[LMB] OT: physics, was Canonical STDs

Paula Lieberman paal at gis.net
Wed Dec 27 22:48:29 GMT 2006


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter H. Granzeau" <pgranzeau at cox.net>


> At 03:47 PM 12/27/2006, Paula Lieberman wrote:
>>>Perhaps, although I'm not sure I'd classify it as better. But you
>>>made a Doylist argument and I presented a Watsonian solution (and
>>
>>Those terms NEVER stick with me, NEVER.  I much prefer to 
>>descriptive-that-are-not-pointer-descriptive descriptions... that is, 
>>giving something someone's name, usually makes it a lot more difficult for 
>>me.
>
> This one I don't have problems with.  Say "Doyle" and you're blaming the 
> author, say "Watson'" and you  are pretending that fiction is real.

Description in those terms, "blame the author" versus "pretend the fiction 
is real" work for me, the names don't.

> Hertz I get.  I don't get Joule or Farad or any of a myriad of other 
> measurements (but then, I'm not a into physics, either).

I used to be able to remember Farad (of picofarad...) in terms of -other- 
units,  but its been way too long since I was using that stuff to 
remember--I'd go back to the equations anf from the units of current and 
resistance would derive the units of capacitance.

For newtos, F = m dv/dt,   or force units = mass times distance divided by 
time-squared -- velocity, v,  is distance divided by time... a newton, 
therefore, is a kilogram-meter-per-second-per-second. 



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list