Jump to content


Photo

Maybe even I would have learnt physics


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 26 November 2011 - 17:44

I expect some of trained engineers here will know of this Professor from MIT. My son tells me he is a bit of a legend. Certainly his lectures have the attention factor



http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

His drawing skills ( at least on a blackboard) are good too

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Apparently he practises the lectures very hard to get the right results!

Advertisement

#2 rolf123

rolf123
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 November 2011 - 18:35

To be fair, any maths or physics teacher should be capable of drawing on a blackboard like that, I don't really see the difficulty.

Maybe it has changed now, since I bet blackboards barely even exist since the last 10 years.

He has a cool technique for dotted lines though, holding the end of the chalk so it vibrates.

Edited by rolf123, 26 November 2011 - 18:36.


#3 Keith Young

Keith Young
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 26 November 2011 - 20:13

I've been watching this guys stuff for years. It helped get me through my Physics 1 and Physics 2 classes.

MIT OpenCourseware has alot of other stuff to. Gilbert Strang is another expert in his field, however his teaching method isn't as clear as Lewins.

#4 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 November 2011 - 20:14

Have I missed something?

#5 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 27 November 2011 - 05:22

Have I missed something?


The mention of Richard Feyman reminds me of his classic real-life physics puzzle - does a submerged lawn sprinkler rotate if water is drawn out of its supply hose?

If you can honestly work this one out (that is, without Googling the answer) you are good at (or have the potential to be good) at physics.

Feyman was reportedly good at puzzles like this - not all famous physicists are (or were).

#6 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:18

I grew up with "Why is it so?" Professor Julius Summer Miller myself, he had a TV show here ..





Plenty more links to his episodes there ..

Edited by cheapracer, 27 November 2011 - 08:57.


#7 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,255 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 27 November 2011 - 12:09

I grew up with "Why is it so?" Professor Julius Summer Miller myself, he had a TV show here ..





Plenty more links to his episodes there ..

An entertaining series that was science made fun. These days Mythbusters carrys on the idea. With big bangs!

#8 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 November 2011 - 02:15

MIT has had some very well known recip engine guys. Most piston engine designers have a copy of both Prof. Heywood's book and Prof. Taylor's classic engine text book.

#9 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 03 December 2011 - 10:27

Hours of mindless fun

#10 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,487 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 December 2011 - 12:23

An entertaining series that was science made fun. These days Mythbusters carrys on the idea. With big bangs!

. . . . and a lot less science.

#11 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 December 2011 - 17:26

. . . . and a lot less science.


?? They are scientists in every meaning of the word.


#12 Keith Young

Keith Young
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 03 December 2011 - 21:51

?? They are scientists in every meaning of the word.


I've found myself yelling at the tv more watching their show than hockey games. They make a lot of bad assumptions, which is fine for entertainment and science for kids. But after that they make a claim as to whether it's busted or not busted.

Quasi science being portrayed as quasi science is fine. Quasi science portrayed as science is not.

#13 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,487 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 December 2011 - 23:18

?? They are scientists in every meaning of the word.

Their method is often blatantly unscientific.

#14 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 December 2011 - 03:19

Their method is often blatantly unscientific.


I like Mythbusters - I don't think they claim to be a science show. Some episodes are very good - others are a bit dodgy.
Their skills at devising tests and building apparatus are sometimes quite remarkable. Episodes where they use rocket sleds etc. to bang things together are just not shown on any other "science" show. Or the episode where they used 5000 pounds of explosive to make artificial diamonds. They must have an incredible budget. And they have got Kari Byron - always worth a bit of a perv.
"Conventional" science shows like Catalyst really are almost painfully boring and are also painfully politically correct with all the usual crap about GW etc.

#15 Welby

Welby
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 04 December 2011 - 05:09

I grew up with "Why is it so?" Professor Julius Summer Miller myself, he had a TV show here ..


Glass and a half of full cream milk.

#16 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 944 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 December 2011 - 12:46

Glass and a half of full cream milk.


What does that mean?

#17 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 04 December 2011 - 12:52

All I can think of is Cadbury's Dairy Milk Chocolate. Mind you, I think of it quite frequently, but it used to be advertised as having "a glass and a half in every bar!"

