A driving instructor can teach someone to drive without knowing all the math behind it.
They can also do some amount of research, perhaps learning the math as they go along.
given that physics is still a theoretical part of science, by not teaching the current application and instead focusing on the more fundamentals you may well be equipping people far better to then go on to push physics in new directions that 'indoctrinated' individuals wouldn't even think of, because they don't even know that there is a box to think outside of.
more 'theoretical' set theory based stuff, yeh loads of maths.
but you should be able to explain things using concepts, which the audience 'can' grasp without knowing the precise math behind it.
For instance, you could explain Newtonian physics via example and a persons every day experience. You'd get the basic principles behind it accros with no need for maths.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction. and some clips of experiments to demonstrate this such as newtons cradle or whatever. vs well some geometry other measurements and equations (which would be different depending upon exactly what your doing or measuring etc..). to the effect of a a weight of 1kg (or newtons if SI) traveling at a speed of 1 meter / second in the direction of another mass of 3kg etc...
you'd so something similar for measuring stresses on something a bit more static like a bridge.
explaining the physics and laws does not require a full working knowledge of the maths.
Would you rather have. a: Someone who can teach themselves and therefor think on their own and outside the box. b: someone who needs to be taught by someone else and has spent years being brain-washed into the current (and incomplete) ways of thinking.
I've got a lonely 4 GCSE's, hoping sometime soon to cap that with a Nobel prize or two. A little bit of autism and having to learn everything myself through the application of scientific method on everything around me in real time may really have paid of big style!!!
that glass your drinking out of, what (guessing)35million years of human 'intelligence' or 35million years of the evolution of science through accidental discovery, random chance, and natural selection.
a: Your a type of computer. b: care to enlighten me on this 'inteligent' thing you claim to be? c: If you do not perceive that you to perform the same calculations over and over again then I'd change jobs.
How exactly do you program if you don't just translate your thoughts into language?
what if you've got a 'speed' up plugin for your browser that spiders and preloads loads of stuff, there could easily be links to all kinds of stuff and it would/could look like your browsing, and the files will be stored and cached on your computer.
and anyone not wanting to get caught will use one of the many ways of proxying yourself, or a public connection, or a hacked connection / proxy.
gees, some one needs to give the people that run the world an education, or at least pass a law making it a requirement that all laws are run by several experts, hobbyist and professionals in the field for the obvious and not so obvious errors and pointlessness or even counter productiveness of the legislation being passed. Maybe even run a few fake trials based on the legislation and see what kind of prosecution vs defense comes up.
I would expect that the defense side have an open forum so that anyone can contribute and discuss the prosecution and so aid the defense, we want our laws to be as good as possible and waste as little time as possible. And we want as few of them as possible.
Time spent making them in the first place is time and money saved later down the line, and it would also give some people a little 'respect' in the only profession that comes lower than lawyers and bankers when it comes to honor and decency.
I don't know how big subsidies are but with that kind of ROI the government could probably solar up everyone for less money that they spent on the recession.
That would also I presume result in a huge drop in fossil fuel prices too. Countries that were net importers on fossils would stand to gain quite a boost to their cost effectiveness etc.. and overall there should be a good reduction in poverty as a result in a good drop in the cost of living.
I thought the idea behind solar was not return on capital investment but lower CO2 emissions and less reliance on fossil fuels and none recyclable / renewable (well in human time) resources.
even if it took twice the life of the solar cells to get your money back, so long as that cost wasn't the result of energy used in production then there's a net environmental gain.
Also energy prices are rising and will continue to rise, possibly quite steeply. Especially as were supposedly coming out of recession some time soonish so demand will go up. And also supply of fossil fuels is going to start dropping at some point and that will see prices start to sky rocket.
New production techniques should substantially bring the cost down, and if this development works out well then potentially energy yield will double.
So in theory ROI of 5 years could drop to 1 year. and a ROI of 1 year (and then capital gain for the lifetime of the cells) seems like a bit of a no-brainier.
a the speed of light latent momentum through time is zero. energy is merely the equivalent to lack of momentum through time, and through symmetry the limit of momentum through space.
matter, well with zero relative energy latent momentum through time would be at maximum and momentum through space zero.
matter is kinda like a lack of space.
e=mc^2
don't forget that speed is a measurement of space and time, so e=mc^2 doesn't just relate matter and energy.
also space has latent momentum too by the looks of things, unless there's some better explanation for dark energy out there.
really GR is merely the logical assertion that things that are the same are the same (or at least have some equivalence)
you could very crudly say that gravity is a force that reduces the space between two 'bits' of matter, and is related to mass.
