Deborah,
Thank you for allowing me to learn more about the remarkable Joseph He=
nry. I am not surprised that he, like other great scientists such as Lord =
Kelvin, delved into more places that piqued his curiosity than even profess=
ional scientists have appreciated. One of my favorite Henry quotes is:
"The seed of great discoveries are constantly floating around us, but they =
only take root in minds well prepared to receive them." (My thanks to outs=
tanding Mercer colleague Matt Marone for first drawing my attention to this=
wonderful truth.)
And with your link, Deborah, you drew our attention as well, to t=
he fact that 'amateurs' should not underestimate their potential to influen=
ce the history of scientific development.
Which brings me to your comment, Geoff, suggesting that progress a=
nymore always requires 'group' involvement. That is not necessarily true.=
Sometimes insights of considerable significance happen in the most unexpe=
cted places. I will give you just one example from my own career, where it=
was only through association with two physics students at Mercer Universit=
y-that I happened on something that I believe to be important and yet virtu=
ally unknown. Basic understanding of the tidal force goes all the way back=
to Isaac Newton. The standard analysis is one that truncates a Taylor's s=
eries expansion at the first term above Newton's two-body point mass attrac=
tion that is inverse square in the separation distance of the bodies. The =
result, which describes the influence on Earth of the Moon and/or Sun is '=
symmetric' ; so that everybody believes the nadir component is equivalent i=
n magnitude to the zenith component. The numerical math skills of my stude=
nts Marc Erickson and Louis McNamara, working with both (i) Excel, and (ii)=
Mathematica, allowed representation of the tidal force components in a way=
that clearly demonstrates its asymmetry for close spacing. The zenith com=
ponent is indeed larger than the nadir component, ever so much-so as the d=
istance to a tide-producing body decreases.
When the paper describing this at http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/ti=
dal%20asymmetry/asymmetry.html was submitted to an 'open source publishing'=
venue that I have used in carte blanche fashion for years, the editors sum=
marily rejected it. Another of my colleagues (John Lee) whom I respect gre=
atly for his unusual numerical (as well as other skills) looked at this pap=
er carefully and found nothing wrong with it. I found his comment about th=
e paper especially interesting: "Perhaps they are embarrassed, assuming t=
he paper's claims could actually be true, that something of such a straight=
forward extrapolation of a centuries old concept, could have been-if not ov=
erlooked-nevertheless not publicized to become well known-- as it ought to =
be.
Randall
Deborah,
Thank you for allowing=
me to learn more about the remarkable Joseph Henry. I am not surpris=
ed that he, like other great scientists such as Lord Kelvin, delved into mo=
re places that piqued his curiosity than even professional scientists have =
appreciated. One of my favorite Henry quotes is:
“The seed of great discoveries are =
constantly floating around us, but they only take root in minds well prepar=
ed to receive them.” (My th=
anks to outstanding Mercer colleague Matt Marone for first drawing my atten=
tion to this wonderful truth.)
&nb=
sp; And with your link, Deborah, you dr=
ew our attention as well, to the fact that ‘amateurs’ should no=
t underestimate their potential to influence the history of scientific deve=
lopment.
=
Which brings me to your comment, Geoff, suggesting =
that progress anymore always requires ‘group’ involvement=
.. That is not necessarily true. Sometimes insights of considera=
ble significance happen in the most unexpected places. I will give yo=
u just one example from my own career, where it was only through associatio=
n with two physics students at Mercer University—that I happened on s=
omething that I believe to be important and yet virtually unknown. Ba=
sic understanding of the tidal force goes all the way back to Isaac Newton.=
The standard analysis is one that truncates a Taylor’s series =
expansion at the first term above Newton’s two-body point mass attrac=
tion that is inverse square in the separation distance of the bodies. =
The result, which describes the influence on Earth of the Moon and/or Sun =
is ‘symmetric’ ; so that everybody believes the nadir com=
ponent is equivalent in magnitude to the zenith component. The numeri=
cal math skills of my students Marc Erickson and Louis McNamara, working wi=
th both (i) Excel, and (ii) Mathematica, allowed representation of the tida=
l force components in a way that clearly demonstrates its asymmetry for clo=
se spacing. The zenith component is indeed larger than the nadir comp=
onent, ever so much-so as the distance to a tide-producing body decre=
ases.
W=
hen the paper describing this at http://physics=
..mercer.edu/hpage/tidal%20asymmetry/asymmetry.html was submitted to an =
’open source publishing’ venue that I have used in carte blanch=
e fashion for years, the editors summarily rejected it. Another of my=
colleagues (John Lee) whom I respect greatly for his unusual numerical (as=
well as other skills) looked at this paper carefully and found nothing wro=
ng with it. I found his comment about the paper especially interestin=
g: “Perhaps they are embarrassed, assuming the paper̵=
7;s claims could actually be true, that something of such a straightforward=
extrapolation of a centuries old concept, could have been—if not ove=
rlooked—nevertheless not publicized to become well known-- as it ough=
t to be.
=
Randall <=
/o:p>
=