From "Feynman's Lost Lecture"...

[BeholdTheTruth]

Dr. Richard Feynman, Caltech...

"I am going to give what I will call an elementary demonstration. By elementary, does not mean easy to understand. Elementary means, that very little is required to know ahead of time in order to understand it, except to have an infinite amount of intelligence. It is not necessary to have knowledge, but to have intelligence in order to understand an elementary demonstration. There may be a large number of steps that are very hard to follow... By an elementary demonstration, I mean one that goes as far back as one can with regard to how much has to be learned."

[The Fool]

Hi There Yale. Posting in the science section again? Can we cut out the 40 or 50 posts of absolute confusion and just cut straight to the religion bit?

Remember, just because people cannot follow you doesn't mean you operate on a higher level of understanding, It just means you cannot get to the point in under 50 posts.

[neutrino_cannon]

That's what we need more of, Feynman. Where's Feynman when you need him?

First thing I thought of when I heard about Columbia. :(

There's what cancer does. Kills Gould, Sagan (screw technicalities), and Fermi.

[Jim_MDP]

Hey Yale, back for round four? Good on ya.

Hell, with that East/West coast, Morning person/night owl thing, I probably won't get back to the reply till tomorrow night.

Oh well, let the games begin. :p

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by The Fool
Hi There Yale. Posting in the science section again? Can we cut out the 40 or 50 posts of absolute confusion and just cut straight to the religion bit?
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D...

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Yalel
From "Feynman's Lost Lecture"...Yalel, you're quoting from a lost lecture???

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by The Fool
Hi There Yale. Posting in the science section again? Can we cut out the 40 or 50 posts of absolute confusion and just cut straight to the religion bit?

Remember, just because people cannot follow you doesn't mean you operate on a higher level of understanding, It just means you cannot get to the point in under 50 posts.

Hi Fool.

I could be wrong, but I think Feynman is saying that to follow an elementary demonstration IS to operate on a lower, i.e., more primitive/primary level of understanding. And that by operating without the added baggage that comes with being at a more conventional higher level of understanding, relationships can be seen that cannot be seen at, and indeed can be obscured by, that higher level of yours.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Yalel


Hi Fool.

I could be wrong, but I think Feynman is saying that to follow an elementary demonstration IS to operate on a lower, i.e., more primitive/primary level of understanding. And that by operating without the added baggage that comes with being at a more conventional higher level of understanding, relationships can be seen that cannot be seen at, and indeed can be obscured by, that higher level of yours.

You are wrong.

He was discussing some aspects of mechanics when he said this. He meant what he said, the demonstration did not require much prior knowledge for follow, but simply intelligence.

He wasn't suggesting that other knowledge or understanding would get in the way of understanding this idea, just that it was not needed.

But, either way.... it was not something easy to follow.

Instead of trying to guess what he meant by those words, why didn't you keep reading and follow the demonstration? You would know exactly what was meant after that, as you would have had a context for the statement.

Specifically, the demonstration could be understood using only the tools of basic geometry.... it did not require a large foreknowledge of advanced math or other physical processes.

[shemp]

It must be spring, the loons are back.

[Crossbow]

Once upon a time, Yalel posted
Aard,

Cleverness has nothing to do with it. It's just a matter of being duck-headed or pig-headed.

BTW, for all you duck-heads out there: the hodograph material is well decribed in Goodstein and Goodstein's book Feynman's Lost Lecture -- should any of your ducks be interested in seeing the physics of the earth in an elliptical orbit from a non infinitesimal calculus point of view. Plus I have added some animations about hodographs at the botom of http://theometry.org/envelope.htm .

Behold the Yalel, who is constantly searching for validation via the work of notable scientists who are now dead.

Strange that someone who is so sure that many of us are morons keeps coming back, and back, and back to bounce his ideas around to test their resonance.

In any event, here is some data that may help to the one who is still trying to determine just what the 'arc' in 'arctangent' is:

Do you have problems with your septic tank?

Want a f-r-e-e flowing and trouble f-r-e-e Septic Tank?

Try the SPC Septic Tank treatment

We can ship you a sample supply of SPC for F R E E - at our expense! We provide a F R E E simple test you can perform on your own water supply. And than you judge SPC's effectiveness for yourself!

