Re: [Phys-L] old physics logo
- From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 17:17:33 -0700
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 12:55:18 -0700 Marc \"Zeke\" Kossover wrote:
> I think that this is it http://www.relativity.li/uploads/images/A/A1_2.jpg
Bingo. Thanks!
===============
Just now I wrote to the AIP Center for the History of Physics
suggesting that:
1) Their humongous history site ought to have a page or two
on the history of the AIP itself, and
2) The time/distance/mass thing is sufficiently clever that
it would be worth saying a few words about the history of
the AIP logo.
On 09/06/2014 10:51 AM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:
> I'm curious -- why are you wanting this logo?
a) Basic stubbornness. It bugged me to know the thing was
out there and I couldn't find it.
b) When discussing presentation style, symbolism, et cetera,
IMHO this is an example of a nice clever logo.
c) In the context of pendulums, I sometimes remark that the
pendulum serves as an icon representing time, and indeed
representing physics itself ... and has since Day One of
modern science. The AIP logo is an example of what I mean.
The pendulum by itself is no big deal. Pendulum plus Galileo
is a world-changing event.
=================
If you have the time, so to speak, think about the symbolism
in the movie "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban".
Some of it they laid on with a trowel, but some of it was
subtle and clever.
Hint: What did Hermione throw at the back of her own head?
It was only on the screen for about three frames, but it
was worth the price of the movie, if you ask me.
================================
I'm surprised that my reconstruction of the logo came as
close as it did:
https://www.av8n.com/physics/img48/physics-logo.png
I reckon the learning-theory guys would have a field day
analyzing which features of the logo were salient enough
for me to remember, and which were not.
As for the solid versus dotted lines, I like my version
better. If you look at a real pendulum, it looks more
detailed and more "solid" at the ends of the swing, and
less detailed and more blurry in the middle.
This is something everybody should remember when evaluating
witness testimony: Memory is a thought process. People
basically never remember anything exactly. At best, they
/reconstruct/ a picture that makes sense to them.
At worst, they construct a picture that they think will
advance their agenda.........