JerryBaumchen 1,468 #1 October 23, 2012 Hi John, I thought you might find this one interesting. "Skydiving is a stunt, physics is thrilling" http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/urry-skydive-physics/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7 JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 2 #2 October 23, 2012 From article: "And hope that stunts don't crowd out genuine progress in science and engineering." Doesn't she realize the progress of science and engineering were inextricable from this stunt? Both on the front and back ends?"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 898 #3 October 23, 2012 She's jealous! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 October 23, 2012 I have a couple of problems with this. First, it was a stunt that had some engineering and applied science facets to it. No, it’s not discovery any physical truths. The physics had already been, for the most part, worked out. It was a technology demonstration. Second, anybody else have a problem with “Skydiving is a stunt, physics is thrilling?” Okay – skydiving is a stunt. But to say, “physics is thrilling” is knocking it. I’ve never thought that effective advocacy consists of downplaying the other side. I think she could have made her point just fine by, “Skydiving is a stunt. Here’s how our understanding of physics let us share in this thrill.” It wouldn’t have bothered anybody. It’s not condescending. And she could say what she wanted with an entirely less snobby tone. Neil DeGrasse Tyson put something out there to give perspective to the jump that, to me, was a bit condescending. I saw his point, but thought it had a bit of “spoil the party” sense to it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #5 October 23, 2012 QuoteHi John, I thought you might find this one interesting. "Skydiving is a stunt, physics is thrilling" http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/urry-skydive-physics/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7 JerryBaumchen I think she missed the point completely. Who claimed any advancement in physics? There was certainly some fancy engineering involved, but not physics. That said, I already used the Baumgartner jump as the basis for a test problem for a junior level engineering class. Students remember stuff far better if you make it entertaining in some way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #6 October 23, 2012 QuoteI have a couple of problems with this. First, it was a stunt that had some engineering and applied science facets to it. No, it’s not discovery any physical truths. The physics had already been, for the most part, worked out. It was a technology demonstration. Second, anybody else have a problem with “Skydiving is a stunt, physics is thrilling?” Okay – skydiving is a stunt. But to say, “physics is thrilling” is knocking it. . Physics can be thrilling (in a different sense than skydiving is). Imagine the thrill of discovering the first high temperature superconductor. Imagine the thrill of discovering the electron. Imagine the thrill of discovering the atomic nucleus. Imagine the thrill of the Trinity test. Imagine the thrill of taking the first X-Ray photograph of the bones in a hand. Did you see the scenes from CERN when the Higgs announcement was made? Now, is high school physics thrilling? NO.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,468 #7 October 23, 2012 Hi John, Quote Physics can be thrilling The only thing I 'discovered' in physics is what I did not know. I learned more in my Physics for Engineers class than I did in any other class that I ever took. And I still remember 'some' of it. Now where's F=MA when I need it? JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #8 October 23, 2012 What a kill joy! Okay, so his jump didn't cure cancer or cause world peace. It was still a cool technological challenge and he set a new record for skydiving, way cooler than a world record for hot dog eating or paper clip collecting. If the public enjoys the spectacle of Felix's jump, fine. The snobbish elites are welcome to ignore it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 October 23, 2012 You know, John, I do think that these physicists working at CERN and the like do some really cool stuff. Much of it is so mundane, but to get to that discovery must be a rush and a half! I think rasmack on here has one of the coolest jobs on earth. I'm fascinated by your matter of expertise in crystallography. I know next to nothing about it, but sure as hell would like to. Ask my wife - I get excited reading about this stuff. For my birthday, my wife got me a DVD set called "Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy" by Alex Filipenko. it consists of 96 lectures and I was riveted for a few weeks watching them. I never took physics in high school or college. It's been a great regret of mine the last ten years or so when I realize how fucking cool it is! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #10 October 24, 2012 QuoteI think she missed the point completely. Who claimed any advancement in physics? There was certainly some fancy engineering involved, but not physics. That said, I already used the Baumgartner jump as the basis for a test problem for a junior level engineering class. Students remember stuff far better if you make it entertaining in some way. It sounds as though she'd be willing to dismiss just about any engineering endeavor simply because the physics behind it was too simple for her tastes, or if the wrong person ended up with their face on it. The physics behind just about anything that the average person interacts with on a day to day basis are not that complicated. But as you say, that's missing the point completely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #11 October 24, 2012 Quote The physics behind just about anything that the average person interacts with on a day to day basis are not that complicated. But as you say, that's missing the point completely. Depends what you mean by "that complicated". The physics behind, for example, an LED flashlight (quantum mechanics) or a GPS navigation system (relativistic corrections) might fall into the "complicated" category. Many people interact with these on a daily basis. Even a rare earth refrigerator magnet has some complex physics (quantum mechanics) as its basis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
