Physics Books (Basic Level)

[Student_93]

i am 10th grade student ( O Level )
I need a Book,which clear my concepts and about Physics. .
I want to study Science subjects in future. . so i really want to have a good base in Physics.
so please suggest some basic level books for me . .
mentioning some of the topics:
wave
sound
spherical mirrors and lenses
electrostatics
current electricity
electromagnetism
nuclear physics
electronics


and i want to tell that i love to read those books which have visuals inside them (A lot Of Color full pictures)

I don't have money to buy the book . .so i will download it . .
so if anyone can provide me the link ,i will be very thankful to him/her.
Bye.
God Bless you

 

[fss]

http://www.motionmountain.net/

 

[Student_93]

thanks fss

Some other Book Please ...
i am waiting . . :)

 

[contramundum]

http://www.lightandmatter.com/books.html

 

[Phyzwizz]

I'm a 10th grader as well searching around for some physics books, mainly textbooks now that I realize how little I learn, from Hawking Pop-sci books like The Grand Design. I recently went to the library to check out what they had in ways of physics books and I ended up finding a physics textbook, its from 1991, Its the eighth edition of University Physics, by Hugh D. Young, I was wondering if this book would be considered to out of date, and by reading it would I be subject to incorrect information that has since then been changed.

Student_93 if you live near a good library, I would recommend checking out what they have in ways of introductory physics books, if you haven't already.

 

[Ashuron]

Perhaps rather than pop science books,

try to watch those introductory physics online lectures
say, mechanical universe or those of lewin's

 

[Phyzwizz]

academicearth.com is a really good lecture site. In ways of physics they have 3 full MIT physics lecture series for physics I, II, and III among other lectures from different schools. Check it out.

 

[Daverz]

a physics textbook, its from 1991 [...]
if this book would be considered to out of date, and by reading it would I be subject to incorrect information that has since then been changed.

No, you wouldn't be learning anything out of date. The material at this level has probably not changed much since the 1960s.

 

[kazefenrir]

You probably would want to check out the "Physics in our world" set by Kyle Kirkland. It includes books about:
Atoms and Materials
Electricity and Magnetism
Light and Optics
Force and Motion
Particles and the Universe
Time and Thermodynamics

These books are a good read for introductory levels. If you can't find a link to download them, you will most likely find them in your library

 

[pongo38]

I like the suggestions that you should try a library, rather than getting a download that might be illegal. Student93, have you considered that there are people in this forum who are authors of books, and who deserve any royalties that may come to them?

 

[Sankaku]

As others have said, Libraries are great. Also, you can find many good textbooks second-hand very inexpensively. Do a search of the forum for specific recommendations and then use bookfinder.com or abebooks to look for a version that is one or two editions older than the current one on Amazon.

Basic Physics and Mathematics just don't change that fast.

 

[Fredrik]

I like the suggestions that you should try a library, rather than getting a download that might be illegal. Student93, have you considered that there are people in this forum who are authors of books, and who deserve any royalties that may come to them?

If he gets the book from a library, those authors are still not getting paid.

 

[qspeechc]

If he gets the book from a library, those authors are still not getting paid.

The author gets paid when the library buys the book.

 

[Fredrik]

Right. So he doesn't get any more when you borrow it.

 

[Ryker]

Right. So he doesn't get any more when you borrow it.

Are you sure about that? In some countries, such as the one I come from and where the authors get partially funded by the state, do get some income based on the number of people that borrowed their books at the libraries. I don't know what percentage of their total income that constitutes (small, to my knowledge), but just putting it out there.

 

[qspeechc]

Right. So he doesn't get any more when you borrow it.

So? I can buy a book and lend it out to friends, or re-sell it, or give it away; and the next person can do so too; and none of that money goes to the author.

Downloading a book on the web is still illegal, unless of course the author puts it on the web for free.

 

[Fredrik]

So?

If you need to ask that, you must have missed that I was responding to the suggestion that we should use libraries because illegal downloads deprive the authors of their royalties. If you want to support the author, you need to buy a new copy of the book. (Actually, even if you do, the author gets very little. The retailer and the publisher get almost all of it).

Downloading a book on the web is still illegal, unless of course the author puts it on the web for free.

Why are you telling me that? Do you think I've said that it isn't?

 

[qspeechc]

If you need to ask that, you must have missed that I was responding to the suggestion that we should use libraries because illegal downloads deprive the authors of their royalties. If you want to support the author, you need to buy a new copy of the book. (Actually, even if you do, the author gets very little. The retailer and the publisher get almost all of it).