If you're not convinced that SPC is the simplest, most effective septic tank maintenance solution ever, simply return the unused portion to us.

We can only make this offer because we're confident you'll find SPC to be the fast, easy, and effective solution for your septic tank maintenance needs.

Click Here to visit us

[garys_2k]

Thanks, guys, for the heads up. I did some searching and can very clearly see what you mean.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Can I assume that none of you have read or are interested in reading Feynman's Lost Lecture?

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I take it that lost lecture has been found :cool:

[Crossbow]

I looked the book over via an on-line bookstore (the one named after that big river in South America), and the book does look quite interesting and for someone like me, it may be quite useful.

Essentially, Feynman developed a way using simple plane geometry to describe orbital mechanics. The data may be useful to those teaching Newtonian physics because it does not use the calculus approach that is usually used and most students find geometry much easier to understand than math.

However, I have a great deal of other stuff to study at the moment, so I will see about reading it this summer when I go back to a regular schedule.

[BeholdTheTruth]

CB, read it when you can. It's even better than the reviews. Regards, yale

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Yalel
CB, read it when you can. It's even better than the reviews. Regards, yale
yale.
How did your talks go? Have you been invited back?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Fool,

Thank's for asking. But I am not going to go there. This topic is purely about Feynman's Lost Lecture. Have you read the book or do you plan to? It really is quite wonderful. Yale

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Yalel
Fool,

Thank's for asking. But I am not going to go there. This topic is purely about Feynman's Lost Lecture. Have you read the book or do you plan to? It really is quite wonderful. Yale
No I've not read it. I'm not going to either...things are very busy lately. I don't really share your fascination for things traveling in arcs.:) But I'm always fascinated how you reduce everything (eventually) to the golden rule.

[BeholdTheTruth]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Yalel
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
now you know how it feels:)

[BillyJoe]

Found it!

http://www.wwnorton.com/cover/31995.jpg

[OdderMensch]

I picked that up when I worded for another large bookstore(the one named after them lines the brits drew that get us in so much trouble ;) ) It's great listining as well.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Yes, it is wonderful to actually be listening to Richard Feynman giving his lecture on the accompanying CD. And because the book prepares you to follow Feynman's logic, you get as much out of his lecture as possible. BTW, as I got to the end of the book and began to see where Feynman (and Newton) had been going over a tortuous journey from a simple beginning into and out of what seemed like an overly complicated and unnecessary midddle, it was like seeing the light of a new day after a dark night. What dawned on me was that Feynman's proof that some fundamental aspects of nature are dictated by geometry is truly awesome. I am curious as to how many others here if they read the fook would agree with me that Feynman gives even atheists added insights into both the mathematics of physics -- and (as Free Masons say) a GAOTU/"Great Architect of The Universe" that is always and in all ways , in a wholly and totally NON-religious way, "Geometrizing". Yale

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Yalel,

What dawned on me was that Feynman's proof that some fundamental aspects of nature are dictated by geometry is truly awesome.

Not dictated by geometry. Describable by mathematics. Did you know that algebra and geometry are isomorphic? They are simply different languages for expressing the same logical concepts. For example, some of the Trig identities are very easy to understand algebraically, but very difficult to understand geometrically, and vice-versa. But they can all be expressed either way.

I am curious as to how many others here if they read the fook would agree with me that Feynman gives even atheists added insights into both the mathematics of physics

What on Earth does atheism/theism have to do with mathematics or physics?

Dr. Stupid

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Yalel,



Not dictated by geometry. Describable by mathematics.

Stimpsy, to the degree you are a very logical thinker, the laws of logic both describe and dictate how you think and don't think. In a similar fashion, geometry and algebra both describe and dictate how planets revolve around the sun, etc.



Did you know that algebra and geometry are isomorphic? They are simply different languages for expressing the same logical concepts. For example, some of the Trig identities are very easy to understand algebraically, but very difficult to understand geometrically, and vice-versa. But they can all be expressed either way.

Well stated, and is it not interesting and indeed very useful that two or more isomorphisms while the same in some respects can add different insights when one goes from one to another?

Dr. Stupid

[garys_2k]

Step right up folks, the ride is about to start.