#18 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,487 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 December 2011 - 12:57

Prof. Julius Sumner Miller used to do Cadbury TV ads.

Edited by gruntguru, 05 December 2011 - 23:32.


#19 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 04 December 2011 - 14:04

Posted Image



Advertisement

#20 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 December 2011 - 14:47

Their method is often blatantly unscientific.


Yes, it is. Shows like these must strike a balance in their informational vs. entertainment content. (Which is true in general of nonfiction on television.) I know, having written for some of them. Mythbusters' popularity is in no small part due to the fact that their content is skewed toward the entertainment side -- both in the "myths" they choose to "bust" and the experimental methodologies written into the scripts. You know, there is often a simple and irrefutable mathematical proof for many of the propositions they test, but who the hell is going to watch that.

The classic kiddie science show (Julius Miller above, Don Herbert aka Mr. Wizard, Bill Nye, and my personal favorite, Beakman's World) tends to employ classic science textbook experiments, but hopefully with a fresh twist of some kind... comic being my choice. The other "secret" to Mythbusters, if you can call it that: the classic science experiments are recast as a pop culture technical "myths" of some kind, which they then set out to debunk. But instead of performing the experiment at laboratory table scale, their tests are of absurdly large, quasi-cinematic proportions. And you're right, it's not really science -- more like Hollywood meatball engineering.

Edited by Magoo, 04 December 2011 - 14:49.


#21 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,255 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 December 2011 - 22:58

Yes, it is. Shows like these must strike a balance in their informational vs. entertainment content. (Which is true in general of nonfiction on television.) I know, having written for some of them. Mythbusters' popularity is in no small part due to the fact that their content is skewed toward the entertainment side -- both in the "myths" they choose to "bust" and the experimental methodologies written into the scripts. You know, there is often a simple and irrefutable mathematical proof for many of the propositions they test, but who the hell is going to watch that.

The classic kiddie science show (Julius Miller above, Don Herbert aka Mr. Wizard, Bill Nye, and my personal favorite, Beakman's World) tends to employ classic science textbook experiments, but hopefully with a fresh twist of some kind... comic being my choice. The other "secret" to Mythbusters, if you can call it that: the classic science experiments are recast as a pop culture technical "myths" of some kind, which they then set out to debunk. But instead of performing the experiment at laboratory table scale, their tests are of absurdly large, quasi-cinematic proportions. And you're right, it's not really science -- more like Hollywood meatball engineering.

As their budget has got [a lot] larger the science value has become less. Sometimes these days it is quite contrived and silly, and then other episodes are still really good.

#22 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,487 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 December 2011 - 23:39

Sure the show has to be entertaining and the "science" dumbed-down. I don't mind that so much. My problem is the presenters' overinflated view of their own understanding, eg they frequently draw conclusions that are not justified based on their experimental results.

#23 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:10

Sure the show has to be entertaining and the "science" dumbed-down. I don't mind that so much. My problem is the presenters' overinflated view of their own understanding, eg they frequently draw conclusions that are not justified based on their experimental results.


I've watched a lot of episodes and don't agree.

Science to me is research and proving fact, they generally do pretty well.

Shows like that also bring science to more people than any other medium so that's a good thing.


#24 Robin Fairservice

Robin Fairservice
  • Member

  • 502 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 December 2011 - 16:58

Why is this showing up on some posts: "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Vanishing Point." I don't evenknow how to do this! How do I get rid of this action?

#25 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 06 December 2011 - 18:08

Some posters have decided not only to ignore some other posters, Robin, but also to let others know they've done so. It doesn't affect you, except from possibly annoying you!

#26 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 06 December 2011 - 18:32

Why is this showing up on some posts: "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Vanishing Point." I don't evenknow how to do this! How do I get rid of this action?


Must be a glitch in the forum, have you tried pressing F5?


#27 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 07 December 2011 - 02:15

Speaking of Mythbusters, this happened about 2 hours ago in Northern Ca:

The Alameda Sheriff PIO, JD Nelson said a projectile from an Alameda County firing range, in Dublin, has accidentally missed its intended target. Instead, the object blasted through the wall of a home near Tassajara Rd & Somerset Lane. 

The projectile reportedly entered the home through one wall and exited through another.