You have deliberatley left out the rest of my post, of which you are certainly aware.

Why are you telling me that? Do you think I've said that it isn't?

I know pongo38 has already said that. I am just repeating it for other people who may be reading this thread; downloading books on the internet is very popular. And you replied to pongo's post by saying that borrowing from the library also does not give money to the author, seeming to suggest that you think that that extenuates illegal downloading; otherwise I am not sure why you brought this up.

The point is that publishers can only control the sale and distribution of books so much (well, now with e-books publishers are trying to control it completely). But libraries still have to buy the books first; with illegal downloading there is no buying of the book. Which is why I gave the analogy of me buying a book then lending it out, re-selling it, or giving it away, and so on.

 

[Fredrik]

You have deliberatley left out the rest of my post, of which you are certainly aware.

That part stated something obviously correct that didn't refute what I've been saying. It only adds to my point, which made it weird, since your whole post had a critical tone.

And you replied to pongo's post by saying that borrowing from the library also does not give money to the author, seeming to suggest that you think that that extenuates illegal downloading; otherwise I am not sure why you brought this up.

I was just pointing out a flaw in an argument ("you should use libraries instead of illegal downloads because downloads deprive the authors of their royalties"), but I guess that this is a bit unfair to pongo38, since he didn't actually say that. He stated two separate things, which together look like that flawed argument, but that might have been accidental.

To choose an illegal download over a library only hurts the author if someone else is forced to buy the book when you borrow it, and that person chooses to buy a new copy (or a used copy and that forces someone else to buy a new copy (or a used copy that forces someone else to...you get the idea)). If the author gets $2 per book that's sold by the publisher, and there's let's say a 5% probability that a new book will be sold as a result of you borrowing it from the library, then your action is equivalent to stealing 10 cents from the author...except in those cases where you like the book so much that you don't want to read it on a stupid computer screen and end up buying a new copy of the book. In those cases, the author and the publisher made more money as a result of the illegal download.

 

[qspeechc]

That part stated something obviously correct that didn't refute what I've been saying. It only adds to my point, which made it weird, since your whole post had a critical tone.

It does not add to your point. It does in fact refute what you are saying.

I was just pointing out a flaw in an argument ("you should use libraries instead of illegal downloads because downloads deprive the authors of their royalties"), but I guess that this is a bit unfair to pongo38, since he didn't actually say that. He stated two separate things, which together look like that flawed argument, but that might have been accidental.

That was exactly what my post was about: it is not a flaw in his (or her) post. Libraries still have to buy the book first, and the author gets royalties. You seem to think that because many people can borrow a library book somehow changes the fact that the library has to buy the book first, and with illegal downloading nobody buys the book and the author doesn't get any money for his work. That is simply all there is to say about this matter.

 

[Fredrik]

It does not add to your point. It does in fact refute what you are saying.

Of course it doesn't. What an absurd claim to make. To refute my point you have to prove that the author gets more money for each person who borrows his book.

You seem to think that because many people can borrow a library book somehow changes the fact that the library has to buy the book first,

I haven't said anything that could have given you that idea. I'd appreciate if you would stop making false claims about what I believe.

 

[sponsoredwalk]

7. Libraries: Public and school libraries that purchase books directly from the publisher or wholesaler (e.g., Baker & Taylor).

Authors make: Royalties on cover price of LIBRARY's purchase. Authors do NOT make royalties when the book is checked out. (E.g., if a library buys five books and each book is checked out 100 times (500 checkouts total), author gets royalties for FIVE sales only.)

http://jenniferonwriting.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-authors-make-money.html

Damn libariez and der anti-librartarian, anti-freedum piracie!

That was exactly what my post was about: it is not a flaw in his (or her) post. Libraries still have to buy the book first, and the author gets royalties. You seem to think that because many people can borrow a library book somehow changes the fact that the library has to buy the book first, and with illegal downloading nobody buys the book and the author doesn't get any money for his work. That is simply all there is to say about this matter.

The person who scanned and uploaded the book on the web paid the author by buying the
book first, this person is doing the libraries job & satisfying the need that the library
satisfies, i.e. giving people books. So I think that this is not all there is to say on this
matter :tongue2:

---------------------------------------

I strongly recommend you do not waste your time on conceptual physics or any kind of
physics without a heavy flavouring of calculus, if you don't you will most likely think of
physics as something that is memorized rather than something that is derived from first
principles. Yes both ways you memorize stuff but the calculus route memorized F = ma
and re-derives a hell of a lot of it via a chain of logic