studiot

The eco (furniture) factory described in the book is still going strong. https://grimshaw.global/projects/herman-miller-factory/

I agree with this, unfortunately those promoting these shifts tend to be less well resourced and less articulate than the establishment. For example the small book 'Cradle to Cradle' by Braungart and McDonough Is very well reasearched, and contains some excellent examples of actual (successful) cases. However it is very hard to read as its style is not coherent or progressive. When our back have been to the wall (eg WW II) coherent (joined up) Government did indeed lead and direct a successful collective response to an emergency. But real and imminent emergencies do appear to be the only drver for such action. In the Netherlands (Holland) last year the banned the use of gas in new homes. The UK government is considering a similar ban. But another part of the UK government is still offering grant suport and promoting gas boilers. Worse the UK government has fragmented its policy to provide a relaible and stable electricity alternative.

Thank you for the reply Wasn't there a question in the title?

Many think that there are multiple environmental crises assailing the planet. Here is an article on a fresh report from the https://www.ippr.org/, by the BBC https://www.ippr.org/ The degradagation of arable land is cited in the New Scientist book https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1473629772/ref=asc_df_147362977258469057/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=1473629772&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310865071345&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=18039469306525565984&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007149&hvtargid=pla-563590850360&th=1&psc=1

I don't agree with this. Examples from statistics come to mind. Whilst I liked the style and presentation of your paper, I don't endorse everything in it.

Takazu Seki, pioneer Japanese mathematician, accountant and chief of the National Bureau of Supply b.early 1640s Edo or Huzioka, d. 1708 We had a long discussion about this subject in a recent thread. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116421-definition-of-derivative/?page=3 Many of the references I referred to in my first post here appeared there. You do not seem to have heard of at least some of these.

You have references to this? In discussing the OP paper (the purpose of this thread) I note a psarsity of references to Newton and his input compared to that of Leibnitz and the continentals. This bias towards one or the other european originator is common in articles. It is also common to entirely fail to mention Seki.

Compared to the usual rambling rants against the establisment this paper was clean and tight, with good references. All in all a worthwhile addition to the knowledgebase on this subject and a reminder that no subject is static and that fashions come and go, even in Mathematics. A pleasure to read, I did not know there was/is a movement to re-examine the history of this subject in the light of modern thinking and I can personally vouchsafe the value and veracity of your opening sentence in most disciplines. Nor it seems did wtf. My library goes back to the earlier period you speak of , so I will be comparing some of the texts from that time So welcome and +1 for introducing an interesting subject.

Energy is a property not a thing. The 'thing' theory of energy (caloric) was disproved centuries ago. Exactly so. Space on its own is a general term for the stage where stuff happens. We need to tie it down with qualifiers to properly identify which stage we are talking about. This is why, for instance, my comment used the term free space. But 'Space' could be limited to area or even a linear measurement, rather than volume. Which brings in measure. Many useful spaces (including all geometric spaces) possess a measure or distance property as mathematically defined and called a metric. Unfortunately Physics has (once again) a different definition of the word metric, but it is equally important, especially when considering Relativity questions. Back to the mathematical definiton leads us to consider those spaces without a metric. These are topological spaces and non metric topological spaces lead us directly to wormholes with the 'gluing' rules of topology. Computer programmers use another such space with packman type games on screen. To understand Space and its qualifiers we need to look into set theory, functions, mappings and containers. A good simple example of this would be to explore this view of 'vectors'; this readily shows how you need a 'container' filled with several different sets to develop useful a useful theory - that of vector spaces.

I think that simply saying space is volume merely replaces one word with another. You could equally ask "What is volume?" In fact space is not just any old volume, it is a particular sort of volume. So to say something more useful than "space is volume you" have to detail its particulars. Furthermore that particular volume does indeed interact with energy (in the form of EM waves since there is no such thing as 'pure energy') as evidenced by the easily measurable complex impedance of free space, usually denoted by the symbol Zo.

