On the website for the book, they say:

“Body Physics sticks to the basic functioning of the human body, from motion to metabolism, as a common theme through which fundamental physics topics are introduced.

and

Body Physics was designed to meet the objectives of a one-term high school or [a college] freshman level course in physical science, typically designed to provide non-science majors and undeclared students with exposure to the most basic principles in physics while fulfilling a science-with-lab core requirement. The content level is aimed at students taking their first college science course, whether or not they are planning to major in science. However, with minor supplementation by other resources, such as OpenStax College Physics, this textbook could easily be used as the primary resource in 200-level introductory courses.

The book is “Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike,” so you can read, study, and download Body Physics for free.

]]>And How and Why.

]]>]]>

Method Concerning Mechanical Theoremsdescribes a process of discovery in mathematics. It is the sole surviving work from antiquity, and one of the few from any period, that deals with this topic. In it Archimedes recounts how he used a “mechanical” method to arrive at some of his key discoveries, including the area of a parabolic segment and the surface area and volume of a sphere. The technique consists of dividing each of two figures into an infinite but equal number of infinitesimally thin strips, then “weighing” each corresponding pair of these strips against each other on a notional balance to obtain the ratio of the two original figures. Archimedes emphasizes that, though useful as a heuristic method, this procedure does not constitute a rigorous proof.

On Floating Bodies(in two books) survives only partly in Greek, the rest in medieval Latin translation from the Greek. It is the first known work on hydrostatics, of which Archimedes is recognized as the founder. Its purpose is to determine the positions that various solids will assume when floating in a fluid, according to their form and the variation in their specific gravities. In the first book various general principles are established, notably what has come to be known as Archimedes’ principle: a solid denser than a fluid will, when immersed in that fluid, be lighter by the weight of the fluid it displaces. The second book is a mathematical tour de force unmatched in antiquity and rarely equaled since. In it Archimedes determines the different positions of stability that a right paraboloid of revolution assumes when floating in a fluid of greater specific gravity, according to geometric and hydrostatic variations.…

Given the magnitude and originality of Archimedes’ achievement, the influence of his mathematics in antiquity was rather small. Those of his results that could be simply expressed—such as the formulas for the surfacearea and volume of a sphere—became mathematical commonplaces, and one of the bounds he established for π,

^{22}/_{7}, was adopted as the usual approximation to it in antiquity and the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, his mathematical work was not continued or developed, as far as is known, in any important way in ancient times, despite his hope expressed inMethodthat its publication would enable others to make new discoveries. However, when some of his treatises were translated into Arabic in the late 8th or 9th century, several mathematicians of medieval Islam were inspired to equal or improve on his achievements. That holds particularly in the determination of the volumes of solids of revolution, but his influence is also evident in the determination of centres of gravity and in geometric construction problems. Thus, several meritorious works by medieval Islamic mathematicians were inspired by their study of Archimedes.The greatest impact of Archimedes’ work on later mathematicians came in the 16th and 17th centuries with the printing of texts derived from the Greek, and eventually of the Greek text itself, the

Editio Princeps, in Basel in 1544. The Latin translation of many of Archimedes’ works by Federico Commandino in 1558 contributed greatly to the spread of knowledge of them, which was reflected in the work of the foremost mathematicians and physicists of the time, including Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). David Rivault’s edition and Latin translation (1615) of the complete works, including the ancient commentaries, was enormously influential in the work of some of the best mathematicians of the 17th century, notably René Descartes (1596–1650) and Pierre de Fermat (1601–65). Without the background of the rediscovered ancient mathematicians, among whom Archimedes was paramount, the development of mathematics in Europe in the century between 1550 and 1650 is inconceivable. It is unfortunate thatMethodremained unknown to both Arabic and Renaissance mathematicians (it was only rediscovered in the late 19th century), for they might have fulfilled Archimedes’ hope that the work would prove useful in the discovery of theorems.

]]>Archimedes was, arguably, the world’s greatest scientist – certainly the greatest scientist of the classical age.

He was a mathematician, physicist, astronomer, engineer, inventor, and weapons-designer. As we’ll see, he was a man who was both of his time and far ahead of his time.

Archimedes was born in the Greek city-state of Syracuse on the island of Sicily in approximately 287 BC. His father, Phidias, was an astronomer.

Archimedes may also have been related to Hiero II, King of Syracuse.

In the 3rd Century BC, Archimedes:

• invented the sciences of mechanics and hydrostatics.

• discovered the laws of levers and pulleys, which allow us to move heavy objects using small forces.

• invented one of the most fundamental concepts of physics – the center of gravity.

• calculated pi to the most precise value known. His upper limit for pi was the fraction 22⁄7. This value was still in use in the late 20th century, until electronic calculators finally laid it to rest.

• discovered and mathematically proved the formulas for the volume and surface area of a sphere.

• showed how exponents could be used to write bigger numbers than had ever been thought of before.

• proved that to multiply numbers written as exponents, the exponents should be added together.

• infuriated mathematicians who tried to replicate his discoveries 18 centuries later – they could not understand how Archimedes had achieved his results.

• directly inspired Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton to investigate the mathematics of motion. Archimedes’ surviving works (tragically, many have been lost) finally made it into print in 1544. Leonardo da Vinci was lucky enough to see some of the hand-copied works of Archimedes before they were eventually printed.

