Royston

Here's the Canada specific course page http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/countries/Canada.shtm Yes it's more expensive, and unfortunately you can't register for financial support as that's government funded. Also, as mentioned, tutorials might be an issue i.e it's very unlikely you'll get them (I'm not sure how it works for overseas.) However you will get full tutor support via E-mail / telephone et.c Being a student with the OU myself, I certainly recommend it, and I've really enjoyed the last 3 years studying...it is hard work (depending on your situation), but very rewarding all the same. EDIT: Another thing is getting lab experience, which in the UK isn't an issue (but does come at extra cost) so I'd look into that as well.

I think Paranoia deservedly wins 'Post of the Day'

Only to a point though, (we had a very similar discussion on this a while ago) I'll try and dig it out. e.g Why do things fall ? Because, of gravity. But why gravity ? Why not ? How does gravity make things fall ? Well, give me a couple of hours, and I'll run you through Newtons theory of gravity, through to General Relativity. (I can't run you through GR, because I'm yet to study it fully, but you get the point.) The why questions, are the starting point, but these break down very quickly e.g Why gravity ? So they only overlap to a small degree.

But that's an example of philosilly, closely related to philosophy, but with added sillyness.

Good responses so far, I'm sure I stated in my OP that philosophy is a broad term/subject, but I must have edited at the last minute. So concentrating on the use of philosophy within the field of science, is what the topic is focused on. To get to the crux of the matter, I'm wondering if science is now self sustaining in it's foundations and methods, without the need for philosophy, that is the filling of the gaps when we have say, a number of interpretations surrounding a certain field of science, e.g QM. Do we really need to sit around and logically deduce which interpretation is more satisfactory over another, or do we just shrug and go with what the math, and the data throws out...it works, who cares about the implications of it all. I personally don't like that, perhaps I enjoy mentally masturbating myself over implications. As Sisyphus pointed out, and I agree the two are inseparable, and depending on the branch of philosophy, indistinct, however in a lot of instances philosophy has built the foundations, and is now no longer required for certain aspects. I really don't see much point in redefining an axiom for example. I really see no point in redefining the scientific method, it works, why waste time trying to refine something when there's really no room for improvement...or maybe there is, it's working fine so far. I personally think, that as we get into the territory of GUT's, and other major advancements, as Fredrik mentioned, that philosophy will (maybe) come into it's own, whittling down the questions, so we can really build a complete picture of reality. I'm sure there will be branches of math et.c still yet to be realized, that will open new avenues of our understanding of nature, but it will require philosophy to be the seeds of these types of advancements. Or maybe I'm talking nonsense, and science will progress (as it has done) without further chin stroking.

Like me advancing on a clinically obese woman. In any case, this thread doesn't belong in physics.

Surely ammonia is a problem though, if you have high levels of bird poop ?

I hope the mods don't mind, but I split this from another thread, where religion was being discussed, and as this topic has nothing to do with religion, I thought it would be ok to continue. I've just posted an assignment, and currently enjoying a beer, so I'll address the points ajb raised later. However if anyone else would like to comment, especially somebody more grounded in philosophy than I am, it would be very interesting to hear some viewpoints. Here's the discussion so far... How come ? I've noticed similar comments about philosophy on here, where people seem to think that it's somehow a separate entity from science, when really it's an intrinsic part of science. Philosophy seems to some, like fluffy pondering, so I'm not sure what books on philosophy people are reading, not that I'm very well read in the subject, but what I have read, it's thoroughly grounded in logic, and vice versa, in fact modern logic has it's roots from philosophy. Separating philosophy from science is like, separating math from science, i.e you can't...so I don't understand this distain with philosophy that people have, I guess it has this stigma of pacing around, mentally masturbating yourself ? Thoughts ?

Going back to an early post, for me, it was because I was on the receiving end of the moral righteousness, so I appreciated how irritating it was. Another reason, is that I personally feel a hypocrite, highlighting the dangers of a habit, such as smoking, when I used to do it myself. If somebody wants to indulge in this, that or the other, it's really none of my business. If the person brings up quitting a habit, then offer advice, but don't preach, it doesn't work (as iNow alluded to earlier).

Recurring means indefinite, so 0.9Recurring5 doesn't actually make sense. If you wish to stick a 5 on the end of a decimal, then it's a finite number. [math]S_n = 0.9[/math] converges to 1, so I suggest you have a look at limits. Apart from that, can we pleeeeeease, not entertain this topic again, it's really very annoying.

Not that I've played the game, but why is that though ? Other pursuits for the elderly e.g bowls, is understandable i.e you don't need to exert yourself too much. (not trying to sound ageist) Do bridge games go on for a particularly long time...i.e it's a game if you have lots of time to kill ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_(group)

It's less damaging to the environment...plus smoke signals are very limited when it comes to vocabulary. But they win when it comes to long distance communication

Incidentally, you can do exactly that with my Uni...i.e mix subjects, and attain a degree. So you can get formal education in seemingly unrelated subjects, and it'll be up to you to prove the rest...or fill in the gaps as it were. I was encouraged to go down the 'creative' avenue, because I'm (not blowing my own trumpet) good at art, and music...but at heart I'm a scientist, (at least I hope judging by my grades) and it took me a long time to realize this. I'll happily give you more info, just send me a PM.

Plus crackpot science is only fun for the crackpots. For the rest of us, it's tedious, relentless, and a waste of valuable time. I wish people would realize that you can only start being creative with science, when you fully understand the topic you're tackling...which means a lot of hard work. This is clearly too much to ask...so they skip that bit, and get it hopelessly wrong.

Albeit mobile phone use precautions, have been floating around for some time now. But the OP does remind me of the wifi scares, of a so-called (self proclaimed) expert. The difference being it was promotion for his electrosensitivity insulators. Rather underhanded, or plain lack of knowledge...I'm guessing a mix of both. BBC article on the programme... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm Slamming of the claims, and scaremongering tactics here... http://www.badscience.net/?p=414

Thanks Pete, I've quite literally studied this over the last couple of days, and knew I was missing something. What you stated is covered, but I didn't put all the aspects together, so my understanding was a tad vague, or slightly misled as it were. I guess I just needed a succinct overview of what's going on.

I've just copied and pasted your comments to your myspace page

With regards to wave-particle duality...plus I'm still quite new to QM i.e beyond anything you'd read in pop sci (so correct me with this). But I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Fourier synthesis (wave packets) and HUP, because these are really the first melding of the two, i.e waves and particles. When you view the wave particle duality from just these principles and math, the distinction does blur somewhat. My course, and a QM module I took several years ago, describes the wave-particle duality (wpd) with photons as 'light propogates as a wave, and interacts as a particle'...but I'm not too happy with this definition. Another way I tried to reconcile wpd, is that a particle could be just described as a discrete unit of a wave, but I'm not too happy with that description either. As it appears to me, and sorry if I've missed something in this thread, but as Klaynos said, it's a phenomena that is almost impossible to describe with words...and hence we try to categorize as one or the other, or just simply can't understand it at all. Please let me know if I'm missing something here.

Well hey guys ! Great thread, thanks for sharing !

What saddens me, is that Western society has created so-called 'norms' and there's overwhelming pressure on individuals to reach certain milestones of success, through fear of what their family, friends et.c think. Personally, and I'm now in my 30's, I'm not married, I don't drive and I live in rented accommodation, and some people I know, use these attributes to judge whether I'm successful or not. I find it incredibly short sighted, but I certainly don't blame anyone, for using these markers to judge success. All these things, of course, cost a lot of money, and whilst there's this pressure on individuals to live up to these 'norms' then people will continue to spend, more so, that there's the addiction within society that drives people to want the better car, house, hdtv, et.c

Well I've just found the ad on youtube, prompted by Bascule's reply. Annoyingly my memory made a couple of mistakes i.e C for yourself that they taste just right...as opposed to 'cause they taste just right', and there's no 'and' before 'made by birdseye'. I guess that's me filling in the gaps, as it were, because I couldn't fully remember the lyrics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Mgq929HEM I warn you, watching this ad will prompt you to do something drastic.

One of my early assignments asked, how can I find a value for the acceleration due to gravity using Hookes Law...i.e using SHM (simple harmonic motion) as recorded on an asteroid, compared to the Earth, and working out [math]g_a[/math] for the asteroid. I'll happily go into more detail if you wish. However I assume that your looking for applications that you can demonstrate and record, so a metronome and talking through the math should be ample. I take it your students aren't A-level physics students ? EDIT: Klaynos beat me to it, but you should give an indication of how much detail is required...the equations of damped oscillations are more complicated than SHM. EDIT II: This thread should be in general physics.

What do you mean used in abstract ? Abstract what ? Care to explain how these follow from each other ? I'm really struggling to make any sense of this. Again, what ? foodchain, apart from your unique way of describing things, please take this advice, and I'm not meaning to be harsh...but you really need to get your head round the basics. What's apparent in most of your posts regarding physics, is that your delving into topics and trying to find relationships, without, it seems, robust prior knowledge of the subjects you're tackling. My advice, is keep your questions short, and tackle one problem at a time. Surely you've noticed that people are having a really hard time trying to decipher what you're thinking. You're certainly very keen to get 'stuck in' as it were, but I guarantee your efforts will be fruitless unless you have a clear understanding of the topics you're trying to tackle. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but your diving into the deep end of the pool before learning the doggy paddle.

I hereby declare, Phi and Sayo as the 'Kings of Useless Information.'