Re: The antics of thermodynamics, the depravity of relativity, the bunkum of quantum

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 0:32:07 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:

On 13/03/25 03:21, jerryfriedman wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 21:55:47 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

>

You must have been a lousy student in school, Moylan.

>
I don't normally blow my own trumpet, but it seems to be appropriate in
this case.

School education in Australia is of very low quality academically in
comparison to what Arindam experienced in Bengal and Bihar, India.  He
learnt 4 languages and literatures not counting Russian. Excellent maths
and science, elocution and general knowledge.
The British and the Jesuits, the Brahmins and the Soviets, the tribals
and the Muslims, all alloyed up to make Arindam, the greatest genius the
world will ever know.
In my high school matriculation exams I got first class

honours in Physics.

Arindam won the Father Tucker Science Shield as the best science
student; ranked 16th in a national scholarship out of 50,000. For IIT
JEE he was 99 in a field of 150000.
First class honours again in first year university

physics. This was at a university (Melbourne) that is regularly ranked
number 1 in the country and among the top 50 in the world. And they
didn't run any Mickey Mouse "physics for beginners" subject. It was the
same Physics I as taken by the physics majors.

Arindam got first class honours in Electronics and Electrical
Communication Engineering from IIT Kharagpur. He was campus recruited by
the largest defence electronics company in India to make radar and other
antennas.
His kindness of spirit led him to do M Tech in Computer Science from IIT
Delhi. For his thesis he pioneered googling. His paper was accepted in
the US. Other confidential papers later written in TRL Australia laid
the foundations for modern telecom systems. Long story.
Arindam's contributions amount in the trillions, far beyond the scope of
any warped academic.
Woof-woof woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor

>
I haven't looked up where you got your degree, Bertie. If it was a
reputable university, you're doing your level best to damage its
reputation.
>

You will not find a textbook that says pressure is a vector or
writes pressure using its notation for vectors or refers to the
components of a pressure vector.  You probably will find or have
found one that says in words "pressure is force divided by area"

>
Usually in a high school text, at a level where the pupils don't yet
understand vectors.
>

or something similar, not realizing that some students could
misinterpret that as saying pressure is a vector, but it's pretty
certain that the book will get the equations right.
>

When we say tire pressure is so much, that means there is so much
force acting normally on the tire wall per square inch.

>
That's true.  The magnitude of the force is given by the pressure
and the area, both scalars, and the direction of the force vector is
normal to the tire wall.
>

So it is a vector all right even though it may sound like a
scalar. Like velocity is a vector but speed is a scalar even though
they are dimensionally same.

>
No, it's a scalar even though it may sound like a vector.
>

You may have to read carefully and even pay attention to
typefaces.  The textbooks I have use italic for vectors and
boldface for scalars.

>
Irrelevant and dishonest.

>
Relevant--that's how books distinguish between vectors and
scalars--and true.

>
There is generally a preface or section near the beginning of the book
that explains the notation.
>
In physics, more than in any other subject, textbook authors work hard
to ensure that their readers understand which quantities are vectors.
>
There are some, not very common, situations where a differential area is
treated as a  vector, and if so the differential force is the product of
a scalar (pressure) and a vector (area). (If you try to do it as the
product of two vectors, you get the wrong answer.) In those cases the
authors will ensure that you know what they're doing, and why.

--