Fwd: David Feustel’s Suggested Short Monograph



Subject: David Feustel’s Suggested Short Monograph
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 03:38:28 EDT

I suggest pulling together papers such as 15, 50, 88, 93, 95, 99 – 104, 109, 112, 117, 120, 122, 129 and 130, and using the background notes to these papers posted on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . This material also illustrates what Alex Hill means by giving all the details. In fact all the relevant details of Carroll’s chapters 1 to 3 are given in this material amd sveral tiems over in cross checking proofs elsewhere on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) . Thre are nearly a thousand detailed background notes available, and Horst Eckardt and I have cross checked nearly every one. It is a matter of indexing and pulling themes together in different textbooks. Funds will be needed for this work as pointed out by Alex. High quality typesetting costs are substantial, but the totality of funds needed for this centrally important publication work is still far smaller than funds needed for a film, as Alex Hill point out. I have also given full details of how to go from differential form notation (the least familiar to engineers and chemists), to tensor notation (which few chemists and engineers, even today, can grasp) and to the much better known Heaviside Gibbs vector notation. All notations are equivalent. Also, computer code is increasingly available for those who just wish to implement the mathematics without learning it. As anyone who has used a computer knows, to code up you must really understand everything. So books are needed to systematize the monograph and material. Lar Felker’s book attracted an astounding amount of interst in preprint format on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , because it isolated the concepts in a readable way. It all depends on what the reader wishes to learn.

Similarly one can pick out various papers to produce textbooks with different themes, as suggested yesterday. To do this authors of the very highest quality must be hired. The task is far beyond a graduate student, who would in any case be saturated by standard dogma by the age of 18. It needs a very exceptional mind to grasp the whole of ECE theory in a person of that age. There is a tremendous sea change going on in natural philosophy, with all the concomitant and very unfortunate negativity of human nature. However, one cannot stop the march of ideas, why should one try?


%d bloggers like this: