Talk:Physics (course of study)
i added the courses because it seems like a logical thing to have. however, is it okay to get that info from the catalogue? how do i cite that? also, should comments about courses go with the course descriptions on this page or go on each courses individual page? thoughts? --Afitz 22:32, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm not going to lie, I don't personally like any of this course catalog stuff that we have been doing. It is all filling voids that should be filled, but I would much rather people write them. They are not going to be written this summer, but as the classes are taken, they will come. If someone wants the course catalog description, they can go to the course catalog. If they want the student version, they can come here. However, if people really want it, then it better be clear that we are quoting the Web site. They do own the material, But I am pretty sure we can quote it so long it's clearly cited. Tfooq 22:52, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, the idea was to have course pages available for all the physics (and non-physics) courses, with both official descriptions and the students' take on the content, format, and quality of the course. The major pages were designed to allow for opinions on the content and quality of the majors and courses of study. The department pages, which I'm guessing are the bulk of the course-catalog stuff you don't like, are designed to be convenient indexing tools, so that once we have course pages for these courses they will be even more easily navigable than the course catalog and ultimately be more informative with the student-added material too. I'm hoping that with the various catalog clone pages we can set up an infrastructure that will ensure that people have an easier time finding what they're looking for and adding new information to what we already have. But if people don't think they'll be useful, I'll stop making them, especially since they're a rather tedious job in the first place. Camozzi 23:40, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
i created a new snowflake section, as i figured it was appropriate.
Physics and Snowflakes
Some believe that snowflakes are more complex than physics. Here is a reference that explains snowflakes.[1] "Why snow crystal shapes change so much with temperature remains something of a scientific mystery. The growth depends on exactly how water vapor molecules are incorporated into the growing ice crystal, and the physics behind this is complex and not well understood. It is the subject of current research in my lab and elsewhere." I'm not sure how this proves that snowflakes are more complex than physics. The man even says "the physics behind this is complex." He didn't say "the snowflakes are so much more complex than physics." Just because we can't explain something does not mean it's more complex than physics. At one point in history, we were not able to explain properly where the Earth was in relation to the Sun and the other planets, or why some planets exhibit retrograde motion. Just because we couldn't explain retrograde motion does not mean that it is majestically "more complex" than physics. We then draw an obvious analogue with snowflakes. - was deleted, but i figured it should be discussed ...Tfooq 14:43, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
hahaha. thanks tom. this is one of the most hotly debated issues in the professional physics community today. --Afitz 15:33, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
