Best science experiments & measurement books according to redditors
We found 93 Reddit comments discussing the best science experiments & measurement books. We ranked the 47 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Oh god, this question is such a can of worms that I will try to answer as best as I can. I'm not a master optician, a master optician will give you a different answer, you ask two master opticians and they'll fight about the answer, ask three and you'll never get a conclusion. I will try to answer this and break it into chunks. For simplicity I will talk about reflector telescopes, or scopes that reflect light back into the eyepiece, and not refractors which would be more like a camera lens.
Telescopes can be broken down into their individual aperture and F ratio, which is nothing like an f ratio in a camera.
Aperture controls the amount of light gathering a telescope can do and in some cases the contrast of a scope. Aperture it is literally the size of the primary mirror or element in the scope. A 10" scope would have a primary mirror 10" across and give light accordingly. The size of the mirror SHOULD have a play on the desired F ratio of the mirror which we'll talk about next.
Your F ratio for a telescope calculates field of view, which is directly related to your magnification. A small F ratio means wider fields of view, a large F ratio has a smaller field of view. F ratio also, to an extent controls brightness of your object, so, the more magnification the dimmer an object becomes, which means you want to make up for the dimness with larger primary mirrors.
Now we're going to get complicated, and I'm going to keep it simple. When you start with ridiculous amounts of magnification (provided by mostly by an eyepiece, but in some parts by a mirror) you end up with very visible defects, the most common is what we call chromatic aberration. It is a prism like shifting of colors in the objects you are looking at. Chromatic aberration comes from small defects in the mirror surface, perhaps an atom or two of silica in height, maybe three or four. (Yes, a good mirror is THAT precise) These color shifts can significantly impact your viewing of things like Alberio, Saturn, and well, just about any other interesting thing you could possibly look at. Other defects we worry about are things like astigmatism, which creates a conical star as opposed to a circular one.
So, simply put what you're getting for 3k+ is a finely figured mirror (that's what we use to describe the process of polishing a mirror to perfection) that has no optical flaws which will produce a smooth and apparition free viewing surface across the entirety of your field of view.
If you have more interest check out the following:
Alberio: http://www.albireovineyards.com/uploads/1/3/0/2/13028271/2582976_orig.jpg
Saturn Through a (pay attention especially to contrast and DETAIL):
Cheap Scope:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/9VIhag8tTcs/maxresdefault.jpg
Pricey Scope:
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/thumbnail/SaturnJimSchaff.jpg
Scope that could have been a car.
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/media/images/articles/60da_astrophoto/08_saturn__hero.jpg
For the hobbyists and clubbers among you:
www.stellafane.org
www.atmob.org
And for the technical readers a nice intro book on building your own:
http://www.amazon.com/about-telescopes-Popular-optics-library/dp/B0006CL970/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404270285&sr=8-1&keywords=sam+brown+telescope
First, you might want to start with /r/matheducation. They’re actually experts in this subject.
You can read work by hundreds of experts in child psychology/development, pedagogy, the philosophy of mathematics, the intuitive/psychological foundations of mathematics, etc. Personally I’m a fan of Piaget, Bruner, Papert, and like-minded thinkers, who advocate a child-centered “constructivist” approach to education. But there are certainly respectable educators and researchers who favor a more structured and top-down approach.
If you want to read concretely about the differences between typical US instruction and Chinese instruction in the 1990s, read Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics
Or watch this video from a few years ago discussing the TIMSS study and criticizing Khan Academy.
Or to see what a particular group of young children could learn with some expert guidance, check out Zvonkin’s book.
You might have read Lockhart’s Lament. He provides an alternative way of teaching high school mathematics in his book Measurement.
I like this concise theory of mathematical learning. YMMV. Here’s a short essay by Minksy about why mathematics is hard to learn.
If you want lesson plans and curriculum guidance, look to the American NCTM, who have been making detailed materials available for decades. Also look up math circles (both online materials and physical groups meeting in your area).
You might like this book by Van de Walle about general elementary teaching, or this book by Lenchner about problem solving.
Many people seem to like the Singapore math books. Read about Singapore’s curriculum.
If you ask homeschooling parents in your area, you can probably find strong opinions about curricula. Just searching around the web, many keywords about elementary math books etc. seem to lead to homeschooling sites. (This makes some sense: they have some free time, like to write about their experiences and form online communities, and do more personal evaluation of curricula than schoolteachers can necessarily have time/political power to do.)
