Steve Smith wrote at 04/25/2013 10:35 PM:
http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/tealaser/tealaser7.htm
Nice! I think I have my next dorkbot project. I had to quit going to
the meetings because I was so embarrassed that I hadn't done anything in
so long. And my theramin project was a complete
In the spirit of Glen's offerings of DIY Science, here is one I was
recently tracking...
http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/tealaser/tealaser7.htm
FYI T.E.A stands for transversely excited atmospheric laser... and it
essentially uses the 70+% N2 in the atmosphere as the active element...
the
I would say self-control is a sufficient but not necessary condition for
doing science. Besides the joy that it gives me to find out about it, my
life will be more or less the same whether I know the ratio of blue to red
elliptical galaxies or not.
I saw there was another (currently small) thread
I'm not sure what the relevance is. I can do DIY science by getting access
to whatever scientific equipment is needed to do the experiments. Does it
really matter what it takes to get access to that equipment? It may be
easy; it may be hard. But if it's possible what's the difference as far as
On 04/22/2013 11:37 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
But if it's possible what's the difference as far as
your perspective on what science is?
My point was that you, too, can build a device that might allow you to
test E=mc^2. It was in response to your statement that:
On 04/22/2013 11:15 AM, Russ
But I can test E=mc^2 by gaining access to the equipment that allows for
such tests. I don't have to build it myself. I still don't see the
difference. My original point wasn't about testing e=mc^2; it was about
using it in my daily life. I still don't see how I would use it other than
in devices
Sorry, I did not intend that you would use a scientific theory in your
daily life.
I merely wanted to say that E=mc^2 is _not_ science. The science lies
in the test, the actions you can take. I thought I said that. But
maybe I was unclear.
On 04/23/2013 07:57 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
But I
I still don't get it. If person x tests e=mc^2 and person y doesn't, then
is e=mc^2 science to person x but not to person y? Is that the case even if
person x tells person y about his test (or shows person y a video of his
test)?
I'm not sure what the point of this is any more.
*-- Russ Abbott*
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DIY science
On 04/22/2013 11:37 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
But if it's possible what's the difference as far as your perspective
on what science is?
My point was that you, too, can build a device that might allow you to test
E
: Re: [FRIAM] DIY science
On 04/22/2013 11:37 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
But if it's possible what's the difference as far as your perspective
on what science is?
My point was that you, too, can build a device that might allow you to test
E=mc^2. It was in response to your statement
Hi Russ,
I still don't see how I would use it other than in devices that I don't build
but that take advantage of it--although I can't think of any of those either.
If I am not mistaken, accurate GPS, and perhaps even the GPS in common usage,
needs to make appropriate corrections for the
Given the other discussion of the usability or testability of some
scientific theories, I thought these might be interesting links:
Build A Fusion Reactor
http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
Bringing particle physics to life: build your own cloud chamber
12 matches
Mail list logo
