Physics 10 - Lecture 07: Nukes

bmikesci Says:

Jul 8, 2009 - One can learn a lot from this series. However, I feel there is a very real chance that there is a definite agenda being pushed here, that is government sponsored to push a pro-nuclear power agenda. After all, the american people have been fooled before. I remember being taught to hide under my desk in the event of a nuclear attack.

rkaupert Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - I can understand why you have a certain amount of suspicion to what Professor Muller is lecturing about in regard to nuclear material having watched two weeks of network news concerning the death of M. Jackson. It seems to me that the network news is more concerned with sensationalism, not science. In the poetic words of Don Henley, in his song, "Dirty Laundry", from which I quote, ...It's interesting when people die....Get the widow on the set!

rkaupert Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - Hopefully, you can follow my line of thought. The media doesn't want science but showbiz, that is, drama. You are right that we can learn a lot from Dr. Muller. But, please don't get under your desk again.

bmikesci Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - I hope that I am absolutely wrong. It's a wonderful thing to provide this kind of education for free. Nevertheless, I would hope that any future politician would be skeptical of any presentation - no matter how well it's made. I mean, unless one is in the position to experimentally verify what one is told, one is forced to believe experts, and some experts have their own agendas.

bmikesci Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - BTW, if I have to watch one more thing on TV about Michael Jackson I think I'm going to be ill! Are we really that stupid in America that this can pass as news?

mathfeel Says:

Jul 22, 2009 - It's not whether something can be experimentally verified. Scientists are generally very very careful about that. it is whether someone without scientific training can understand any experimental result. Or what if nature doesn't like to serve their agenda? What Prof. Muller is lecturing here makes common sense to a reasonably good college physics major. To everyone else? I don't know.

bmikesci Says:

Jul 22, 2009 - I would feel much more confident about what you say if you could actually write grammatically correctly. Is it the case that a good college physics major can get by without a firm grasp of the english language? I don't mean to be rude, but one does need to consider how something is said, as well as what is being said. This is a standard part of critical analysis: considering one's source. A future president should know this.

mickeyboy1a Says:

Jul 24, 2009 - The abillty to write in grammatically correct english isn't required to be good at physics.

bmikesci Says:

Jul 25, 2009 - The ability to write well is, however, necessary to make a convincing argument. Are you as likely to believe someone who has mastered all the liberal arts as someone who has not? Any future president should be sufficiently mindful of the traits of his advisors to spot an illiterate among the educated. Now I do accept that there are idiot savants who have certain skills, but I am more likely to listen seriously to a polymath.

BenG549 Says:

Jul 26, 2009 - As someone who never thrived as an english student but is incredibly passionate about and interested in the world around us and the further understanding of this world i would totally agree! not being interested in shakespeare or not re reading your youtube comments to make sure they are "grammatically correct" doesn't subtract anything from your ability as a mathematician or indeed a physicist.

Tikayyan Says:

Aug 2, 2009 - "Nuclear power" has nothing in common with "nuclear weapons". Nuclear power isn't just a way forward, it's the only legitimate way forward. Nuclear weapons, well, that's another debate.

bmikesci Says:

Aug 2, 2009 - Sloppy is sloppy, period! To convince someone who is not an expert in a given area, how one presents oneself is even more important; so, if you want to convince someone of something, make an effort to present your argument well. If you don't want to convince anyone but yourself, that's a different story, but then, why are you arguing your point here? Believe me, you cannot win the argument, that it is okay to be ungrammatical; except perhaps if the one who is judging happens to be a moron.

TruthLogic Says:

Aug 15, 2009 - Just Some evidence WTC demolished using explosives! 0 WT7 Fell at free fall speed 0 2ndry explosions caught on cam B4 collapse 0 Squibs seen at reinforced points of Towers 0 Lobbys of Towers destroyed B4 collapse 0 No resistance put up by 80,000 Tons of structural steel 0 No evidence of Pancaked floors 0 Molten Metal Found At ALL 3 Towers 0 Giant Steel Columns Blasted Hundreds of Feet Away 0 Fires Burned for Months 0 1100 Bodies missing Can Gravity do this? NO!

HumanPotential1 Says:

Aug 22, 2009 - TruthLogic, why must you stupid conspiracy nuts keep pushing these ideas forward? its about as stupid as the idiots who think we didn't land on the moon or that obama was born in kenya

Cokoholicar Says:

Sep 1, 2009 - Why is this on the internet? Kim Jong Il comes on you tube and makes a nuclear weapon and then everybody asks themselves how the hell did he do it. He went on youtube people!

Mordaedil Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - You assume Kim Jong II can even understand these videos. I wonder if even half his class-room understands his lessons. But that's a different debate. I certainly hope we have a future of very bright students so maybe future misunderstandings can be fixed.

Faust9000 Says:

Sep 2, 2009 - This information has been circulating publicly since at least the 1960s. The cat has been out of the bag for a very long time. The only non-imaginary deterrence to atomic bomb-building is the ignorance of politicians and religious leaders.

polymerofnucleotides Says:

Sep 16, 2009 - this is common knowledge in the physics community

Cokoholicar Says:

Sep 17, 2009 - Very well aware of that son - As there are books on the subject too, but since everyone in this place writes goofy comments, I decided to write one too--- However, I still have to understand why it received 3 minuses, who in their right mind wouldn't find the irony of that statement funny or at least somewhat amusing?

Kraujuoti Says:

Sep 22, 2009 - I attended his classes and you don't find a nuke in my backyard, it's a little more complex than listening to a lecture on YouTube. Why are you on the Internet, after reviewing your favorites you are one of these guys that hops around on YouTube watching a few videos and suddenly a you are an expert in physics. Does Croatia have a nuclear program.

laputahayom Says:

Sep 25, 2009 - completely agree. I can't write anything. i need a speech recognition program to write anything.yet i am marvellous at

LOLMAN22 Says:

Sep 27, 2009 - very interesting! Too bad I quit on science after grade 10 is this an elective class? Teacher seems great

HolyNIghtmare11 Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - im maybe going to Ucla or stanford or berkeley

Gottasuckit Says:

Oct 26, 2009 - I dont like the units this teacher uses, dont all physists use meters,kilometers,and basicly the metric system.

skyd171 Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - LMFAO, "Today were dooin NOOKS. We're startin on NOOKS. Three days of NOOKS".