Help
Welcome! You are currently viewing the Hypography Science Forum as a guest. In order to participate in our science discussions, you should register now! Registration is free and you can use your Facebook login if you like.
Join now
Sign in
FrankM's Profile
User Rating:
Find My Content
Display name history
Reputation: 8659
Excellent
- Group:
- Members
- Active Posts:
- 282 (0.09 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Physics and Mathematics (158 posts)
- Joined:
- 06-August 03
- Profile Views:
- 2,298
- Last Active:
Oct 21 2011 12:07 PM- Currently:
- Offline
My Information
- Member Title:
- Questioning
- Age:
- Age Unknown
- Birthday:
- Birthday Unknown
- Gender:
-
Male
- Location:
- USA
Contact Information
- E-mail:
- Click here to e-mail me
- Website URL:
-
http://www.vip.ocsnet.net/~ancient/
Posts I've Made
-
In Topic: Mathematically defined units - benefits
27 July 2011 - 04:04 PM
FrankM, on 22 October 2010 - 12:27 PM, said:My email experience with BIPM, at Sèvres, has been negative, never a reply. One must get beyond the varnish BIPM has applied to an old product in order to make it look like it is new. We need to go back to when the BIPM (Metre Convention) was established, 1875, and to the definition of the metre. The BIPM adopted the existing duration for the second.
In 1799, the length of the metre was decreed to be one ten-millionth of a quadrant of the Earth, actually measured as the distance on the meridian between the Dunkirk and Barcelona. The size of the metre has not changed, it's definition has been re-varnished with a new definition. The Brits could have done just as well with the yard, or the fathom, defining their sizes in how far, in those units, for light to travel in one second. Simply defining a unit's value in relationship to a measured physical law value does not make the unit a fundamental physical constant, it is a relative constant, which can be any size. Please examine what the CCU, a committee of the BIPM, stated concerning the SI base units.
Flash forward to Jan 24-25, 2011 (350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society) where there is going to be a Discussion meeting at the Royal Society with the title New SI. The first sentence is quoted below:
There is a difference between defining all of the base units of the SI in terms of fundamental physical constants and a system of measurement based on invariant quantities of nature. Invariant quantities of nature can be extracted from many processes, at least as invariant as we can measure them on the earth's surface.
The Methodology defines a unit of length and a unit of time without needing to measure anything.
Length and the time duration can now be defined in terms of fundamental physical constants. A energy unit can be created based upon the same concept, as it will be absolutely related to the energy conditional that is associated with the propagation of electromagnetic waves.
The web site cited in the previous post, Methodology, now provides a link to the IEEE publication that contains the article titled, "A Methodology to Define Physical Concepts Using Mathematical Concepts" -
In Topic: Pi is Wrong!
25 July 2011 - 03:48 PM
granpa, on 24 July 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:
In mathematics, tau (τ) is a constant which has been proposed by Bob Palais, Peter Harremoes, Hermann Laurent, Fred Hoyle, Michael Hartl, and others, as a replacement for the familiar circle-constant π.[1][2][3][4] Their main reason is that circles are more naturally defined by their radius than by their diameter.[note 1] The value τ = 2π, or approximately 6.28318,[5] occurs very frequently in mathematics.
The value of 2π can represent an angular measure.
A paper was published today by IEEE Potentials, July/August 2011 edition, titled,
Methodology to Define Physical Constants Using Mathematical Constants
http://ieeexplore.ie...jsp?punumber=45
It is on the 2nd page of the Contents. Bob Palais' article is cited in the paper.
2π is the key value. -
In Topic: What's Wrong With Science And Science Education
14 November 2010 - 01:52 PM
Erasmus00 said:
Of course they shouldn't, but its more important to expose them to the idea of the atom they can grasp then it is to expose them to a 100% accurate idea.
Why start out with something that is mostly wrong when a more accurate model can be used. I suspect k-12 educators continue to use the wrong model because that is what they were taught. I am sure there a lot of good ideas out there on how the structure of the atom could be better presented at the k-12 level.
Erasmus00 said:
The dropout rate has been steadily declining since 1960 (when the dropout rate WAS something close to 30%. See the department of educations statistics http://nces.ed.gov/f...play.asp?id=16. The current dropout rate is below 10%.
Totally different set of conditions than used in the Chronicle article. The necs govt report is extrapolating the dropout rate up to a student age of 24.
http://chronicle.com...-Rate-Is/65669/
I know individuals that enrolled in some program to get a GED, this after finally realizing that the lack of a high school credential, or equivalent, has crimped their economic situation. The local newspaper emphasizes this program to entice high school dropouts to complete their basic education. The fact is that 30% of the students are dropping out of the regular high school program. I quote from the Chronicle article:
Quote
Gregory M. Darnieder, special assistant and senior adviser to Education Secretary Arne Duncan on the secretary's Initiative on College Access, said 30 percent of the nation's high-school students are not graduating.
The number of remedial education programs has increased over the years, and much of the end-game graduation improvement shown in the necs govt report is because of these programs.
Erasmus00 said:
Mostly this is the result of more people going to college, and not any indicator of a drop in quality. 70% of highschool graduates enroll in a college http://www.bls.gov/n...e/hsgec.nr0.htm
No drop in quality? That is ludicrous. Any critical examination of the criteria being used to admit students will show that many less qualified students, based upon SAT results, are being accepted over higher qualified students.
I think Glassman has concluded that the general public is not minimally scientifically literate.
