‘conservation of angular momentum’
note to “science” “professors”: saying “conservation of angular momentum” explains dick. noting the parameters of a physical “law” doesn’t explain it. pretending otherwise is the great dodge of modern formal “education”. in its simplest form the dodge goes no further than mere invocation of the relevant buzzword. putrid.
my boy richard feynman had it straight when he advertised during his introductory lectures on quantum electrodynamics (QED) that when he was finished he likely wouldn’t have led the audience closer to understanding QED. because he didn’t understand it. he was able, however, to explain in fine detail the correlation of observations and experiments, exposing a framework of weirdness. this is far from pretending that the subject’s understood.
for example, one doesn’t, as i’ve heard alleged in an astronomy lecture, explain kepler’s second law (a line from the sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times) by noting that this behavior occurs elsewhere (or even everywhere) — the sole accomplishment of invoking conservation of angular momentum. that explains shit.
troubling that among most people drawn toward science is an obscene fear of truth, usually strutting in the form of overconfidence and pride in regurgitation excellence. that you’ve lived in buildings since you were born doesn’t make their oft ignored magnificence yours. i don’t respect anyone who hasn’t retained or built a respect for the baffling fundamentals.
My definition of an expert in any field is a person who knows enough about what’s really going on to be scared.
~PJ plauger 1983
September 2nd, 2010 at 16:59
[...] crutch. he should simply write, “Comparative advantage shows us”, or similar. as noted here, referring to a “law” explains nothing. so why is he even calling it a law? because [...]
March 12th, 2011 at 08:45
[...] hot. i feel like a whirlpool expert now. “bathymetry” — yeah! throw in a “conservation of angular momentum” and i can teach that [...]