There are hundreds of available books of mathematical puzzles and games, dozens of different types of physical manipulatives, and thousands of books, papers, essays, etc. about how to organize, order, and teach students of every imaginable age and background
If you have a particular age group / level of prior preparation / desired set of topics in mind, there might be some more specific materials people can point to. Are we talking about 4-year-olds? 10-year-olds? High school olympiad preparation? Are you interested in basic arithmetic? Geometry? Algebra? Do you have 1 advanced student to teach? 50 students of varying skill levels?
I think generally, early chemists ('alchemists') mixed completely random shit together in an attempt to make 'the elixir of life' or a process to create gold. Gunpowder might have been some dude mixing random shit together to make some magic potion.
Other stuff, like potash, lime, slaked lime, lye, soap, metals, pigments etc. followed a natural progression.
Have fire, get ash. Run water through the ash, get potash/lye. Discover that potash/lye + fats = soap. Enjoy soap.
Have honey in a pot (which keeps for a long time). Put it somewhere dark and where it accidentally gets a bunch of water in it. Go back to it and realize it went bad but eat it anyways. Realize it gets you drunk and start making more of the stuff. Booze.
Notice lime laying about. Heat it to get quicklime. Add water and get slaked lime. Now we have plaster and glass (obv. you have to add a few more random events in there, but you get the idea).
Pee. Let pee get old. Notice it smells funny, because it is now Ammonia. Mix it with things until you realize it can fix pigments into clothes. Now you have dyes.
From Caveman to Chemist
"Probability theory is just a branch of measure theory" is something analysts say to annoy probabilists. It has just enough truth to be annoying but not enough to truly sting. After all the first third of the typical graduate level probability text, such as Chung or Billingsley is mostly measure theory. But then probability theory goes off in its own direction with some of the deepest theorems in mathematics, which have no analogs in any other part of mathematics.
You don't even need high school chemistry.
I had a copy of Backyard Ballistics that led a lot of my GI Joes to their doom when I was 10 years old. Estes igniters are sold in 6-packs for about $5, so detonators aren't a big issue either.
No, you really shouldn't.
Open textbooks are a better route to go than paying hundreds of dollars (especially for high school/early college material). The Stitz-Zeager College Algebra text is a good book.
Also, Paul Lockhart's Measurement is also a good place to start.
For undergrad probability, Pitman's book or Ross's two books here and here.
For graduate probability, Billingsley (h/t /u/DCI_John_Luther), Williams or Durrett.
I highly recommend you these books: labmaths and at the bench
Caveman Chemistry! It's written by a chemistry professor and it investigates the development of real world applications of everyday chemistry. He outlines experiments you can set up to make real things, while explaining the chemistry in a very easy to understand way. It's pretty funny and really interesting, especially if you have little knowledge of chemistry but want to learn.
David Chandler's Sky Atlas for Small Telescopes is a good start:
http://www.amazon.com/Sky-Atlas-Small-Telescopes-Binoculars/dp/1891938193
Under a decently dark sky you can run the entire Messier catalog in a 70MM no problem. BUT for someone new to the hobby, its better to stick to the showpiece stuff. Off the top of my head:
M44 - this is visible naked eye from a darkish site, it'll look like a cloud off of Cancer. Use the widest FOV eyepiece (the 30MM) you can.
M67 - if you can find M44, its just south of it, a fainter star cluster. Somewhat more compact.
M3 - A globular cluster that's relatively easy to find, the way I find it is drawing a line between Arcturus and Cor Caroli, it's about a 1/3 of the way there.
M94 - a relatively small but bright galaxy, relatively easy to find, make an equilateral triangle between Cor Caroli (Alpha Canes Venatici) and Beta Venatici - M94 will be the star like object. Increase the magnification to star seeing some detail
Leo Triplet - you may not be able to see all 3 in a 70MM, but its about 2 degrees due south of Chertan (Theta Leo) - three galaxies, right there.
Virgo Galaxy Cluster - too many to name, but draw an imaginary line between Vindemiatrix (Epsilon Virgo) and Denobla (Beta Leo). The Virgo Galaxy cluster lies about half way through. Just sweep your widefield eyepiece along and enjoy! You can see them with 10x50 binos in a reasonably dark site, so that should be great for a 70MM or your Dob.
