Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:But… I find a party that seems to be happy with 'experts', and doesn't think workers will run physics. Go figure.
How will 'workers' 'run' physics in capitalism?
Lbird,maybe, there is no verification, just continual validation. The information, which is, as you'll recall, distinct from data (due to the active ingrediant of mind) is declared reliable. That's it.If someone comes yup to you and says: "The Earth is flat", you can ask them what reliable process led them to that truth claim. If you have a different rpocess, you can produce that, and the debate is on. if neitehr side demonstrates a flaw in the validity of the other, a draw is declared, else one truth claim is declared invalid (or at least inferior).
LBird wrote:I've got a class conscious view of science (including physics and maths,Very impressive LBird. So you could easily understand and vote on these questions: 3. (a) State the mathematical expression of the inverse square law of gravitation 1 (b) (i) Show that the speed, v, of a satellite in orbit around the Earth is given by v GM r E = . (ii) In the above expression state the meaning of the symbols G, ME and r. 3 (c) A satellite of mass 120 kg is placed in orbit 600 km above the Earth. (i) Calculate the kinetic energy of the satellite (ii) State the expression for the gravitational potential at a distance r from a mass M. (iii) Due to the work done by friction the orbit of the satellite decreases to 580 km above the Earth. Calculate the loss of potential energy of the satellite. (iv) State and explain what happens to the kinetic energy of the satellite when the orbit decreases. 7 (11) 4. (a) State what is meant by the moment of inertia of a rigid oject about an axis of rotation. 1 (b) The rotor of an electricity generator in a power station can be considered as a uniform cylinder rotating about its axis. The manufacturer quotes the following data for such a rotor: Rotor diameter = 3.6 m Rotor mass = 210 × 103 kg Moment of inertia of rotor = 3.4 × 105 kg m2 “Running Speed” = 600 revolutions per minute Time to reach running speed from rest = 30 s (i) Calculate the angular acceleration of the rotor as it is brought from rest to its running speed. You may assume that the acceleration is uniform. (ii) Calculate the torque exerted on the rotor. (iii) What is the kinetic energy of the rotor at its “running speed”? (iv) Due to the motion of the rotor, a nut on the surface of the rotor experiences a force. The mass of the nut is 0.80 kg. The rotor is turning at its designed running speed. Calculate the size of the force experienced by the nut. (v) Explain why there is a limit to the safe running speed of the rotor. 9
Or this? Show, by means of a change of variable or otherwise, that Z ∞ 0 f (x 2 + 1)1/2 + x dx = 1 2 Z ∞ 1 (1 + t −2 )f(t) dt , for any given function f . Hence, or otherwise, show that Z ∞ 0 (x 2 + 1)1/2 + x −3 dx = 3 8
In order to establish a 'communist science' would comrades answer and vote on the following 0. (a) (i) State what is meant by ‘escape velocity’. (ii) Show that the expression for the escape velocity from a planet of mass M is given by: v GM r = 2 where the symbols have their usual meaning. (iii) Calculate the escape velocity from the Moon. The radius of the Moon is 2.6 × 106 m. 5 (b) It is believed that stars which are sufficiently massive may collapse to form a black hole when their nuclear fuel is exhausted at the end of their life. A star with a mass three times the mass of the Sun could collapse to form a black hole of radius less than 10 km. What is meant by a ‘black hole’? 1 (
YMS wrote:The information, which is, as you'll recall, distinct from data …You'll have to remind me, YMS – which one is the one that is not 'theory-laden', the 'information', or 'data'.I keep getting mixed up, because all the 'scientists' who've read a modicum of philosophy of science quite happily regurgitate the modern mantra about 'the theory-ladenness of facts'.But then… they seem to just blithely return to their 'facts' (I know it's either 'information' or 'data', but my really poor memory struggles to remember which is which…).There's me, eh, a worker, thinking I can keep up with all this 'science' stuff!It's best left to the 'experts, eh, like you, YMS?So, tell me once again – have some thought for the thick workers, comrade! – which is the 'facts', the 'information' or 'data'?
YMS wrote:If someone comes yup to you and says: "The Earth is flat", you can ask them what reliable process led them to that truth claim. If you have a different rpocess, you can produce that, and the debate is on. if neitehr side demonstrates a flaw in the validity of the other, a draw is declared, else one truth claim is declared invalid (or at least inferior).But… this is not how science works… anyone who has read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos… even Einstein, knows that science is a human activity, and involves faith, belief, trust, intuition, guesswork, violent disagreement, hatred, petty squabbles, professional jealousies, even religious certainty and god worship… it's enough to come to believe that 'scientists' are human, and, just like the rest of us, talk out of their arses most of the time.Indeed, some class conscious workers suspect that physicists talk out of their arses far more often than the average worker…
LBird wrote:Vin, grow up.So you not taking part in communist science?
01042015 = data01/04/2015 = InformationThe process of debate invovles awareness of the idiosyncracies of human minds, that's what it's for. One, long, glorious, never ending argument.
Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up, you revert to childishness?Discussion with the 'big kids' doesn't come easily to you, does it?
LBird wrote:I keep getting mixed up, because all the 'scientists' who've read a modicum of philosophy of science quite happily regurgitate the modern mantra about 'the theory-ladenness of facts'.But then… they seem to just blithely return to their 'facts' (I know it's either 'information' or 'data', but my really poor memory struggles to remember which is which…).There's me, eh, a worker, thinking I can keep up with all this 'science' stuff!It's best left to the 'experts, eh, like you, YMS?But… this is not how science works… anyone who has read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos… even Einstein, knows that science is a human activity,Says the 'experts'And you cannot see the contradictions and hypocricy in your above nonsensical statement?
YMS wrote:01042015 = data01/04/2015 = InformationYou're pulling my leg now, surely?!God, say you are.
LBird wrote:Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up, you revert to childishness?Discussion with the 'big kids' doesn't come easily to you, does it?If my argument is too advanced for you just say so? You quote 'experts' all the time, you stupid person. Listen to expert or not listen to experts. Make your mind up. And if you cannot answer the physics and mathematics question then how t are you going to take a vote on the answers.? Some democratic communist you are
LBird wrote:Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up,You never talk like a grown up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.