So if you reduce the space between two bits of matter by adding energy then you would expect a similar thing to happen, and so the mass to increase.
since the strength of the movement caused by gravity is related to the mass. strength being relative to energy (movement through space simply) and dito. you would therefore logically expect to have to apply more energy to move a object of larger mass.
so all things being relative inertia and gravity are proportionate.
that's very crude and simple, but hopefully okish.
same goes for parent, in which matter without energy would be a singularity etc... but then matter is energy... see a tad simple.
GR seems to be more of a relationships between 'physical/discrete' things (e=mc^2) shows the relationships between matter energy space and time such that the movement through space of energy having no inertia through time itself is equivalent to that of mass having no movement through space but latent movement through time. ^2 relates the 1 dimension of energy / time to the 3 dimensions of space / 'matter', which would create a cylinder, which to for a symmetry would be a torus, or a string.....
rince wash repeat.
QM is more of a mixture between matter and energy and space and time so meta-physical.
so for instance, a particle is a mixture of both space and the 'signature' of the particle. in 1 dimensions this just acts like a particle, force it into two dimensions then collapse it down and it behaves in the same way that you would expect when you switch up from 1 dimension to two dimensions in say calculus, in that you get a +c random bit.
there are many other ways you can look at it I suppose but that's a fairly simple one that demonstrates the nature of the mutual exclusion between physics and 'meta' physics.
(I have a simpler one that can be derived from nothing using pure logic, but you'll have to ask nicely.)
Black isn't racially charges, AC. It refers to a sub-group that encompasses many people of many origins (though I have not encountered any Lunar blacks, I have met black born in England and in France and in China)
Slashdot Mirror
you've spent far to long in school.
A driving instructor can teach someone to drive without knowing all the math behind it.
They can also do some amount of research, perhaps learning the math as they go along.
given that physics is still a theoretical part of science, by not teaching the current application and instead focusing on the more fundamentals you may well be equipping people far better to then go on to push physics in new directions that 'indoctrinated' individuals wouldn't even think of, because they don't even know that there is a box to think outside of.
now what was the name of that patent clerk again?
it depends on the teaching approach.
more 'theoretical' set theory based stuff, yeh loads of maths.
but you should be able to explain things using concepts, which the audience 'can' grasp without knowing the precise math behind it.
For instance, you could explain Newtonian physics via example and a persons every day experience. You'd get the basic principles behind it accros with no need for maths.
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
and some clips of experiments to demonstrate this such as newtons cradle or whatever.
vs
well some geometry other measurements and equations (which would be different depending upon exactly what your doing or measuring etc..). to the effect of a a weight of 1kg (or newtons if SI) traveling at a speed of 1 meter / second in the direction of another mass of 3kg etc...
you'd so something similar for measuring stresses on something a bit more static like a bridge.
explaining the physics and laws does not require a full working knowledge of the maths.
more importantly than that.
Would you rather have.
a: Someone who can teach themselves and therefor think on their own and outside the box.
b: someone who needs to be taught by someone else and has spent years being brain-washed into the current (and incomplete) ways of thinking.
I've got a lonely 4 GCSE's, hoping sometime soon to cap that with a Nobel prize or two. A little bit of autism and having to learn everything myself through the application of scientific method on everything around me in real time may really have paid of big style!!!
It depends, if the pre-fetch ran on 'idle' then there will be a random element to the fetching of data.
as I said 'could' look like.
that glass your drinking out of, what (guessing)35million years of human 'intelligence' or 35million years of the evolution of science through accidental discovery, random chance, and natural selection.
computers are NOT "intelligent". At all.
a: Your a type of computer.
b: care to enlighten me on this 'inteligent' thing you claim to be?
c: If you do not perceive that you to perform the same calculations over and over again then I'd change jobs.
How exactly do you program if you don't just translate your thoughts into language?
what if....
what if you've got a 'speed' up plugin for your browser that spiders and preloads loads of stuff, there could easily be links to all kinds of stuff and it would/could look like your browsing, and the files will be stored and cached on your computer.
and anyone not wanting to get caught will use one of the many ways of proxying yourself, or a public connection, or a hacked connection / proxy.
gees, some one needs to give the people that run the world an education, or at least pass a law making it a requirement that all laws are run by several experts, hobbyist and professionals in the field for the obvious and not so obvious errors and pointlessness or even counter productiveness of the legislation being passed. Maybe even run a few fake trials based on the legislation and see what kind of prosecution vs defense comes up.
I would expect that the defense side have an open forum so that anyone can contribute and discuss the prosecution and so aid the defense, we want our laws to be as good as possible and waste as little time as possible. And we want as few of them as possible.
Time spent making them in the first place is time and money saved later down the line, and it would also give some people a little 'respect' in the only profession that comes lower than lawyers and bankers when it comes to honor and decency.