Alcor/Mizar - Mid handle of the big dipper, a good test of your vision/how dark the site is. Also a double star!
Algeiba - In Leo, a pretty double star.
Cor Caroli - my favorite double star, AKA Alpha Canes Venatici
Castor - Another double star in Gemini.
I suggest How to Fossilize your hamster and Caveman Chemistry. The first is more experiment based (one chapter, one experiment). Sadly, it doesn't teach you how to fossilize hamsters, despite the title. The second is more general. It has some experiments and guidance, and it's really interesting to read.
This is incredibly on-topic:
Remember Paul Lockhart of “Lockhart’s Lament” fame? (If not: Let’s just say: IMHO, he hits the nail that is your problem right on its head.)
Well, I mailed him back then, and he promised us a book, to teach one how to think like a mathematician. A “textbook” to finally get rid of that nightmare that you, me, and so many others described, and learn math the right way.
Well, last week he e-mailed me (and many others), that his book is done!
http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Paul-Lockhart/dp/0674057554/
Here’s the original e-mail:
> Dear Readers of A Mathematician's Lament,
> I wanted to let you know that I have a new book out called Measurement. This is my attempt to explain and illustrate, in an honest and heartfelt way, what it is that mathematicians do and why we do it. On one level, you could say that the book is about geometry and analysis, viewed from a modern mathematical perspective, along with natural and (I hope) engaging problems to work on. But really it's a book about me and the way I think, and what it is that I find so beautiful and compelling about math. I would hate for anyone to call it a textbook (it's way too fun), yet, if you want to really understand the mathematics of measurement in a deep and intuitive, intellectually serious way, then this is the book I would recommend. That's why I wrote it: to see if I could. I'm sure there are ways in which I have failed in the book to get across what I wanted to say, but overall I think I did a pretty good job conveying how I think and feel about mathematics, in what I hope is a refreshing new way---just really being me, and speaking to you person to person. Anyway, the book is out, and I would be very curious to know what you think of it.
> Yours,
> Paul
P.S.: As far as I can tell, he prefers not to be contacted too much, but to be left alone. I want to respect that. So please don’t do as I did. :)
P.P.S.: Don’t get angry at other mathematicians/engineers, who learned math in the color-by-the-number style. They are also just innocent victims. It’s not their intention to annoy or harm you. Maybe suggesting this book to them can make their lives nicer too. ;)
Found it on Amazon.
empiricism implies that we cannot trust our brains. it eventually leads to reductionism (IMO) which implies everything can be (objectively) be boiled down to numbers as a final truth. its a very toxic and very new idea. when numbers become truth it has no other option but to turn society away from God (an atheist society is weak and foundationless) if you are really interested more about my viewpoints on this heres some reading that explains some of it better than i ever could:
https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysical-Foundations-Modern-Science/dp/0486425517
https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525
https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657 (this one is slightly less relevant but does go into how often empirical science's end goal is looking at humans as machines and how that is dehumanizing and controlling)
https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Against-Modern-World-Julius/dp/089281506X
https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Slavery-Collected-Kaczynski-k/dp/1932595805/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=11DZHECERPHPBMFXWJKR
http://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Probability-9th-Edition/dp/032179477X
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Statistics-Analysis-Available-Enhanced/dp/0534399428
http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Measure-Patrick-Billingsley/dp/1118122372
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Statistics-Selected-Topics-Edition/dp/0132306379
EDIT:
Most likely Rice will be the best book for a comprehensive look at prob/stat, and it is sufficiently technical.
Last time I ordered something that came in below the 35$ limit, I preordered a math textbook!
It should show up on my last day of classes! I can't wait!
I made them with my uncle when i was a little kid. He was and still is a fun pyro. it does not require all the extras in OPs video, with a little experimentation it's easy enough to do it.
I would recommend this book, it's some nice entry level stuff and most of the builds are super cheap.
Building this stuff with kids imparts ingenuity and creativity while being really fun. Building potato cannons was a highlight on my childhood
If you want to see where he went as a means to continue his ideas, try his next book, Measurement.
Hell yeah!
Like, my brain and special interests all lean towards the Liberal Arts and Humanities.
But math, logic, and programming calm me the hell down.
Do you have any idea how stressful it is that people can't agree on historical interpretations? Or how to best lead a group of people?
