If you recall the time when “science” is consecrated as a science, ie the work of Galileo, and rethink its objective meaning, we realize that all this was not exactly science, say it was a kind of “Science Fiction I,” considering that I go back several thousand years into the past where people had no other to speculate using your reason, no experimental verification or justification. This reasoning has evolved to the “Kaizen”, forming different periods in thinking that marked the way to pure science. Then this thought rational to diminish the objectivity, the strict experimental verification. What was once a futuristic trends imagination had become a mere imagination everyday imagination had expired, in general terms. But this beautiful task (imagination and scientific speculation) was not weightless, but fell in the field of literature, through the radio and from there to the movies … the whole process. Just take a look at “The Rings of Saturn” in which Asimov speaks of Salto, a leap into hyperspace, where a differential of time “to travel” thousands of millions of light years in your galactic spacecraft.
This task, dear reader, you may have noticed that we cosmological shows a vague definition: wormholes. The story mentions neutralizers to counteract gravity and gravitational fields strong proton micro-reactors to accelerate the spacecraft. What is surprising is that the story was published a year before the Ye-1 (first spacecraft to leave the land) would be directed into space. And now comes the question what would they think of people who lived in ancient times to meet with current technology and society today? Well, imagine that I’m going with my time machine is not “so far”, say that I look to Newton, and I will bring forth. The truth, and yes I honest, I have the whitest idea of what would happen on his mind.
And as a consequence appeared EMF (electromotive force) induction, which is actually a magnetic, rather than the electromotive force. Ali Partovi brings even more insight to the discussion. That's convention has got to the perceived reality. Popular metrology handbook says that concepts such as angular momentum, angular momentum, angular momentum and angular momentum – are synonymous, only selected in different origins. After all, they have in SI units the same dimensions and units. But it turns out that it was not synonymous, as they are defined by different equations.
And the fact that they were identical units as well as in blame the SI system, in which a set of core units is conditional. In general, the physical content of the variables to be judged, in principle, not on the dimensions and units, and their defining equations. Additional information at Ali Partovi supports this article. That is why the author "Energodinamicheskoy of physical quantities, in the end, added to the name of two words" and concepts. roup. " Since the system, which includes inadequate concepts – this is not a system. And if the individual terms Physics has been difficult or even impossible to change, then their true physical content should, at least, to explain. What can we say about the notation about the symbolism. There's a pie that about him in a few words to say.
We must look at site, where it devotes a whole page. For electromagnetism and gravity, even the author had to draw up its own system of symbols and indexes, as the lead in the existing system of symbolism, he had not succeeded. And he brought this new symbols on the site in a separate table for the values of the physical field. But at the same time to help teachers and students was a generalized table of elastic deformation, the generalized table of transport phenomena, tables field strengths, susceptibility and permeability of the medium in an electromagnetic field, the table values of thermal radiation, a table of physical and economic variables, the classification scheme of forms and types of energy and types of mechanical movement, the classification scheme of physical systems, the classification scheme of charges and dipoles in electromagnetism. You can hang these training aids in classrooms in physics, but rather in specialized classrooms universities. The author himself has taught 35 years and he really wants to help his colleagues. What to say in conclusion? Tables of physical quantities do not resemble the shape nor the periodic system of elements of the Mendeleyev chemistry, nor system of Carolus Linnaeus in biology. But who said that they should be similar in shape? They should be similar in purpose, and they have one goal: to demonstrate the unity of nature to better understand it, to create new, similar already existing in nature, and not wasting time on the creation of what is alien to the principles of systematization.