian universities where students once a week are prepared for the secondary specialty, related to defense. There was a rumor there about one major being stupid, people were telling anecdotes about him. Once on a lecture he described a power supply in a radar station and mentioned a button inside of antenna switch that is off until antenna switch is completely switched to one wave-guide, or to another one. He said, "Otherwise contacts in an antenna switch will burn!"
I knew that antenna switch consists of a flap in a Y-shaped wave-guide, and that button is needed to prevent damage of magnetron. But anyway I asked the question.
As the result, I never sat anymore on his lectures. Instead I worked alone in an empty class building a "visual aid", big copy of equipment he was responsible for. However, I had access to all secret schematics I needed, and instead of standing and sitting by commands I could be like "civil worker" in a "military camp", that was a big plus, and I passed exams on "A" equivalent because I knew schematics well.
That professor in uniform turned to be not so dumb as we were thinking about him. He could not know anything, but had a good soldier's wit.
I myself did that once. You may be heard of Defense Cathedral in Russian universities where students once a week are prepared for the secondary specialty, related to defense. There was a rumor there about one major being stupid, people were telling anecdotes about him. Once on a lecture he described a power supply in a radar station and mentioned a button inside of antenna switch that is off until antenna switch is completely switched to one wave-guide, or to another one. He said, "Otherwise contacts in an antenna switch will burn!"
I knew that antenna switch consists of a flap in a Y-shaped wave-guide, and that button is needed to prevent damage of magnetron. But anyway I asked the question.
As the result, I never sat anymore on his lectures. Instead I worked alone in an empty class building a "visual aid", big copy of equipment he was responsible for. However, I had access to all secret schematics I needed, and instead of standing and sitting by commands I could be like "civil worker" in a "military camp", that was a big plus, and I passed exams on "A" equivalent because I knew schematics well.
That professor in uniform turned to be not so dumb as we were thinking about him. He could not know anything, but had a good soldier's wit.
Do you think we prepare ourselves,
For possible maybes via science fiction eg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=2sLMq75xpKE&NR=1
Do you think the idea that the stuff of scifi could one day become real, might help prepare mankind for possible encounters in the future.
Does it prepare mankind for ability to accept that it could happen and reduce shock and impact if it did? Or build defence against something that does not exist just in case it did?
Or do you think it has no relevance at all, and man should just get on with life?
My last comment.. good job its all just for fun..
Regards
M. Gregg
For possible maybes via science fiction eg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=2sLMq75xpKE&NR=1
Do you think the idea that the stuff of scifi could one day become real, might help prepare mankind for possible encounters in the future.
Does it prepare mankind for ability to accept that it could happen and reduce shock and impact if it did? Or build defence against something that does not exist just in case it did?
Or do you think it has no relevance at all, and man should just get on with life?
My last comment..
good job its all just for fun.. Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Do you think we prepare ourselves,
For possible maybes via science fiction eg:
Battle Los Angeles-The Catalyst (HD 720p) - YouTube
Do you think the idea that the stuff of scifi could one day become real, might help prepare mankind for possible encounters in the future.
Does it prepare mankind for ability to accept that it could happen and reduce shock and impact if it did? Or build defence against something that does not exist just in case it did?
Or do you think it has no relevance at all, and man should just get on with life?
My last comment..
Regards
M. Gregg
The works of science fiction can be uncannily accurate. Look at Wells, Roddenberry, Heinlein, etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.