Math has answers and makes sense. I'm with Plato. It is this pure and glorious thing. It's why I love Jesus being described as "ὁ λόγος" (which relates to logic and all the rest). To be clear, you don't need to believe Jesus is the logos to appreciate how kickass math is. Plato sure didn't :P
Also, OP! This book by a Mathematician has a really cool take on teaching and learning and understanding math. Since you do it for fun, definitely would be worth checking out.
If you can't afford it, PM me and I'll send you my copy when my wife is done reading it :)
Well why would anyone want to spend more than two minutes reading Being and Time, much less two weeks?
The Scanlon thing fell apart because ADD and I chose an awful time run it, namely in the middle of the semester. That group may or may not start back up later this summer. As well, the Groundwork is a much less ambitious project. I think it's roughly the length of the first chapter of Scanlon, which we did finish, and both ADD and I have read it before.
ADD has suggested the edition by Hill and Zweig, but I've also heard good things about Mary Gregor's translation. Other big names in Kantian scholarship include Paul Guyer and Henry Allison, so if you have any of there stuff that's probably fine too.
Firstly I think you are right about measurement involving constraint. Secondly I'd like to say that constraint isn't necessarily a bad thing. I could reframe the word constraint as focus and it might be seen as more positive.
I read a book on the history of metrology a while back, I think its was this one;
https://www.amazon.com/World-Balance-Historic-Absolute-Measurement/dp/0393343545
and I remember being struck how what I thought was a purely technical effort very quickly turned out to have deep philosophical implications. The point was made (and this is from memory so don't quote me) how the physicists thought of themselves as studying the basic nature of reality while the metrologists were seen as mere technicians doing the grunt work of determining the scales the physicists would measure with. However in creating these scales it seems the metrologists had as much claim if not more so than the physicists had of really touching the basic nature of reality.
All this has brought to mind another notion I think is relevant to this discussion and that is to begin to measure something you must first invent the scale.
https://www.amazon.com/Lab-Math-Measurements-Calculations-Quantitative/dp/0879696346
Kids these days just aren't trying anymore.
The Practical Pyromaniac
Badass LEGO Guns
Mini Weapons of Mass Destruction
Based on your outline, it sounds as if you've been bit by a rabid dog. You might want to get that checked.
-
I'd start with Michio Kaku's Physics of the Impossible.
I work in Food Safety / QC. My chemistry and math grades were mediocre.
The extent of chemistry I’m expected to understand involves knowing reactions on biological media & reagents, easily referenced materials. The complex chemistry is handled by Chemists.
Math consists of basic lab calculations (serial dilutions, microbial counts, molarity, etc.). Statistics is helpful if you want to understand sampling plans, but isn’t necessary for bench work.
If you’re concerned, Lab Math provides a comprehensive overview of bench basics.
Remember, work isn’t school. If you don’t recall/understand something you can take a little time refreshing on the material before undertaking a project/analysis.
Try to find entry points that interest you personally, and from there the next steps will be natural. Most books that get into the nitty-gritty assume you're in school for it and not directly motivated, at least up to early university level, so this is harder than it should be. But a few suggestions aimed at the self-motivated: Lockhart Measurement, Gelfand Algebra, 3blue1brown's videos, Calculus Made Easy, Courant & Robbins What Is Mathematics?. (I guess the last one's a bit tougher to get into.)
For physics, Thinking Physics seems great, based on the first quarter or so (as far as I've read).
That's one hell of a claim. I had to look into it, and traced it back a bit. It seems to be from In The Name of Science, which seems like a pretty obscure book: 17 reviews on Amazon, and those tend to either fall into either the "wake up sheeple!!" category, or are pretty critical and sceptical of some of the claims that are made. Like: "the author describes in very specific detail this thing that happened, but doesn't say when, or where, or to whom, or provide any evidence or corroboration."
I know how the conspiratorial mindframe works: the fact that the book is obscure and poorly reviewed means it must be true! But personally, I'd need to see a bit more evidence: a simpler reason would be that it was junk journalism, making outrageous claims to sell books. Can anybody point to anything outside of that book to corroborate the claim that the CIA or MKULTRA personnel were pimping out children to government officials for blackmail?
