4 ms·

> Other books like Introduction to Space Dynamics are very hand-wavey... Coordinate systems should not dictate the physics; it should be the other way around.

> Other books like Introduction to Space Dynamics are very hand-wavey... Coordinate systems should not dictate the physics; it should be the other way around. It seems like you've not tried reading actual physics books written by real physicists and have only purveyed books known to a handful of engineering specialists, and have come to the conclusion that this is the best book for learning mechanics. I also fail to see why specialists wouldn't want to make use of methods that would make their lives easier and instead would want to dredge through pages of pointless algebra. > The rigorous approach to dealing with reference frames and coordinate systems is well applied to other fields like computer graphics In most universities around the world such things are taught as part of a standard vector calculus course or a mathematical methods course. You don't need this book (or any mechanics book for that matter) to learn such things. > Though I would be interested to read your textbook when it comes out I'll ignore the snideness of your comment, but will suggest that it's perhaps not a good idea to recommend/use books that take haphazard approaches for solving standard problems (some that were solve almost three centuries ago). In any case, my "textbook" would not look very different from the other 99% of textbooks written on analytical mechanics. If you want a recommendation, pick up Cornelius Lanczos's The Variational Principles of Mechanics [1], which is a real classic and a gem of a book. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Variational-Principles-Mechanics-Dover-Physics/dp/0486650677 https://www.amazon.com/Variational-Principles-Mechanics-Dove...

ironmagma 7y ago
> It seems like you've not tried reading actual physics books written by real physicists I find it pretty baffling you think this is the inescapable conclusion. Of course I've taken physics courses, that's where the frustration comes from. Many physics and astronomy books are riddled with errors and that's almost entirely down to how frequently they skip steps. Not only are 90% of underclassman physics texts written lazily at best, when I got into Modern Physics, half the answers in the back of the book were flat-out wrong, while the example problems elided a third of the steps or neglected important edge cases. The book was Tipler / Llewellyn by the way. > You don't need this book Apparently I did, considering that none of the other relevant courses I took which included calcs 1 through 3, differential equations, linear algebra, mechanics of materials taught this material. I'm sure it would've come up again if I'd stuck with mechanical engineering but regardless the whole point of recommending the book is to say "this has value" not to say "other things do not have this value." > haphazard approaches Compared to the other books I've seen, this is one of the most verbose, consistent, and generally anal-retentive approaches. It does not take shortcuts, and its notation alone is refreshing considering its lack of ambiguous styling aside from minor issue of the bold being used for tensors and vectors. (On the whiteboard, this is resolved with a double-underline being used for tensors and a single-underline for vectors). I would consider most other physics textbooks to be the haphazard ones, and when you compare the rate of errors in the text I have a strong suspicion those other books have much higher rates on average. Granted, I'm not a physicist and make no claims to be. Of course there is truth out there to be found among the vast sea of physics textbooks, but from my own experience and also that of someone I know well who is postgrad in plasma physics, the textbooks are generally shit and to gain a correct understanding you need to wade through multiple texts that are extremely fragmented in both notation and correctness. So I'm not sure physics is the gold standard here. I'm sure there's a good math textbook out there about coordinate systems, but like I said, I didn't post here to say "everything else is worthless."
- b215826 7y ago
  > The book was Tipler / Llewellyn by the way. Ah, you're talking about lower-level-answers-at-the-back undergraduate books in physics. Yes, most of them are shit, and it would be a futile task to learn any real physics from them. Who was even talking about such books? Lol. > I would consider most other physics textbooks to be the haphazard ones, and when you compare the rate of errors in the text I have a strong suspicion those other books have much higher rates on average From your comments it's pretty apparent that you've not even looked into any graduate-level or even upper-level undergrad physics books and the only physics books you've read are overpriced freshmen/sophomore physics textbooks. In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) has more errors and typos compared to some obscure text in engineering with contrived methods and reinvented wheels? Lol. Anyway, there's no point in taking this argument further. It's unlikely that either of us would change our viewpoints ;-)
  - ironmagma 7y ago
    > In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) If you think that's the bible, it's on you to recommend it. What isn't okay is saying that books written by "real physicists" are the correct ones, when Tipler and Llewellyn (and the other authors I didn't mention) are that. It's dipping into the No True Scotsman territory. Graduate studies is not the world in general; of course people who are studying a topic in their graduate degree program are going to be using textbooks of a higher calibre, but also at the cost of being inaccessible. HN isn't that audience, and neither are 99% of audiences.

ironmagma 7y ago

> It seems like you've not tried reading actual physics books written by real physicists I find it pretty baffling you think this is the inescapable conclusion. Of course I've taken physics courses, that's where the frustration comes from. Many physics and astronomy books are riddled with errors and that's almost entirely down to how frequently they skip steps. Not only are 90% of underclassman physics texts written lazily at best, when I got into Modern Physics, half the answers in the back of the book were flat-out wrong, while the example problems elided a third of the steps or neglected important edge cases. The book was Tipler / Llewellyn by the way. > You don't need this book Apparently I did, considering that none of the other relevant courses I took which included calcs 1 through 3, differential equations, linear algebra, mechanics of materials taught this material. I'm sure it would've come up again if I'd stuck with mechanical engineering but regardless the whole point of recommending the book is to say "this has value" not to say "other things do not have this value." > haphazard approaches Compared to the other books I've seen, this is one of the most verbose, consistent, and generally anal-retentive approaches. It does not take shortcuts, and its notation alone is refreshing considering its lack of ambiguous styling aside from minor issue of the bold being used for tensors and vectors. (On the whiteboard, this is resolved with a double-underline being used for tensors and a single-underline for vectors). I would consider most other physics textbooks to be the haphazard ones, and when you compare the rate of errors in the text I have a strong suspicion those other books have much higher rates on average. Granted, I'm not a physicist and make no claims to be. Of course there is truth out there to be found among the vast sea of physics textbooks, but from my own experience and also that of someone I know well who is postgrad in plasma physics, the textbooks are generally shit and to gain a correct understanding you need to wade through multiple texts that are extremely fragmented in both notation and correctness. So I'm not sure physics is the gold standard here. I'm sure there's a good math textbook out there about coordinate systems, but like I said, I didn't post here to say "everything else is worthless."

b215826 7y ago
> The book was Tipler / Llewellyn by the way. Ah, you're talking about lower-level-answers-at-the-back undergraduate books in physics. Yes, most of them are shit, and it would be a futile task to learn any real physics from them. Who was even talking about such books? Lol. > I would consider most other physics textbooks to be the haphazard ones, and when you compare the rate of errors in the text I have a strong suspicion those other books have much higher rates on average From your comments it's pretty apparent that you've not even looked into any graduate-level or even upper-level undergrad physics books and the only physics books you've read are overpriced freshmen/sophomore physics textbooks. In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) has more errors and typos compared to some obscure text in engineering with contrived methods and reinvented wheels? Lol. Anyway, there's no point in taking this argument further. It's unlikely that either of us would change our viewpoints ;-)
- ironmagma 7y ago
  > In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) If you think that's the bible, it's on you to recommend it. What isn't okay is saying that books written by "real physicists" are the correct ones, when Tipler and Llewellyn (and the other authors I didn't mention) are that. It's dipping into the No True Scotsman territory. Graduate studies is not the world in general; of course people who are studying a topic in their graduate degree program are going to be using textbooks of a higher calibre, but also at the cost of being inaccessible. HN isn't that audience, and neither are 99% of audiences.