stephen_speicher Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Speaking of Hawkings, It's Hawking, no "s" at the end. I see that done all the time. Sorry, but it just drives me batty when I see the names of famous people misspelled. If I had a dime for each time I saw "Einstien" ... in the latest Harry Potter movie, did anyone notice that one of the wizards in the Inn near the beginning was reading "A Brief History of Time"? Oh, that's great. Thanks, I missed that. It makes perfect sense, considering the time travel aspect of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Sorry about the spelling stephens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles T. Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 "I wonder if you could take the time to recommend some specific books to read. I have only had two semesters of General Physics and have read a few books such as Shroedinger's Cats, and Alice in Quantum Land. I would really appreciate any suggestions you might have." This recommendation might not apply to someone who has read the books you mention, but for anyone interested in a very general introduction to the history of the physical sciences, try "A Short History of Nearly Everything", by Bill Bryson. This is one of those books written by a non-scientist "popularizer", and he avoids getting very technical in his language. It goes over the history of Chemistry, Biology, Paleantology, Physics, Geology, Astronomy, and many other fields, summarizing all of the "big" theories, and including some biographical details of many of the scientists involved. The author doesn't try to push any mysticism in the book, though the notions of God, Creation, and Providence do get mentioned a few times, as they inevitably must be when quoting scientists of old (and these days too, no doubt). Nor does any extreme Environmentalism ever come through. I recommend it to anyone who has little prior knowledge of the physical sciences, because it is sufficiently detailed and well-written to inspire an appreciation for the vastness and complexity of the universe on both the macro and micro scales, and admiration for the brilliance and fortitude of those who try to figure out how it all works. It's about 450 pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Sorry about the spelling stephens. No problem, RedCups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koen Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 I happen to personally know some of the wonderful people that you write about. De Witte, for instance, was kind enough to ask me to review his experimental setup and his data. I was so impressed by the way he managed to extract his results from what lesser people like myself might have considered to be completely ambiguous data. Stephen, without any doubts you were kind enough to reply to Roland DeWitte, and your showed Roland your statistical analysis of Roland's data. For the sake of objectivity, could you post your outstanding statistical analysis to this discussion forum? Your analysis must prove that Roland's data does NOT show a periodical variation that coincide with the sidereal day. By the way, data by itself is never ambiguous: either a conclusion is correct and supported by the data, or a conclusion is incorrect and is unsupported by the data. You mean that Roland's data does not show a periodicity with a period equal to the sidereal day, so Roland's conclusion is false. Show us the proof and your statistical analysis, I am curious. Koen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.