|
Post by the light works on Nov 10, 2013 15:54:24 GMT
This thread begins with my comment on non-Newtonian fluids, but I expect it will evolve with other people's questions and comments, and I am okay with that as long as it continues on the general topic of things said on "educational" TV. on a PBS NOVA show I saw last night, they explained that the property that makes a fluid a non-newtonian fluid is that it behaves as a solid when at rest; and as a liquid when agitated or under pressure or shock. they compared the properties of a fluid cornstarch mixture to the properties of Ketchup and hair gel. I see from wikipedia that they only told half the story, and got their comparison quite wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 12, 2013 6:53:01 GMT
the property that makes a fluid a non-newtonian fluid is that it behaves as a solid when at rest; and as a liquid when agitated or under pressure or shock. It's the other way round isn't it? They behave as liquids normally and become "solid" when subjected to shock.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 12, 2013 7:31:29 GMT
the property that makes a fluid a non-newtonian fluid is that it behaves as a solid when at rest; and as a liquid when agitated or under pressure or shock. It's the other way round isn't it? They behave as liquids normally and become "solid" when subjected to shock. The wiki article says there are both kinds - cornstarch slurry is liquid at rest and thickens under stress. other non-Newtonian fluids are thicker at rest, but liquefy under stress.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2013 22:36:59 GMT
Keep in mind the 'lies to children' principle. That is that it is easier to get people to understand something by explaining it in a simple way, even if your explanation is wrong.
An example is the way atomic structure is taught, in high school it is described as being rather like a miniature solar system. At college level* it is more like bands and god alone knows what it is once you hit degree level.
This is known as 'lies to children' because this is the way we automatically teach children about things. If, as was the case in my family, a young child asks 'where does coffee come from?'. The simplest answer, and the one they will understand best, is 'We get ours from the supermarket'.
(*College in the UK use - meaning education from the ages of 16-18. University is 18+, High/Secondary School is 11-16 and primary school is 3-11. Sixth form is the same as college, but courses take place in the high school - making such places identical to American High Schools as I understand them.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2013 0:55:56 GMT
I was taught in high school that we only use the solar system model of atomic structure for convenience of keeping track of numbers; and the actual pattern is beyond our ability to track.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 15, 2013 20:20:33 GMT
I look at it like, you have to lie to kids for them to be able to grasp the basic concepts that build on each other. A 6th grader will not be able to understand how to do derivatives so they can figure F=m*dS/dt. Not to mention the vectors involved. So a simplified version F=mA is used.
OF course, by the time you get to calculus, you realize that even that is a lie to some degree and reality is an even harder to understand form of math.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 15, 2013 23:12:04 GMT
If, as was the case in my family, a young child asks 'where does coffee come from?'. The simplest answer, and the one they will understand best, is 'We get ours from the supermarket'. Even though it wouldn't be that much harder to say: 'It comes from coffee beans that are picked by farmers, dried, ground up, put into bags, sold and shipped to supermarkets and then sold to us.' Sure, you might have spent 20 seconds longer on that one, but at least your kid isn't "the stupid one" who thinks everything is magically made at the supermarket.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 16, 2013 2:11:13 GMT
I look at it like, you have to lie to kids for them to be able to grasp the basic concepts that build on each other. A 6th grader will not be able to understand how to do derivatives so they can figure F=m*dS/dt. Not to mention the vectors involved. So a simplified version F=mA is used. OF course, by the time you get to calculus, you realize that even that is a lie to some degree and reality is an even harder to understand form of math. but that is different from "when you mix cornstarch and water it acts like a solid when it is at rest, but as a liquid when force is applied." which is what they said on the TV show that I found objectionable.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 16, 2013 13:05:03 GMT
True, you still need to have your basic lie right.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 16, 2013 15:11:52 GMT
True, you still need to have your basic lie right. now you see my point.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2013 10:07:47 GMT
Newton described a liquid. I think (Correct me if I am wrong) his "Description" of a liquid is now what we all think of as the standard for liquid?.... he also did the same for Solid and Gas.?.. Non Newtonian therefore can be used to describe anything that DOESNT describe a liquid... or a solid.....
So, either way, liquid at rest or liquid when agitated, BOTH are non-Newtonian, and "True".
