Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] [tap-l] amazing instruments

Real - shmeal.....

The wonder of that video was not its reality - it was the idea that some artist took an incredibly boring topic like projectile motion and turned it into something that made you feel good inside when you watched it. Instead of being creative, the knee-jerk physicists approach on this list was to dissect it and throw cold water on it for not being authentic. I found it fascinating that no one really questioned the animation of the projectile motion itself - so I assume the artist "got it right".

Thankfully, a few on the list seemed to get it and remembered the attempts at many museums to build similar wonderful mechanisms. I remember one at the Boston Museum of Science that one could watch with fascination for long periods that had balls rolling down wire ramps, leaping in the air, and bouncing off various objects repeatedly and accurately. Whenever a physics teacher says something is impossible an artist appears to show how to do it.

Bob at PC

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 11:27 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] [tap-l] amazing instruments

I would be a little careful in judging pictures by imperfections. We
now
have technology to make old photos nearly defect free, and to make new
photos look like old ones.

I for one think there is a place for making old photos look good, and
for
exposing the detail that has been accidentally fuzzed. I suspect that
the
PBS documentaries which show old photos that really look old may turn
off
younger viewers. It is possible to take an old photo and restore it to
what
was intended, rather than what you have now. I do this in a loving
fashion,
having restored an old playbill featuring a family member and a
yearbook,
both of which are on the web. The older generation filtered out the
imperfections and ignored them, but that talent has been mainly lost
today.

I took an old homemade 78rpm recording of a friend's grandfather
singing a
song he wrote and playing guitar. It sounded horrible with a faint
voice
covered by layers of hiss. But using good technology I was able to
remove
the crackle and reduce the hiss so you could actually hear the voice
clearly. Probably some voice quality was changed, but even more was
revealed. The friend, a musician, really appreciated this and it
brought
back many good memories for her.

I will agree that the video looks artificial. But all one needed to do
is
look down and see that it was an animation. The big problem is that we
now
have technology that can produce realistic visuals and audio that never
could have been produced "naturally". We also have medical technology
which
can change your appearance enough so that Down's syndrome children look
perfectly normal, and when you do that it helps them fit in. But yes,
it
does not look real, and people should net be deceived by it.

There is a place for both skepticism and dreaming. The animations are
wonderful dreams. But the claims about them being real are cynical
successful attempts to deceive the gullible. But from the view of
physics I
agree with BC that we need to be skeptical, but also need to face up to
strong evidence. The traditional educational system has lectured at
students facts that they didn't really believe. As a result they have
often
lost the ability to distinguish between verifiable things and fantasy
creations. This type of teaching has also hardened the students'
paradigms
so that they are less willing to change their fixed concepts.

The examples of Einstein, Boltzmann... are certainly cogent, but
eventually
their ideas gained currency. Read some of the work of Feuerstein. He
changes the students' ability to reason by removing cognitive blocks.
But
he is careful to balance between the two poles of free thinking and
rigidly
formal thinking. Incidentally Einstein was trapped in later years by
his
paradigm which opposed QM, so he wasn't always "right".

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


I would not be too harsh on people who thought the "musical
instrument" was real. Also, in case we physicists might tend to be
overly
skeptical about things that seem far out, remember the initial
skepticism
aimed at people like Boltzmann, Einstein, de Broglie, etc.

I would and still do. Not the trajectories, but the appearance of
the
video -- it's patently artificial. Are not silver gelatin prints
from
negs. still distinguishable from even HD electronic detectors
obvious?
That video is so obvious; no dust, imperfections, weld joins etc.
Perhaps
the current generation hasn't seen any old 'photos? I think not and
old
is only what, fifteen years.?


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l