According to the Alameda Sheriff, the cannonball "took a few unfortunate bounces" during a Mythbusters experiment gone awry. 

Update with an exit photo and more info!

John

Edited by NTSOS, 07 December 2011 - 16:09.


#28 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:31

According to the Alameda Sheriff, the cannonball "took a few unfortunate bounces" . 


Arlen Ness trying out some "shotgun" pipes??


#29 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,502 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 07 December 2011 - 07:29

:lol:

#30 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,744 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:48

Must be a glitch in the forum, have you tried pressing F5?

That was mean.

#31 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,773 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:40

That was mean.

Yes it was mean. But it was funny too.


#32 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,744 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:55

Yes it was mean. But it was funny too.

I wouldn't deny taht.

Edited by saudoso, 07 December 2011 - 10:56.


#33 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,487 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 December 2011 - 01:03

I've watched a lot of episodes and don't agree.

Science to me is research and proving fact, they generally do pretty well.

Shows like that also bring science to more people than any other medium so that's a good thing.

Cheapy how would you rate your understanding of physics and scientific method compared to that of Adam and Jamie?

#34 Grumbles

Grumbles
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 December 2011 - 02:07

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect anything too deep in a twenty minute show, just as you can't expect to read anything particularly comprehensive in a magazine. All you can hope for is that the writers and presenters can share the knowledge in an entertaining and accessible way, and this isn't easy, but when it's done well it can create an interest that may grow as a result of the readers/viewers own research.

You sometimes hear popular magazines criticized for their tech coverage but when I was a young fella it was articles by men like Jim McFarland and Gordon Jennings that spurred me on to further reading, and discovering Heywood, Taylor, Blair and so on. These guys (McFarland, Jennings, even CJ Baker etc) had at least some idea of what they were on about, but just as importantly they could write in a way that non-engineers could understand.

Jennings wrote in the mid 1990s to a man who expressed to him his wish to be a writer, wondering what elements were needed to become one:

"On my 50th birthday, now long behind me, friends presented a cake that said, "Against all odds," which probably summed up my life fairly well. When you've been reported dead, twice, and none of your friends thought it necessary to check to see if the news was true, you have to figure you have been strolling a little close to the edge. Let me offer you some comfort about the accretion of years: If you live a long time and pay attention, you'll know a whole bunch of useful things; and you'll find, in time, that old go-fast guys have no wrinkles on the inside."

Edited by Grumbles, 08 December 2011 - 02:12.


#35 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 09 December 2011 - 13:49

I was amazed at Mythbusters' bombproofing of a house with a coating of common pickup truck bed liner. Apparently the home owners and van owners of Dublin, CA missed that episode and neglected to spray their homes and vans.

As for great TV scientists, don't forget Mr. Lizard!

Mr. Lizard 1

Mr. Lizard 2

Mr. Lizard 3

Maybe Mr. Lizard should spray the next Timmy with bed liner.

#36 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,487 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 December 2011 - 03:20

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect anything too deep in a twenty minute show

Mythbusters doesn't have a depth problem - just accuracy.

#37 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,609 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 10 December 2011 - 06:41

Their best shows are interesting and occasionally surprising, I think the three I really liked were the doomed attempt to build a jet pack, just because it was a nice build project, the one where they showed how easy it was to drive a car up onto a moving truck, and the rather dodgier but still interesting attempt to measure the effect of drafting on mpg.

Plus anything where Tory gets hurt.


#38 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 December 2011 - 07:22

Plus anything where Tory gets hurt.


:lol:

I actually enjoyed the golf ball dimple one and the surprise result that came with it.


Posted Image



#39 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 10 December 2011 - 13:00

Their best shows are interesting and occasionally surprising, I think the three I really liked were the doomed attempt to build a jet pack, just because it was a nice build project, the one where they showed how easy it was to drive a car up onto a moving truck, and the rather dodgier but still interesting attempt to measure the effect of drafting on mpg.

Plus anything where Tory gets hurt.

My 12 yr old boys just love the show and I get to help them build some of the projects.
They want a sawdust cannon but I was able to convince them that the australian summer was not a good time to try that one.
It realy sparks scientific method in young minds . Must be a good thing
mal