However, you argument that the show got it the wrong way round on Cornstarch is Valid.... Perhaps they are not s sure themselves?... way to go on confusing the matter eh?....
So, Question, do we have non-Newtonian gasses?.... I am presuming we do, but cant think of one off the top of my head....
You are ahead of me if you are thinking non-Newtonian Solids question right about now. And I am wondering, does Cornstarch qualify as a non-Newtonian Solid, as it blurs the line between liquid and solid?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 20, 2013 16:44:52 GMT
I think solids are rigidly defined; in a manner of speaking. That would mean any material that does not meet the standards would be classified as a liquid (fluid) (assuming it is not a gas).
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 21, 2013 8:08:20 GMT
Dependant on Temperature....
Rock is "Solid" up until it melts.
Ice is solid up until its put under pressure....
Now there is a thought. How about Rock... Is it pressure dependant?... If you can get enough pressure, would rock "Flow".
So, how does that change what we know, because non Newtonian stuff is solid until you apply pressure?.. (agitation...)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 21, 2013 14:43:40 GMT
Dependant on Temperature.... Rock is "Solid" up until it melts. Ice is solid up until its put under pressure.... Now there is a thought. How about Rock... Is it pressure dependant?... If you can get enough pressure, would rock "Flow". So, how does that change what we know, because non Newtonian stuff is solid until you apply pressure?.. (agitation...) non-newtonian stuff is NOT necessarily solid until you apply pressure. some non-newtonian stuff is liquid until you apply pressure. some non newtonian stuff is always liquid, just not the same liquidness as water. but solid is solid. if you apply pressure, it may deform, or it may shatter, but it will not suddenly be more or less solid.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 21, 2013 19:42:59 GMT
Dependant on Temperature.... Rock is "Solid" up until it melts. Ice is solid up until its put under pressure.... Now there is a thought. How about Rock... Is it pressure dependant?... If you can get enough pressure, would rock "Flow". So, how does that change what we know, because non Newtonian stuff is solid until you apply pressure?.. (agitation...) non-newtonian stuff is NOT necessarily solid until you apply pressure. some non-newtonian stuff is liquid until you apply pressure. some non newtonian stuff is always liquid, just not the same liquidness as water. but solid is solid. if you apply pressure, it may deform, or it may shatter, but it will not suddenly be more or less solid. Umm... Not true. Turning solids into liquids by way of pressure is pretty much how every star and planet in the universe works. Apply pressure and you also apply heat. Heat melts things. Thus the molten iron core of our own planet.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2013 2:54:13 GMT
non-newtonian stuff is NOT necessarily solid until you apply pressure. some non-newtonian stuff is liquid until you apply pressure. some non newtonian stuff is always liquid, just not the same liquidness as water. but solid is solid. if you apply pressure, it may deform, or it may shatter, but it will not suddenly be more or less solid. Umm... Not true. Turning solids into liquids by way of pressure is pretty much how every star and planet in the universe works. Apply pressure and you also apply heat. Heat melts things. Thus the molten iron core of our own planet. nitpick accepted - it will not suddenly be more or less solid - except if it becomes a liquid, at which time is is no longer a solid.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 22, 2013 7:57:58 GMT
.. And when it is a "solid that is no longer a solid", how far until it then becomes a gas.
Does Newton need an addendum "At room temp and sea level"...?...
Are we pushing the boundaries of physics yet?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2013 15:05:13 GMT
.. And when it is a "solid that is no longer a solid", how far until it then becomes a gas. Does Newton need an addendum "At room temp and sea level"...?... Are we pushing the boundaries of physics yet?... just the boundaries of reasoned discourse. the definitions of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma have been formally established. quibbling over what is what pulls the topic off-course.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 23, 2013 9:00:35 GMT
Are we pushing the boundaries of physics yet?... Not even close. If it was that easy to push the boundaries of physics, I'd be concerned for the future of man kind.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 23, 2013 9:19:25 GMT
Off Course.... {A Python Interlude...} I must set a new course for the topic. Shall we sail the seas and lands in the buildings of the Crimson Permanent Assurance...?...
So Captain, which lands shall we explore next?...
Or just how do we drag this one back to what we were talking about before we started drifting on the seas of Physics?...
|
|