My huge physics digest!

[bellbottom25]

Hi,

I have been reading extensive physics of my educational curriculam. I am not good in learning concepts. But i can undertand it. How come theoretical studies taught in physics have a big importance! When it comes to building something, i couldn't even search and mould wood for contructing huge mechanics!

The wright brothers for example were private enthusiasts who collected and contructed a thing which could fly in the air!

I was thinking if it were possible that a ferrari car dissassembled into bits and pieces. And then it was given to science students for remaking it! Would the science students be successfull? Or would they need theoretical lecture? Some engineering draughtman's guidance? or a mechanic's help?

The people or should i say individuals who think of making big machines, who helps them in making the basic bits and pieces first? Or was it the labour camps of england who made screws and bolts?

 

---------------

eric

[insane_alien]

you are mistaking science for engineering.

 

engineers apply the principles discovered deducted by science to practical situations.

 

for instance, a chemist may discover some new wonder chemical (say a fuel) but the would not cover the actual production. in a lab 1kg is a lot of stuff to be working with at one time. it would be up to chemical engineers to devise a way of making the chemical in bulk and at a reasonable price. the industrial method is unlikely to be anything like the lab scale production method as all sorts of interesting and annoying side reactions suddenly appear. not to mention lab grade reactants are often much much purer than what a full scale plant is going to be working with.

[bellbottom25]

Ok, then what would you call a person who studies science?

 

--------------

eric

[h4tt3n]

The Ferrari example is actually quite... symptomatic, one might call it ^^

 

A group of uneducated farm-boys with plenty of practical experience might actually be able to reassemble the car faster than - say - a group of engineers specialized in car-design.

 

This is the old problem of practice vs. theory. A practically gifted / experienced person may be able to do very complicated things without knowing the theory behind it. And a well-educated theoretical scientist is not necessarily able to express his knowledge in practice.

 

It is not a trivial problem, believe me! I'm currently standing in the middle of a "fight" between people with a theoretical and practical approach to the same problem.

 

Cheers, Michael

[insane_alien]

Ok, then what would you call a person who studies science?

 

i'd call them a scientist.

 

the point still stands,

 

for instance, in my course we design chemical plants. i can draw up some pretty detailed diagrams of a plant or subplant (say a reactor vessel) but i wouldn't be able to build it.

 

while i can do basic welding and metal shaping, my skills would not be up to scratch to actually construct the thing. but i could tell someone experienced in building reactors exactly how to build it.

[bellbottom25]

Ok then what do you call the people who never know how to read and write english or any other medium of language which promotes the study of science and still score more than 90% in physics,chemistry and biology!????

I mean if i see with my own eyes that noone understands simple english paragraph, and still claim to understand all the physics and biology theories!

 

----------

eric

[insane_alien]

just because you are not good at a language does not mean you are not able to apply scientific method and learn scientific theories.

 

i failed english, i'm in my third year of university and doing reasonably well.

[bellbottom25]

Hahahaha,

Many of my so-called scientific classmates vanished in the society! I don't know what scientific jobs they all got as per their education! LOL

 

What interesting happened that many non-english, low educated (non-studying) were trying to compete when i was studying! Might be that they learned the names of many theories, theorems.... by heart! Stupider it seems!

 

--------

eric

[timo]

I fail to understand what you are trying to say. It's supposedly well acknowledged by almost everyone that having a theoretical background in some field is not sufficient for practically constructing or measuring something. I don't understand what the English language has to do with that. Generally, knowing English is not necessary for studying science. For many jobs it is a necessity to work in the field but that's due to the working environment not due to science. Similarly, it is not necessary to speak English to technically fly a plane but you still need it because communication with the towers is in English. Seeing you are from or at least in India I suppose that universities in India teach in English and that not everyone in India speaks English well by default?

[bellbottom25]

Whatever i have written is very clear in understading, if your reply makes my thoughts seem indifferent to other members, then i don't think so!

 

-----------

eric

[thedarkshade]

Science is wide. I mean it, quite wide. Molecular biologists are scientists too, but I bet they wouldn't be able to remake the ferrari again. You have to be more specific and clearer in your question in order to get a proper answer.

[DJBruce]

A scientist is someone who studies the world around them in order to acquire a more in depth insight into the workings of the world.

 

I personally feel that a person can memorize as many theories as they want but if they cannot practically apply them then they are not actually the best scientist.

 

A person can reassemble something but that does not mean that they understand what is going on when they assemble the car or how the car works. And the goal of science is to understand the world around us be it the atom or the chemical composition of a cell. So if the person who can assemble the car does not understand the concepts behind the car then I would not call them scientists.

 

Also I think you are confusing the words scientist and inventor. A scientist is someone who seeks to collect knowledge in order to understand the world. An inventor on the other hand is someone who tries to create a device or method that is useful. So in a sense I would call the Wright bothers more inventors rather than scientist because there goal was not so much to understand flight through experiment but to rather to build a motorized flying device capable of carrying humans.

 

 

 

I'm not going to lie I hope this was what you where talking about. I struggled to comprehend parts of your posts.

[antimatter]

I'm sorry, I was going to write a response, but then I realized that I just have no idea what he was going on about...