I don't know how big subsidies are but with that kind of ROI the government could probably solar up everyone for less money that they spent on the recession.
That would also I presume result in a huge drop in fossil fuel prices too.
Countries that were net importers on fossils would stand to gain quite a boost to their cost effectiveness etc.. and overall there should be a good reduction in poverty as a result in a good drop in the cost of living.
I thought the idea behind solar was not return on capital investment but lower CO2 emissions and less reliance on fossil fuels and none recyclable / renewable (well in human time) resources.
even if it took twice the life of the solar cells to get your money back, so long as that cost wasn't the result of energy used in production then there's a net environmental gain.
Also energy prices are rising and will continue to rise, possibly quite steeply. Especially as were supposedly coming out of recession some time soonish so demand will go up.
And also supply of fossil fuels is going to start dropping at some point and that will see prices start to sky rocket.
New production techniques should substantially bring the cost down, and if this development works out well then potentially energy yield will double.
So in theory ROI of 5 years could drop to 1 year. and a ROI of 1 year (and then capital gain for the lifetime of the cells) seems like a bit of a no-brainier.
a the speed of light latent momentum through time is zero.
energy is merely the equivalent to lack of momentum through time, and through symmetry the limit of momentum through space.
matter, well with zero relative energy latent momentum through time would be at maximum and momentum through space zero.
matter is kinda like a lack of space.
e=mc^2
don't forget that speed is a measurement of space and time, so e=mc^2 doesn't just relate matter and energy.
also space has latent momentum too by the looks of things, unless there's some better explanation for dark energy out there.
really GR is merely the logical assertion that things that are the same are the same (or at least have some equivalence)
you could very crudly say that gravity is a force that reduces the space between two 'bits' of matter, and is related to mass.
So if you reduce the space between two bits of matter by adding energy then you would expect a similar thing to happen, and so the mass to increase.
since the strength of the movement caused by gravity is related to the mass. strength being relative to energy (movement through space simply) and dito. you would therefore logically expect to have to apply more energy to move a object of larger mass.
so all things being relative inertia and gravity are proportionate.
that's very crude and simple, but hopefully okish.
same goes for parent, in which matter without energy would be a singularity etc... but then matter is energy... see a tad simple.
GR seems to be more of a relationships between 'physical/discrete' things (e=mc^2) shows the relationships between matter energy space and time such that the movement through space of energy having no inertia through time itself is equivalent to that of mass having no movement through space but latent movement through time.
^2 relates the 1 dimension of energy / time to the 3 dimensions of space / 'matter', which would create a cylinder, which to for a symmetry would be a torus, or a string.....
rince wash repeat.
QM is more of a mixture between matter and energy and space and time so meta-physical.
so for instance, a particle is a mixture of both space and the 'signature' of the particle. in 1 dimensions this just acts like a particle, force it into two dimensions then collapse it down and it behaves in the same way that you would expect when you switch up from 1 dimension to two dimensions in say calculus, in that you get a +c random bit.
there are many other ways you can look at it I suppose but that's a fairly simple one that demonstrates the nature of the mutual exclusion between physics and 'meta' physics.
(I have a simpler one that can be derived from nothing using pure logic, but you'll have to ask nicely.)
people were watching films before they cost $200 million dollars, personally I think they were better back then too.
jees man, you've been buying the wrong type of music and watching all those shitty films they put out?
and yes I do have a problem with the way the whole of the criminal justice system is run in the UK.
Yeh,I hate stereotypes and pigeonholing, how about you?
If you got a particular problem with a particular thing, have that problem with that thing. Not the poor unfortunates that carry it out.
Don't blame the sheep for following the shepherd: stop eating lamb.
you can change black, isn't that what the KKK were all about?
Michel Jackson, seemed to do a good job, and what about the albino blacks?
How about Jews, Being Jewish is something you are born into and ?can? change.
The Chinese are taught in schools that they are from a different branch of the human race to the rest of us, are they far game?
I even seen pictures or albino blacks.
Black isn't racially charges, AC. It refers to a sub-group that encompasses many people of many origins (though I have not encountered any Lunar blacks, I have met black born in England and in France and in China)
my god, are you religious?
please describe to me how this choose thing works?
what's your national debit?
a fool and his money are easily parted.
39.99 what a bargain, if they were being greedy they would have charged £1000 for it, the fools.
"why don't companies charge $1,000 / game, and be REALLY greedy?"
No that would be stupid, unless is was a very special edition of the game aimed at milking as much money out of fanboys as possible.
why don't companies give the game away, that wouldn't be greedy at all?
"Companies charge what you are willing to pay"
That sounds just like greed to me. Take as much as you can get without concern for other things.