Jeff Glassman said:
Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.
http://library.cross...ture_to_Law.pdf
The following report provides info on science education in a variety of countries. The report cites the top ten countries in most of its tables, and in the few tables where it lists countries, it has the U.S. at the bottom of the heap. The statement in the first paragraph of the Summary and Conclusion is revealing.
Quote
This finding is notable because physical science is not as heavily emphasized in the United States and suggests that other countries view physical science concepts as central to foundational scientific literacy and as critical to providing a strong base for Upper Secondary courses in Chemistry and Physics.
http://www.eric.ed.g...FS/ED512106.pdf
K thru 12 is just one place where science education is failing. -
In Topic: What's Wrong With Science And Science Education
13 November 2010 - 11:48 AM
The simplistic models of the atom are a useful teaching tool to a point, but the students should not be left with the impression that the simplistic model is all that is known. Teachers at the K-12 levels have a real problem in that they are trying to keep students interested in the subject material, and the subject material they are teaching is authoritative. The K-12 teachers have enough issues without adding the caveat that some material being presented as authoritative is not quite accurate or complete, which covers more subjects than the sciences.
Back in the dark ages, when I was in the formal part of the education system, a very low percentage of students dropped out of high school. Now, high school dropout rates are at 30%.
http://chronicle.com...-Rate-Is/65669/
In the same dark ages, at Colleges and Universities, the number of students that needed remedial instruction in what were considered high school subjects was well below 10%.
Quote
Nationwide, about a third of first-year students in 2007-08 had taken at least one remedial course, according to the U.S. Department of Education. At public two-year colleges, that number rises to about 42 percent.
http://www.cleveland...al_classes.html
There are major deficiencies in the education system, and these deficiencies will influence science education. It is bad enough that students are poorly educated in the material considered appropriate for their age groups, it is worse if they are being indoctrinated with a particular dogma; this is the only viewpoint on a subject they should accept. There are all kinds of dogma, which can include political, religious, lifestyle, and science arenas. Lee Glassman's article, which I cited in my previous post, discusses a number of science issues, but he doesn't use the term dogma. He refers to four categories, which are noted in the title of Glassman's article, a few lines down.
Quote
The paper you reference above is a review OF REVIEWS of Lee Smolin's book.
There are a lot of reviews of Smolin's book, but I wanted to cite an article that had more focus on education and how students are being influenced.
http://www.thetroubl...om/reviews.html
The article by Jeff Glassman is not listed on Smolin's website, probably because it wasn't primarily focused on Smolin's book.
The title of Glassman's article is Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law with the sub-title of The Basis of Rational Argument, December 2007. The four terms in the main title cover a lot of territory.
Quote
Also, Frank, you seem to have some weird axe to grind with global warming. The paper you reference above is a review OF REVIEWS of Lee Smolin's book. The author could have at least read the book himself. Further, Lee Smolin's book is not the context in which to discuss global warming. I would suggest reading a few technical books and familiarizing yourself with the actual scientific issues of global warming. If you have criticisms, offer them on a technical level. Reading articles that state positions in a non-technical way, and basing your opinion on them is like being a cheerleader for cheerleaders.
This post is not about global warming, pro or con. This forum, Hypography, is about presenting viewpoints, pro and con on various subjects. I do not believe that I have to limit citations to articles that contain viewpoints that agree with everybody that participates in Hypography. Please note that Glassman doesn't even mention the <<<censored subject>>> in his web site name.
http://www.rocketsci...stsjournal.com/
A statement made by Glassman in the originally cited article is appropriate:
Quote
Scientifically credentialed individuals advance unvalidated models by proclaiming a consensus. It's an infection like university grade inflation.
Tormod, do you think I have a weird axe to grind on global warming? -
In Topic: What's Wrong With Science And Science Education
12 November 2010 - 05:27 PM
Quote
The uneducated may go off the line that is historically known.
Which means they could pass on to their offspring concepts that are archaic, which might include what are considered myths by some. Some of the offspring will receive enough education to correct an earlier parent taught erroneous view, but some never do, hence myths are perpetuated.
Quote
The overly educated will do the same thing in terms extrapolating from their one point into the future, since their extrapolatin is not restricted by all the genius of the past.
Or why what was considered a genius view in the past turned out to have put science on a wrong path, and what mistake (for whatever reason) the genius view advocated that led down the wrong path
Quote
In physics for examples, there are many theories for different things. They all can't be correct since many are mutually exclusive.
This doesn't prevent advocates of a particular view from skewing research funding toward their view. The review of Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, highlights a few of the issues that effect science and science education.
Quote
Two independent and published reviews of The Trouble suggest that what Smolin observes in physics is what is also happening in climatology--and, in fact, I argue, it is what is happening in all science, from kindergarten curricula to the Pulitzer Prize.
http://library.cross...ture_to_Law.pdf
Page 3. of the above mentions University grade inflation. It is not just in Universities, individuals are being given passing grades and higher grades than they deserve at all grade levels to preserve their self esteem.
Page 4 provides the following statements:
Quote
Here the charlatans and demagogues are trying to exploit the public vulnerability created by a public school system that has replaced science and mathematics with recycling and self-esteem curricula.
Quote
When the article gets around to saying “most scientists believe…,” it’s time to go back to the comics section.
Quote
Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.
I do not want to delve into the issue where hosts of individuals in the political authority structure like having a minimally educated public in all knowledge areas, as this issue contains enough charged material to justify its own post.
Comments
Tormod
10 Sep 2010 - 22:05