• was one of the world’s first mathematical physicists, applying his advanced mathematics to the physical world.

• was the first person to apply lessons from physics – such as the law of the lever – to solve problems in pure mathematics.

• invented war machines such as a highly accurate catapult that stopped the Romans conquering Syracuse for years. He may have done this by understanding the mathematics of projectile trajectory.”

“Archimedes.” Famous Scientists. famousscientists.org. 1 Jul. 2014. Web. 1/19/2021 <www.famousscientists.org/archimedes/>. Revised 18 Jul. 2018.

]]>As I engage in the so-called “bull sessions” around and about the school, I too often find that most college men have a misconception of the purpose of education. Most of the “brethren” think that education should equip them with the proper instruments of exploitation so that they can forever trample over the masses. Still others think that education should furnish them with noble ends rather than means to an end.

It seems to me that education has a two-fold function to perform in the life of man and in society: the one is utility and the other is culture. Education must enable a man to become more efficient, to achieve with increasing facility the ligitimate goals of his life.

Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one’s self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.

The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals.

Maroon Tiger(January-February 1947): 10.

The book is OK, but is a good basic idea. It would be benefit from discussion of a good epistemology and a good philosophy of science. So it is good reading more for some of the negative of bad science than for any discussion of good practice in science, logic, or epistemology. The book might be a great read for some people if they first learn from it that not all “science” is science or good science, and learn that method matters.

One review, at Kirkus, says:

]]>In her first book for a popular audience, a “story of how aesthetic judgment drives contemporary research,” Hossenfelder (editor: Experimental Search for Quantum Gravity, 2017), a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany, expresses despair that the golden age of physics ended with her parents’ generation. By the 1970s, a torrent of Nobel Prizes went to physicists who unified a confusing mélange of subatomic particles into the elegant standard model and did the same for three out of four fundamental forces. While a brilliant achievement, the standard model failed to answer basic questions such as the nature of dark matter and energy, matter-antimatter asymmetry, and the impossibility of quantizing gravity. The author maintains that fashionable new theories addressing these issues are preoccupied with beauty and naturalness to the neglect of actual observation. Thus, supersymmetry solves several problems by predicting dozens of new subatomic particles that the most powerful accelerators have failed to find. String theory seems to explain almost everything, but its basis is pure mathematics, and its postulates are untestable by any conceivable technology. “I can’t believe what this once-venerable profession has become,” writes Hossenfelder. “Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that….But there are so many ways not to explain something.” A take-no-prisoners interviewer, the author asks pointed questions of the giants of physics and is not shy about arguing with them.

Even educated readers will struggle to understand the elements of modern physics, but they will have no trouble enjoying this insightful, delightfully pugnacious polemic about its leading controversy.

Mind is for movement — so train complex movements in complex environments for optimal mental and physical function.

The opportunities we have are endless. Just train smart, be mindful, be safe, and follow good logical progressions from where you are to the more intense and complex.

Power. Strength. Balance. Mobility. Agility. Endurance. Mindfulness. In nature.

]]>She also had to deal with sexist women teachers.

]]>In “Teaching Heat: the Rise and Fall of the Caloric Theory,” Dr. Michael Fowler (UVa), writes:

]]>In my experience, there is much to be gained from teaching physics with some historical perspective. Unfortunately, the trend in physics textbooks these days is in the opposite direction. Thirty years ago, most standard texts included some discussion of how and when basic concepts in physics developed. Recent editions of these same books, much heavier and more colorful, have dropped that material in favor of endless detailed instruction on how to solve textbook problems. This may be, in part, a necessary response to less well prepared students, and possibly teachers, but the new texts, despite four color artwork on shiny paper, are rather dreary. My solution is simply to use the text as a source of problems and for back up reading, to use a fair amount of historical material (and demonstrations) in class, and to post my class notes on the web. Homework assignments include calculations based on historical experiments (for example: Estimate the mechanical equivalent of heat using Rumford’s cannon-boring data and Watt’s estimate of one horsepower.) Most of the students enjoy this approach.

I strongly believe that it is not a waste of time to discuss some earlier theories that turned out to be wrong. In fact, these earlier theories are often close to the students’ current thinking, so challenging them as to why those ideas were finally abandoned can stir the critical faculties and lead to better understanding. A case in point is the caloric theory of heat. Of course, the students are vaguely aware that it’s not right, but their intuitive ideas of heat, based on everyday experience, have probably led them to construct an operational model not too different from the caloric one, so we go ahead and discuss heat from this naive point of view, and mention the first recorded systematic experiments on heat and heat flow. For example, Ben Franklin measured heat flow down rods of different materials by seeing how long it took to melt wax, and thereby compared the thermal conductivities of different materials, a matter of real practical importance in designing stoves, for example. Franklin believed some weightless (or almost weightless) caloric fluid was flowing down those rods. Recall he’d thought the same thing about electricity—there was some electric fluid flowing when an object was being charged electrically—and there he was absolutely correct. Like the electric fluid, Franklin believed the caloric fluid would flow from one object to another, but overall there was always the same amount of fluid: it was conserved. That is the basic Caloric Theory.

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/TeachingHeat.htm

Dr. Richard Feynam, Nobel Prize winner in physics

]]>