Just be prepared to be unamazed at the views with this scope or really any scope. What you see in pictures are not what you will see with this scope or really any small aperture scope. With that said though you still can enjoy so much with that scope. This is a fast scope which has some plus and minuses. One is that you can definitely get some high powered lenses without the use of a barlow which will help you all around as the barlow does diminish some of the light gathering capabilities when used. barlows are personal choice I rather use a high power high piece to get where I want rather than a barlow but thats just me. Right now you have a 26 and 75x with your eyepieces so if on a budget a 2x barlow maybe in order with a 450mm focal length. I believe they say 50x per inch of aperture for a useful magnification but that would be pristine conditions. Depending on light pollution it is probably more realistically around 25-30x per inch for your highest useful magnification. A 3mm would give you 150x which is probably going to be on that threshold of usefulness in your scope.
Definitely check eyesonthesky.com. Great site with a ton of great info. It definitely helped me when i jumped back into observing after a 20 or so year hiatus.
The biggest thing though is enjoy it. Remember that you are not going to see the things you see in the magazines or the internet but you can truly enjoy that scope with a little knowledge and perseverance. As good as stellarium I also would suggest getting this book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1891938193/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It is really good because it just has stuff that your scope should be able to see. It is great for learning the sky and finding objects that are within the capabilities of your scope for the most part.
Also remember that jupiter and orions nebula are not that far off and those will definitely be in the realm of that scope.
I have not tried the expanse eyepieces but they look nice. Also check out the x-cel eyepieces by celestron they are also nice eyepieces that are moderately priced.
Awesome! As mentioned, Rudin, Folland, and Royden are the gold standards of measure theory, at least from what I have heard from professors and the internet. I'm sure other people have found other good ones! Another few I somewhat enjoy are Capinski and Kopp and Dudley, as those are more based on developing probability theory. Two of my professors also suggested Billingsley, though I have not really had a good chance to look at it yet. They suggested that one to me after I specifically told them I want to learn measure theory for its own right as well as onto developing probability theory. What is your background in terms of analysis/topology? Also, I am teaching myself basic measure theory (measures, integration, L^p spaces), then I think that should be enough to look into advanced probability. Feel free to PM me if you need some help finding some of these books! I prefer approaching this from the pure math side, so mathematical statistics gets a bit too dense for me, but either way, I would look at probability then try to apply it to statistics, especially at a graduate level. But who am I to be doling out advice?!
*Edit: supplied a bit more context.
https://www.amazon.com/Name-Science-Programs-Research-Experimentation/dp/0312303564
Great book on the topic.
I think this book is super handy to have around:
https://www.amazon.com/Lab-Math-Measurements-Calculations-Quantitative/dp/0879696346
It covers the math for all sorts of lab techniques and has one of the best versions of the dilution formula I've found;
[(Concentration you want) / (Concentration you have)] * Total reaction volume = volume of stock to add to reaction.
I honestly thought I was in /r/Showerthoughts for a moment.
> Geometry class is pointless
On topic. I really think you should read Measurement by Paul Lockhart Maybe it will reframe what a proof is and why this is valuable.
>seems to confuse me more, but I’m very interested. Can you please elaborate or provide somewhere I can read a bit more about that?
That's a hard question, but one of my favorite experiment-friendly textbooks is Quantum Optics for Experimentalists by Ou).
To elaborate more, I would say, that using certain parallels between classical physics and quantum physics, people have worked backwards from the classical theory of electromagnetism to develop a quantum theory of electromagnetism (the complete theory is known as quantum electrodynamics, of which quantum optics is a part).
(Seriously abbreviating/oversimplifying here, but...)
For each value of momentum, polarization, and frequency, the quantum electromagnetic field has evenly spaced energy levels, not unlike the different orbitals an electron has in an atom. Each quantum of energy in this mode of the electromagnetic field counts as one photon. The full state of the field would be a superposition of different photon number states for every value of frequency and momentum of the electromagnetic field.
For example, a laser beam would be described as a superposition of many different photon number states over a narrow spread in frequency and momentum, while thermal light from blackbody radiation would instead be a statistical distribution of photon number states. You can also create nonclassical states of light like squeezed light, and beams of entangled photon pairs in spontaneous parametric down-conversion.
Edit: "One Photon" can also be a single-photon state that's a superposition over different values of frequency and momentum. This would be a single-photon wave packet.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674057554
I have always been fond of Probability and Measure by Patrick Billingsley.
