|
|
Post by suele on Apr 23, 2011 15:24:17 GMT -4
I think few HBs are even aware of Apollo 9 and 10. If they were aware of those missions we wouldn't see the "the lunar module was never tested" claim so often. Be glad they're at least aware it was the lunar module, and don't try to "prove" a hoax by arguing the space shuttle cannot go to the moon  |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 24, 2011 2:59:59 GMT -4
I think few HBs are even aware of Apollo 9 and 10. If they were aware of those missions we wouldn't see the "the lunar module was never tested" claim so often. Be glad they're at least aware it was the lunar module, and don't try to "prove" a hoax by arguing the space shuttle cannot go to the moon And you think that has never been done ;D |
|
|
|
Post by suele on Apr 24, 2011 4:05:35 GMT -4
And you think that has never been done ;D I know it's been tried, I wasn't speaking hypothetically! |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 14, 2011 1:10:33 GMT -4
I think few HBs are even aware of Apollo 9 and 10. If they were aware of those missions we wouldn't see the "the lunar module was never tested" claim so often. Be glad they're at least aware it was the lunar module, and don't try to "prove" a hoax by arguing the space shuttle cannot go to the moon It's pretty easy to determine age groups when these kind of "arguments" are brought forward. I remember Columbia's first flight, I was a newbie 1Lt in AWACS...that was a long time ago. Capsules are like dinosaurs to many "younger" folks, Shuttle is all they know. I really wonder what they teach in school these days. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 14, 2011 2:38:16 GMT -4
Better grammar?
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 15, 2011 22:55:09 GMT -4
8:15 to 9:00 LOLZ - txting 4 luzrs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 16, 2011 9:53:22 GMT -4
Capsules are like dinosaurs to many "younger" folks, Shuttle is all they know. If the Shuttle is all they know, then they have a pretty limited world view. The Russians have been flying capsules for the last 50 years. After the Shuttle retires, capsules will be the only thing still flying. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on May 17, 2011 17:28:29 GMT -4
I really wonder what they teach in school these days. Science education is in a mess. The decline of physics and mathematics in the UK is alarming, and it will get worse before it gets better. I was reading a TES article recently. The key points: - Only 20% of secondary science school teachers in the UK are physicists. The upshot is that in some schools, physics is being taught by biology and chemistry teachers who might not have the necessary confidence in physics. Part of teaching requires the teacher to instill confidence in their class through projecting confidence themselves.
- It is getting to the point where many children's first experience of physics is uninspiring, since they are faced with a teacher who, through no fault of their own, is spending more time understanding the mechanics of what they are teaching, and not enough time to think of creative ways of teaching concepts.
- The problem is compounded by the fact that mathematics is in a bigger mess. Physics teachers are covering for maths teachers, which then puts more strain on the staff teaching the physical sciences.
- The UK are trying to recruit an additional 1000 physics teachers per year for the next 15 years. The aim is to get 1:1:1 mix of teachers across the three sciences.
Currently, the annual training bursary in the UK is £4000 for primary (age 4-11). Looking at the secondary figures, it is £6000 for biology, languages and humanities, and £9000 for chemistry, physics and mathematics. I can see mathematics and physics attracting more soon - or maybe even a different approach to training for those subjects, such as increasing the number of GTTP places and making the GTTP salary tax free. (GTTP is a scheme where you are employed as a teacher and train on the job for your first year, rather than going to University.) |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 17, 2011 17:47:26 GMT -4
What percentage of the science taught in secondary schools is physics?
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on May 17, 2011 18:28:59 GMT -4
What percentage of the science taught in secondary schools is physics? 2.24546576546% |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 17, 2011 18:55:14 GMT -4
In that case, 20% of secondary school science teachers' being physicists is clearly far too many.
Look, I don't know if my high school physics teacher was a physicist or not. I expect not. I expect his degree was in teaching. That isn't why I don't know physics. I have noticed, however, that people tend to get angry when their field isn't taught well enough in the schools even when their field is relatively limited in importance for the average person.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on May 26, 2011 3:24:44 GMT -4
I'd say a knowledge of basic physics is actually very important to the average person. Here are some reasons just off the top of my head:
They'll better understand the forces and energies involved in a road accident. Maybe they'll use their seat belts or even drive more carefully.
They'll understand that mass and energy are conserved and there is simply no such thing as "free" energy. So maybe they'll save their hard-earned money when some charlatan like Dennis Lee comes to their town.
They'll know that heat is a special, lower "grade" of energy that can't be converted to mechanical or electrical energy with high efficiency. They'll understand just how wasteful it is to generate low-grade heat, e.g., heating household hot water or a swimming pool, with electricity or by burning a fuel.
Those last two principles -- the first two laws of thermodynamics -- are basic to everything there is to know about energy, probably the most important public policy issue of our time. And democracies cannot work without an informed population.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 26, 2011 8:03:01 GMT -4
They'll better understand the forces and energies involved in a road accident. Maybe they'll use their seat belts or even drive more carefully.
I would thing that most people who drive have seen the result of a violent collisions either in person or in pictures. I know that in the US, driving schools present the information. The knowledge of the consequences it is natural human risk taking behavior that minimizes the likeness of the consequences and overestimated the value gained from taking risks. Sure, not all people take such risks and some are susceptible to rational information, but many people are by nature risk takers. Particularly young men under 25 who will take physical risks. Over that age people transition to taking financial and other risks.
Economists have studied decisions in risky situations for years and have only added to the subject under very controlled conditions of risk. But people still find ways to game the system to take grave risks when the rewards are right.
They'll understand just how wasteful it is to generate low-grade heat, e.g., heating household hot water or a swimming pool, with electricity or by burning a fuel.
Wasteful is a relative term and the choice to heat your bath or pool water is primarily an economic one. I find that a natural gas fueled hot shower that is ready when I want it is not wasteful at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 26, 2011 12:54:13 GMT -4
Personally, I'm not going to stop heating my water. I like hot baths; arguably, I need hot baths. Certainly there is a time coming up when I'm not going to be able to maintain the same regimen of painkillers that I do now, and I'm going to have to come up with non-pharmaceutical replacements.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on May 28, 2011 3:16:03 GMT -4
I didn't say that you should stop heating water. That's a common misconception when talking about energy conservation and resource depletion. It's how you heat that water that matters.
Low-grade (i.e., low temperature) heat is an "inferior" form of energy that is thermodynamically wasteful to generate directly from a high grade energy source such as a fuel or (especially) electricity.
Solar energy is especially well suited to generating low grade heat. That's why it's so popular for heating swimming pools.
If you are going to use electricity to generate low grade heat, it's much more efficient to use a heat pump, basically an air conditioner in reverse. For each kilowatt-hour of electric energy, a resistive heating element can produce only one kilowatt-hour of heat output. But if you give that same kilowatt-hour of electricity to a heat pump, it can "pump" several kilowatt-hours of ambient heat energy up to the desired temperature. This ratio of heat output to electric power input is known as the "Coefficient of performance" or COP, the main figure of merit for heat pumps and air conditioners.
This is all black magic to people who don't know physics. But if you understand the basics of thermodynamics, then it all begins to make sense. If more students left school with a good grounding in physics, they would understand how important energy is to our way of life -- in fact, to human survival. They'd know the efficient and less efficient ways to use it. Not only would this help save them money, but it would help them make informed contributions to public policy debates, more and more of which involve energy issues.
|
|