That about says all that needs to be said. It is clear that there is only one poster expounding inflexible views, regardless of anything anyone else says. I thought it all sounded familiar. Thank you for preventing any further waste of my time. +1

Reg You have pitted direct quotes from one member against those of another using misrepresentation of the words of a third member. Polysemy? I give and gave you credit for stating your definition of mainstream. But you have no basis whatsoever for asserting that 'everyone else' uses this definition. In fact I specifically ruled out any polysemy by the words "in this context" Since you wish to claim that everybody else uses your definition (quite reasonable in some very limited contexts) here is my version. By far the greatest majority of the activities of scientists is in the application of existing Science, not the search for new Science. As such I would offer mainstream to represent the major activity of Science. Application is, by definition, using science for something we want to work and be successful. As an example, since you are fond of these, consider the motor car. There is an existing world land speed record. New Science would be trying to build a car to exceed this speed. But this would be one single solitary car. Set that against the output of the world car manufacturing industry building mainstream cars, using mainstream Science. Turning the the other member statement you placed in opposition brings us to the meaning of "all the time" It may have been an unfortunate use of words fo those who can only take pedantically literally what others say. I did not, anymore than when I use the phrase "I am forever making typing errors" do I mean literally that every word I type is in error or that I will live forever or that I am doing nothing else with my time. You use literary hyperbole liberally and I take Phi's words in the same vain. Most of the activity of Scientists is, as I already mentioned, spent performing activity where it is undersirable to challenge what is known to work. But some of it is spent on new Science. For instance I am reading an interesting book about the history of Earth interior geophysics. In the last two decades our knowledge and understanding of the interior of the Earth has been turned on its head at least 3 times. Perovskite, post perovskite and other matters. Fascinating.

... to which Phi for All responded... I'll probably not win any friends by saying this, but I'd say Sam is, on this point at least, largely right, and Phi largely wrong -- with no disrespect intended to any of our members. Before you can build an argument based on these quotes you have to agree the meaning of the word mainstream in this context. By your own admission, another member introduced the word. So clearly according to the rules of proper debate and argument the onus is upon you to demonstrate that your definition coincides with that of Sam Cogar. That there is more than one possible interpretation of Sam's utterance is demonstrated by the fact that I have a different definition (and therefore understanding of what he said) for yourself. Equally I have a different understanding of PhisforAll's utterance from the one you are portraying. In both cases I may be right or wrong as to my understanding, as may you. So over to you to demonstrate that you have chosen the correct interpretations of the words.

Gosh Reg, the Internet has provided a big boost for the challenging of Science. What do you think of this?

You brought in Mathematics and also determinism and statistics You further made another distinction between determinism and statistics additional to the one presented as (i) and (ii), where they were lumped together. Since they are your creatures can you tell me if a probability of 1 (statistics) implies certainty (determinism) and if you still draw this distinction?

Oliver Heaviside at a Royal Society Dinner, when the famous mathematicians of the day refused to accept his operational calculus because his proofs were not up to their standards.

I take it this is your reply to my attempts to engage in discussion with you. Where exactly did I do any of these alleged things? In particular where have I described you as an idiot? The quote above shows that I try to pick out statements from you that I agree with, but It's the (mis)use you put these statements to I don't. My main complaint is that you repeatedly fail to respond or show contempt as perfectly exemplified by our brief unfinished discussion about my brick experiment. I note that yet again in your latest post you have not made any reference to my posts, answered any of my questions or attempted to move any of aour discussions on, whilst pontificating at great length about the posts of others. As to your presentation of Feynman, Yes, absolutely, but you entirely miss the point. Interestingly my brick experiment, that you steadfastly refuse to discuss, if a prime example of a guess. And the story of the experiment a prime example of Science in action. His remark is predicated upon the experiment actually measuring the subject of the guess and not something else. If you actually measure something else, either by accident, or by failure to take account of some intervening factor or for some other reason, then your experiment offers little or nothing about the validity of the guess.

That is why so much else would come crashing down if relativity was disproved. But what does disproved mean? It means showing that Einstein's formulae and equations generally and consistently give the 'wrong ' answers ie inconsistent with observation. Indeed SR does this, but has theory been disproved? No it was recognised from the outset that SR does not include gravity. So we have GR, with SR as a special case. There are very few hypotheses (theories) that have been disproved and discredited Noye's Fludde come to mind here.

