- #1
BadgerBadger92
- 149
- 77
I just learned recently that Michio Kaku is a bad source to learn physics. I was wondering if the same applies to Tyson. I love the series Cosmos, and was wondering if this series is credible.
My experience is that Kaku used to be a serious physicist but has given up on that and enjoys hearing himself talk, even about stuff he knows nothing about. Tyson is much more well-intentioned and you don't hear him spouting nonsense they way Kaku does but as others have said, pop-sci presentations are NOT education, they are entertainment and will not actually teach you much of anything.BadgerBadger92 said:I just learned recently that Michio Kaku is a bad source to learn physics. I was wondering if the same applies to Tyson. I love the series Cosmos, and was wondering if this series is credible.
fresh_42 said:At least, if you don't mind that multiverses are scientifically irrelevant due to lack of evidence.
I mean I’ve learned facts for sure, but I don’t think I understand it concretely.DaveC426913 said:Yeah, you don't learn physics from Sagan, Tyson or Kaku, what you do is get inspired by them to go learn physics.
The problem is that a lot of what they present as "facts" are either badly misleading or just plain wrong and unless you already understand the physics, you can't tell which is which or what they have right.BadgerBadger92 said:I mean I’ve learned facts for sure, but I don’t think I understand it concretely.
There are hundreds of threads here on PF about both, and that subject is one on which almost all pop-sci presentations get totally wrong is that they make the statment "time slows down for the traveler" rather than the correct statements that "time APPEARS to slow down for the traveler (but doesn't really)".BadgerBadger92 said:I think from my studying I understand ... MAYBE time dilation/length contraction vis special relativity and that’s it. Maybe if you didn’t mind I can check with you guys on how it works
I think you’ve told me that it only appears to slow down about a year ago.phinds said:There are hundreds of threads here on PF about both, and that subject is one on which almost all pop-sci presentations get totally wrong is that they make the statment "time slows down for the traveler" rather than the correct statements that "time APPEARS to slow down for the traveler (but doesn't really)".
As it turns out I did learn physics from Prof Sagan at Cornell (OK it was planetary science but he was the real deal), He was extraordinary.DaveC426913 said:*Yeah, you don't learn physics from Sagan, Tyson or Kaku, what you do is get inspired by them to go learn physics.
I say he's OK. Kaku is a phony.BadgerBadger92 said:I just learned recently that Michio Kaku is a bad source to learn physics. I was wondering if the same applies to Tyson. I love the series Cosmos, and was wondering if this series is credible.
I’m not quite there yet, but I’ll check it out if I remember.Hornbein said:I say he's OK. Kaku is a phony.
If you should care to learn quantum physics in a qualitative way, try Richard Feynman's book QED.
PE is, to the contrary, in a normal human way of looking at things, greater as you get farther from the surface of the Earth. That makes sense because it takes work to raise something off the surface to a height above the surface. Doing so uses kinetic energy to create potential energy.BadgerBadger92 said:I’m still having troubles with potential energy. I don’t think I really know what it is. I feel like potential energy should be more when you are closer to the earth
I skipped around and listened to a few parts of this in the background while I worked on some other stuff. Seems very good to me. Excellent step by step presentations.BadgerBadger92 said:This is where I’ve been learning most of my physics. That and some Khan Academy. I hope these are good ways to learn physics because they explain it in a way I can understand.
BadgerBadger92 said:I feel like potential energy should be more when you are closer to the earth
I’m having trouble understanding why it increases as you raise it, because at one point it won’t be attracted towards the earth. Is it a bell curve?hmmm27 said:Well, gravity decreases with altitude, but PE still increases.
BadgerBadger92 said:at one point it won’t be attracted towards the earth
BadgerBadger92 said:I’m having trouble understanding why it increases as you raise it,
Gravity is infinite ranged in GR too. For quantum gravity we'll have to get back to you.Borek said:(at least in classical physics, I have no idea whether we know for sure what happens over really vast distances)
This is exactly why math is so crucial and indispensable in physics: one is the derivative of the other. Once you can 'see through' that, it becomes a lot easier.BadgerBadger92 said:I’m having trouble understanding why it increases as you raise it, because at one point it won’t be attracted towards the earth. Is it a bell curve?
I hope I’m making my question clear enough. I may be confusing PE with gravitational force
Ibix said:Gravity is infinite ranged in GR too. For quantum gravity we'll have to get back to you.
The gravitational force on an object with mass ##m## due to Earth's gravity is ##F = \dfrac{G\cdot m \cdot m_\text{Earth}}{r^2}## where ##r## is the distance from the centre of the Earth. Note that this formula is valid for ##r \geq r_\text{Earth}## (also assuming spherical Earth). The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the distance squred. If you wanna account for more objects, like the moon and such, you need to write the vector sum of those forces as well.BadgerBadger92 said:I’m having trouble understanding why it increases as you raise it, because at one point it won’t be attracted towards the earth. Is it a bell curve?
Well, there's a very simple experiment you can do at home to convince yourself otherwise. Take a 5lb weight and set it gently on your foot. You'll feel a pressure but no pain. Now use your muscles to raise the weight up by three or four feet and then drop it on your foot. After you get out of the emergency room, but before the pain meds have worn off, think about why the two situations had such a different effect.BadgerBadger92 said:I’m still having troubles with potential energy. I don’t think I really know what it is. I feel like potential energy should be more when you are closer to the earth
Yes, Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a legitimate scientist with a strong background in astrophysics and cosmology. He has a Bachelor's degree in Physics from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Columbia University. He has also published numerous scientific papers and has been recognized for his contributions to the field.
Yes, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has expressed some controversial views, particularly on topics such as religion and politics. However, as a scientist, he is known for basing his opinions on evidence and data rather than personal beliefs.
No, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has not been involved in any major scientific scandals. However, he has faced criticism for some of his statements and claims, but these have not been proven to be fraudulent or unethical.
As a human being, Neil DeGrasse Tyson may have personal biases like anyone else. However, as a scientist, he is trained to approach topics objectively and base his conclusions on evidence. He is also known for encouraging critical thinking and questioning of scientific ideas.
Yes, Neil DeGrasse Tyson can be trusted as a source of scientific information. He has a strong background in science and has dedicated his career to promoting scientific literacy and education. However, it is always important to fact-check and critically evaluate information from any source, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson.