Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

ceramics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 165 posts

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#21

Post by jeffbee »

torben-friis wrote: post #3
nikisweeting wrote: post #2

Finally! I always knew my 7th grade science teacher was full of shit on that one, she was so adamant about some things that turned out to be wrong. This one was maybe more excusable because it was common to teach at the time. Maybe it ended up making us better students in the end because we learned to fact-check our teachers, and not to be adamant about things we only think are true (though I'm still guilty of that m…

What other unsubstantiated claims did she make?

That traits of human physiology are heritable binaries.

https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythintro.html

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#22

Post by lozaning »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #17
zamfi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the original poster, but I was shocked by how many of the otherwise super smart friends I had in college were taught common falsehoods in high school. For example: the idea that your veins look blue through your skin because the deoxygenated blood in them is blue, and that it only turns red outside your body because it's exposed to oxygen.

Or how wings work.

For anyone thats interested in what the parent is talking about: http://www3.eng.cam.ac.uk/outreach/Project-resources/Wind-tu...

I've had people get like legit upset at me when i correct this.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#23

Post by elihu »

nikisweeting wrote: post #8
zamfi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the original poster, but I was shocked by how many of the otherwise super smart friends I had in college were taught common falsehoods in high school. For example: the idea that your veins look blue through your skin because the deoxygenated blood in them is blue, and that it only turns red outside your body because it's exposed to oxygen.

I think a lot of them have only been solidly disproven in the last ~15 years, and it takes some time for that science update to propagate through the world.

...especially in a time before Internet access was common.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#24

Post by bluGill »

redis_mlc wrote: post #15
nikisweeting wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair it was usually small, inconsequential things, not major parts of the curriculum. The only major one I remember is that water is conductive by itself. And that "C++ is the best programming language" (hah).

> The only major one I remember is that water is conductive by itself. Most people don't know that pure water is an insulator. However, in a practical sense that's ok since it's unlikely any pool of water is pure. So for safety reasons involving electricity, one has to assume that any pool of water can conduct electricity.

My uncle works for a water treatment company. Medical manufacturers often come to him saying his equipment is off because they open the test port ran the pure water into a clean glass and it tested below specs. He then has to explain that in the 30 seconds between opening the valve and the test the water absorbed enough impurities to fail the spec. The input water was fine.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#25

Post by pilsetnieks »

jeffbee wrote: post #21
torben-friis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other unsubstantiated claims did she make?

That traits of human physiology are heritable binaries. https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythintro.html

I think there's only so much time children can spend on learning all their subjects, so they learn Mendelian genetics, Darwin's evolution, Rutherford's atomic model because they're easy to understand, and close enough approximations for everyday life for non-specialists.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#27

Post by jeffbee »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #25
jeffbee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That traits of human physiology are heritable binaries. https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythintro.html

I think there's only so much time children can spend on learning all their subjects, so they learn Mendelian genetics, Darwin's evolution, Rutherford's atomic model because they're easy to understand, and close enough approximations for everyday life for non-specialists.

Sure, but some of those things they used to teach us about aren't heritable traits at all. The article recommends studying examples that fit Mendel's model.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#28

Post by causality0 »

nikisweeting wrote: post #2

Finally! I always knew my 7th grade science teacher was full of shit on that one, she was so adamant about some things that turned out to be wrong. This one was maybe more excusable because it was common to teach at the time. Maybe it ended up making us better students in the end because we learned to fact-check our teachers, and not to be adamant about things we only think are true (though I'm still guilty of that m…

I had an electronics professor who in 2012 was adamant that in five years smartphones would be using x-ray transceivers to communicate with cell towers.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#29

Post by deelowe »

causality0 wrote: post #28
nikisweeting wrote: post #2

Finally! I always knew my 7th grade science teacher was full of shit on that one, she was so adamant about some things that turned out to be wrong. This one was maybe more excusable because it was common to teach at the time. Maybe it ended up making us better students in the end because we learned to fact-check our teachers, and not to be adamant about things we only think are true (though I'm still guilty of that m…

I had an electronics professor who in 2012 was adamant that in five years smartphones would be using x-ray transceivers to communicate with cell towers.

I think your professor read about millimeter wave and misunderstood. I've had others confuse the two in conversation as well.

Re: Glass viscosity calculations debunk the myth of flow in medieval windows (2017)

#30

Post by pjmorris »

torben-friis wrote: post #3
nikisweeting wrote: post #2

Finally! I always knew my 7th grade science teacher was full of shit on that one, she was so adamant about some things that turned out to be wrong. This one was maybe more excusable because it was common to teach at the time. Maybe it ended up making us better students in the end because we learned to fact-check our teachers, and not to be adamant about things we only think are true (though I'm still guilty of that m…

What other unsubstantiated claims did she make?

Not the OP, but a fourth grade substitute teacher made the claim that we always saw the same side of the moon because it didn't rotate. I don't know what got to me the most: that she didn't understand, that my attempt to explain it didn't go over, or that the other kids in the class didn't get it either. In any case, I've been working on improving my explanations ever since.
Post reply on HN