On Sep 29, 10:02*am, Roger Long wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:32*am, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

There are numerous examples of equating inconsistant units. Here is one
example of gobeldygook:

The reaction to these presentations on the web is always the same.
The professionals, especially teachers, like them and they gather all
sorts of nit picks from others. *That particular bit of gobeldygook
came from an article published in a leading aviation Emagazine and,
last I heard, was being used as an introduction to the subject in at
least one college course.

These are not intended to be physics texts. *There are plenty of
those. *The intent is to provide a plain language viceral
understanding of the basic principles. *Units and terms most
recognizable to the reader with little prior knowledge are preferable
in a quick and light treatment.

Why this kind of thing worthwhile? *I've had a whole career (I'm
hardly "budding") to watch people with naval architectural degrees and
complete understanding of the math and unit consistency *come to
really bone headed conclusions that have greatly hampered the
commercial and educational sail industries because they didn't start
with a gut understanding of the physics and let numbers and anal
attention to unit consistency lead them to absurd conclusions. *If
they had first understood the subject on this kind of level, they
might have made better use of the mathematical tools. *Most college
courses and texts start right off with the math.

These articles are just starting points and not intended to be much
above the level of Sunday newpaper supplement stuff. *Professionals
tend to see them for what they are and their limited value and net
posters as opportunities to show how smart they are. *Happy to have
provided the opportunity.

--
Roger Long

Roger:

Generally pretty good if you take out the part about requiring energy
to float. I'll re-read it sometime today.

Frogwatch (former college Physics teacher who has forgotten more'n he
ever learned)

Frogwatch wrote:

These articles are just starting points and not intended to be much
above the level of Sunday newpaper supplement stuff. Professionals
tend to see them for what they are and their limited value and net
posters as opportunities to show how smart they are. Happy to have
provided the opportunity.

--
Roger Long

Roger:

Generally pretty good if you take out the part about requiring energy
to float. I'll re-read it sometime today.

Frogwatch (former college Physics teacher who has forgotten more'n he
ever learned)


Can we at least agree that the floating boat actually does raise the water level?

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...

Can we at least agree that the floating boat actually does raise the water
level?

Absolutely. To the same extent that lighting a match increases global
warming. ;-)
--
KLC Lewis

WISCONSIN
Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

KLC Lewis wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Can we at least agree that the floating boat actually does raise the water
level?

Absolutely. To the same extent that lighting a match increases global
warming. ;-)


Actually, KC, it took considerably more energy to MAKE that match
than it gives off.

Entropy is still increasing.

On Sep 29, 10:13*am, Frogwatch wrote:

Generally pretty good if you take out the part about requiring energy
to float. *I'll re-read it sometime today.


That's not really what it was meant to convey but it's a work in
progress. I'll keep this in mind when I get around to the next round
of revisions.

--
Roger Long