Well I have no idea who Popper is or was but I am not drawn to bother from your summary. Again I have no idea who Kuhn is or was but I find his views no real improvement. But enough quoting others who are not here. This is a live debate forum so here (appears to me) the view according to Reg Prescott. Yes indeed this happened many times, but how often was this for the reasons you give? I can think of one instance, that of Berzelius, who held up the development of chemistry by half a century for reasons of personal aggrandisement. Another major reason for obstructing progress came in the late 18th and early 19 centuries when many clergymen became avid geologists with the intention of providing a scientific underpinning of Noye's Fludde. Nor are many scientists themselves very good at history (many are too busy with Science itself). Some who can manage cogent works are John Buckingham in Chemistry G I Brown in Chemistry (His book the Big Bang - a history of explosives is good) Ian Stewart in Mathematics Jon Butterworth in particle Physics Fred Hoyle in cosmology Michael Benton Geology Donal Oshea Relativity Mathematics Non Scientists of note include Brenda Maddox in Geoscience William Berkson Philosophy of Physics

Avoided? This has been a main theme of my arguments/non-arguments/specious arguments since Post #1. Well it was the principal point of my one and only post (at that time) in your thread and you made no reference to it. I'm glad to hear that you do appreciate it and would be pleased to learn why you only consider the very very few examples that lie outside this category?

Thank you for this. I'm not really very interested in your continued argeuments with others that never seem to get anywhere. Surely the one important point to your thread that you have avoided was that Science is by and large mundane? Thank you for responding to my question. Yes of course it will cool down unless kept warm. However the important thing from the point of view of the investigation, which was a ministry programme lasting several of decades, though not for me as I just joined the team between school and university. It was my first introduction to true scientific investigation with a purpose, is that the fresh bricks absorb moisture. This is significant because they swell as a result. So the project was all about the effect of this swelling on brickwork built with fresh bricks after cooling. The following rhetorical questions, though I will supply details if you wish. How much did the bricks expand? How long does this process go on for? What does that mean for brick walls and expansion joints? A subject (though boring to most) of great importance to mankind around the world.

Once again I asked a very simple straightforward question, this time about a scientific investigation I have personal experience of. Once again the silence from Reg Prescott was deafening or drowned out by specious arguments with others. Do you have any personal experience of scientific investigation ?

By aiming only at the really big discoveries of Science you are deceiving yourself as to the nature and activities of Science and scientists. There are only a handful of such really big discoveries a century, the rest of Science is prosaic and mundane. Perhaps what has been said this gives you the idea that (we think or you think) that all scientists are sitting at their desks doing nothing but challenging what they already know. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have made a few very small discoveries/innovations, but have never had the need or opportunity to challenge the basis from which I was working. Can you tell me what happens to a new brick, fresh from the kiln? Well I spent some time researching this question because the answer is of interest in the building industry. By far the most of Science and scientific activity is of this nature. So it is against this background that you should be discussing your question.

If you are going to do any sort of degree you are going to need to do some degree level thinking. So I suggest you get your thinking cap on and re-read what I said about the common core.

Hi, It's good to think seriously about the future. Here are a few things you need to know. Most colleges/universities that teach engineering degrees have a 'common core' for the first year for mechanical, aeronautical, automotive, production, civil, building services and so on. One bonus of this is that it is easy to switch after the first year if you decide to change the emphasis of your studies, when you specialise. The studies will include the basics of mechanical science, materials science, electrical science, engineering mathematics, engineering computing and so on. The computing element will be about the use of computers. Specialist computing courses will be about the design of the software that engineers (and others) use, and/or the design of the computers themselves. It is not usual to get several first degrees (Batchelors) for several reasons. The usual route is first degree then a higher degree - a Masters (which may be in accounting or business and taken after a few years industrial experience) Remember much of the art of engineering is about best use of money. The other reason is that full/top professional qualifications for most engineering disciplines used to be available at Batchelor degree level, but have now been elevated to require Masters. Does this help? Please ask if you have further questions.