Classical Old mechanics book that describes the scientific method first

[DrBanana]

I remember coming across a textbook (that is also mentioned somewhere here on this forum) that is old, out of print, and doesn't even use SI units (it uses CGS units as far as I remember). There are two points I remember:

- It outlined the scientific process first.
- Unlike modern textbooks (which just say stuff like "Newton's first law says a body doesn't change it's motion unless acted on by a force"), it had (I think) a line saying something like "Newton's first law is basically about the existence of an inertial reference frame."

So, there is one mechanics book my A.P. French, and there is another mechanics book by Kittel (Berkely Physics course), and they almost fit the description (and one of them might even be the book I'm look for), but I'm not sure.

 

[Baluncore]

Do you have a question ?

 

[DrBanana]

Do you have a question ?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I would like to know the name of the book, because I can't remember.

 

[pines-demon]

So, there is one mechanics book my A.P. French, and there is another mechanics book by Kittel (Berkely Physics course), and they almost fit the description (and one of them might even be the book I'm look for), but I'm not sure.

Why don't you check those first?

Edit: I checked Kittel, it does say that he won't discuss the subtleties of the first law (that it might be contained in the second law).

Edit2: French might meet your requirement for the first law (not sure about the scientific method part), it states the law as such

There exist certain frames of reference with respect to which the motion of an object, free of an external forces, is a motion in a straight line at constant velocity (including zero).​

 

[DrBanana]

Yes I suppose A.P. French's book is the one I'm looking for. I think I've also figured out the source of confusion regarding the scientific method part. I don't know what it's like in the book, but I must've come across the following review on Amazon a few months ago and forgot that it was in this review, not in the book itself:

"
I came to this book as an undergraduate, with plenty of past experience in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, mathematics, and physics. Having used newton's laws of motion in analysis as if it were second nature I was curious about what this book had to offer but did not expect to learn anything new.

I was blown away. The first 6 chapters just discuss the philosophy behind the three laws. If you thought you understood them before, think again. This book was not just eye-opening, it was enlightening. I was understanding these laws in ways I never even imagined these laws had been intended. Far from just being just another look at Newton's laws this book really studies the physics behind the "Applied Mathematics" approach that I had learned mechanics from.

It also teaches you the philosophy of science and makes the CRUCIAL distinction between the deductive and inductive processes of the Scientific Method - something that FEW even among the top graduates seem to recognize these days, and yet it is all-important to ANY aspiring scientist. For that reason alone, I'd recommend that you by the book and read the first few chapters at least, regardless of your field."

 

[PeroK]

Yes I suppose A.P. French's book is the one I'm looking for. I think I've also figured out the source of confusion regarding the scientific method part. I don't know what it's like in the book, but I must've come across the following review on Amazon a few months ago and forgot that it was in this review, not in the book itself:

"
I came to this book as an undergraduate, with plenty of past experience in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, mathematics, and physics. Having used newton's laws of motion in analysis as if it were second nature I was curious about what this book had to offer but did not expect to learn anything new.

I was blown away. The first 6 chapters just discuss the philosophy behind the three laws. If you thought you understood them before, think again. This book was not just eye-opening, it was enlightening. I was understanding these laws in ways I never even imagined these laws had been intended. Far from just being just another look at Newton's laws this book really studies the physics behind the "Applied Mathematics" approach that I had learned mechanics from.

It also teaches you the philosophy of science and makes the CRUCIAL distinction between the deductive and inductive processes of the Scientific Method - something that FEW even among the top graduates seem to recognize these days, and yet it is all-important to ANY aspiring scientist. For that reason alone, I'd recommend that you by the book and read the first few chapters at least, regardless of your field."

I'm always skeptical about things like this. We have had many posters over the years who have gone through school and university by rote learning. Then, later in life, they discover that there is more to science and mathematics than rote learning. Moreover, they often refuse to accept that any other student was doing anything other than rote learning. It's inconceivable to them that some of their fellow students thought more deeply about science and mathematics than they did, and actually understood the material.

How does he know what very FEW even among top graduates seem to recognize? Has he done research on this? I doubt it. He's probably projecting his own former lack of insight onto everyone else.

 

[Baluncore]

It is too easy for a student to plug numbers into a memorised equation. Rote learning may pass exams, but understanding is necessary before applying that memorisation to the real world.

An example, a PhD in astrophysics explained during dinner, that atmospheric diffraction made the Moon look bigger when on the horizon, than when overhead. Remembering the equations, at the centre of attention, he did the arithmetic in his head. I did not interrupt his amazing performance, but watched fascinated. He concluded that the Moon could be magnified by a factor of three when near the horizon. That was my cue to point out that, even when appearing big near the horizon, the Moon was still round.

That was a most enlightening performance for me. I knew that rote learning was rife before exams, but never realised how far it could get one. Now, you don't need to worry, he is doing an excellent job in science research management.

 

[Muu9]

It is too easy for a student to plug numbers into a memorised equation. Rote learning may pass exams, but understanding is necessary before applying that memorisation to the real world.

An example, a PhD in astrophysics explained during dinner, that atmospheric diffraction made the Moon look bigger when on the horizon, than when overhead. Remembering the equations, at the centre of attention, he did the arithmetic in his head. I did not interrupt his amazing performance, but watched fascinated. He concluded that the Moon could be magnified by a factor of three when near the horizon. That was my cue to point out that, even when appearing big near the horizon, the Moon was still round.

That was a most enlightening performance for me. I knew that rote learning was rife before exams, but never realised how far it could get one. Now, you don't need to worry, he is doing an excellent job in science research management.

How is the roundness relevant?

 

[Baluncore]

How is the roundness relevant?

It is not an ellipse.
Air density of the atmosphere varies with elevation, not with azimuth.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

It is not an ellipse.
Air density of the atmosphere varies with elevation, not with azimuth.

I had always assumed the effect was atmospheric, since when you look out on the horizon, you're looking through more atmosphere in general. I also attributed this to why the setting Sun looks so much larger. Since the shape isn't distorted, though, this effect must be small. What is the root cause? Is it just an illusion because you have more reference points at the horizon than at the zenith?"

As an undergraduate, I feel like I'm mostly forced into the rote learning path due to time constraints. When I read a review of a text like the one above, I roll my eyes because I assume they’re just waxing poetic, inflating their own ego basically. Maybe I'm the problem because I see very little of the 'beauty' in math and physics that is supposedly there. Or maybe I'm just not meant to at this point.

 

[Baluncore]

What is the root cause?

Near the horizon, we estimate the size of the Moon, by multiples of the gap between the Moon and the horizon, measured in Moon diameters.
Overhead, we estimate the size of the Moon, by the area of the Moon against the area of the sky.

We live on the surface, so things near the surface get more attention. The height of steps and walls are important, so our perception does not reduce them. We invest little time looking overhead, so our perception tends to downplay that space.

My sheepdog could not see things in the sky. The surface was where all herding took place. The sound of an aeroplane overhead would cause her to look at the road. At the sound of a vehicle or a plane, she would position herself halfway between me or the sheep and the road. If anything had come through the fence, she would have driven it off, to defended us.

Hares survive, hiding, or in a pursuit curve on the surface. They cannot see you, if you sit still on the branch of a tree.

 

[gmax137]

Next time you see a 'huge' moon, extend your arm with your thumb up, next to the moon. The 'hugeness' evaporates.