World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement by Robert Crease was published about 2011. The radio interview on National Geographic goes for about three and a half minutes.
Reviews on Amazon are mixed, with some readers criticising him for being superficial and others saying he is too technical and boring:
>One clue as to the target audience is in the acknowledgments where the author says,"I write for Physics World, a consistently fun magazine to read and write for". If Physics World is your idea of a fun magazine then this book is for you.
A few people did find the book to be an interesting and enjoyable read, although one reviewer highlights a mention of the "Louis and Clark" expedition. One does wonder, if a well-known historical event like this can slip past authors, editors and proofreaders what other errors might be hidden in the text.
History of science is indeed interesting. I have a little book on the history of modern chemistry that I hope to get to in the near future.
Have you read the Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by E. A Burtt? It's a game changer. Burtt, to my knowledge, was neither a Thomist nor a Theist, so you don't have to worry about his bias.
There's more to reading ancient philosophy than looking for prototypes and origins of modern scientific ideas. Philosophy is prior to science. Scientific theories presuppose philosophical theories. Here is one way that natural philosophy is prior to modern physics.
Natural philosophy considers motion as such, at its most universal level. What is common to all types of motion. Modern science looks at one aspect of motion (quantitative) and creates mathematical models of specific types of motion (inertial, gravitational, Brownian).
We must first know that motion exists, and have a general understanding of what it is and how it is possible before we can proceed to look at quantitative aspects of motion, usually considered under experimental conditions.
As for the early Middle Ages, have you read Pierre Duhem's history of physics? His continuity thesis is provocative, but he definitely provides a comprehensive survey.
Here is a cute article by Terrence Tao on gauges:
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/what-is-a-gauge/
A gauge transformation is essentially a change of coordinates which is usually done to simplify whatever problem you are trying to solve. These "coordinates" aren't your usual x, y, and z, but something a bit more abstract, but still can be understood geometrically. I find it unfortunate that E&M textbooks don't discuss the geometry of gauges... I like "An Elementary Primer for Gauge Theory" by Moriyasu:
https://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Primer-Gauge-Theory-Moriyasu/dp/9971950944
Measurement
Hi, I was surprised to get your reply. I assume you mean you read the Apache Constitution, itself, which is posed online.
Actually, you can express ideas in math non-ambiguously and that lasts for a long time. Most people think math is a science. It's not. Math is a language. And because you can express ideas using math so precisely, it's the preferred language of science.
I wrote the Apache constitution using ideas from Open Source Government2, which is a science (and set of technologies) that explain how to manage societies without the use of centralized coercion. Open Source Gov (OSG) is explained in my book "The End: The Fall of the Political Class by Chas Holloway (that's me).
It's here on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B68MJX5/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520004479&sr=8-1&keywords=the+end+the+fall+of+the+political+class
On the other hand, you are right about "non-ambiguous" language not lasting forever. Scientific understanding always evolves. The Newtonian model turned out to be a special case of the Einstein model, which will be shown to be a special case of something even larger. So even though you use math, your ideas don't last forever.
On the third hand, the purpose of science is not to achieve a perfect description of nature. It's to have an intellectual model you can use to build technology to accomplish goals.
Thanks for the reply.
This book Backyard ballistics has some great experiments and fun things to do. Its not dedicated to chemistry but a good place to start.
I prefer the brand new (2008) Zweig translation, with Tom Hill's comments. I find it slightly easier to read than Gregor's, with 183 pages of commentary at the start of the book, including argument analyses.
No questions. Check out this book, Caveman Chemistry. I took a class in college and our professor wrote the textbook for the class. As you create an element or project, the following ones build on from it. Goes all the way to production of pharmaceuticals and plastics. Thought you might find it interesting or an idea out of it.
I understand the techniques proposed by Lockhart, and he has a good book out Measurement that illustrates some of his techniques.
I'm trying to address the same problem in a fundamentally different way. There are elements of discovery in my stuff, but it is more focused on presenting the development in a historical context.
Lockhart's method is great for high school students who have a teacher devoted to the method and who is steeped enough in the mathematics to lead the discovery. I think there is value in both.
https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Dont-Play-This-HAARP-ebook/dp/B00OV5L9LY?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect
although the HAARP facility in Alaska is 'down' now there are almost certainly smaller versions out there, and this book goes into some detail about how projecting thoughts/voices can/has been done.