🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

HPS250H1 Lecture : notes.doc

68 views6 pages
School
UTSG
Department
History and Philosophy of Science and Technology
Course
HPS250H1
Professor
Hakob Barseghyan

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Kuhn"s viewpoint on the issue of: how can we obtain absolute knowledge ?) (ie. carrying on from last lecture: In order to be comparable, two competing theories must employ mutually translatable taxonomies. premise two. Competing theories can employ untranslatable taxonomies, i. e. they can be incommensurable. conclusion reached. It is not always possible to compare two competing theories. Scientific experiments are completely interpenetrated by theoretical interpretation, to the point where it becomes impossible to express fact in isolation from theory. Thus, it is impossible to falsify an individual scientific proposition. an example: with the theory: A thread breaks when it is loaded with a weight that exceeds the thread"s tensile strength. There are hundreds of ways to save a theory from falsification. In order to make a proposition testable, we must add many auxiliary hypotheses about working of the instruments, about initial conditions, etc. An individual theoretical proposition has no empirical consequences and cannot be tested in isolation.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

HPS250H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Falsifiability, Imre Lakatos, Geographic Coordinate System
fuchsiacaribou430
HPS250H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Empiricism, Imre Lakatos
ultramarinegoose818
HPS250H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Japanese Addressing System, Thomas Kuhn, Phlogiston Theory
byzantiumsnail308

Related Questions

In 3 of the Appollo lunar experiments astronauts left reflector panels on the moon so that laser beams from the earth could be reflected off the panels and back to earth.Lasers with lamda = 532 nm send pulses of 0.3 J to the moon and the round trip time is measured within delta t = 0.4 ns.In this way, the one way distance to the reflector on the moon is determined regularly within delta l = c*delta t/2 = 6 cm.The beams from the laser have a diameter of 5 km on the moon.(This is the result of the spreading due to diffraction and to athmospherical turbulence).The reflector panels contain 300 mirrors each of diameter 4 cm(a) Find the number of photons sent from the earth in a single pulse(b) find the fraction of these photons that strike anyone of the small mirrors.(c) find the angular divergence delta theta =lamda/d of the reflected beam from this mirror(d = mirror diameter)(d) What is the diameter of the reflected beam when it return to earth?(e)The return light is measured by a photomultipplier at the focus of a telescope.What fraction of the return light is captured by the telescope, whose diameter is 1 m(f) For a single pulse find the total number of photon captured by the the telescope from all all 300 mirrors.This experiment monitors the monn orbit within a few centimeters( compared to the earth-monn distance of 400 million meters) allowing stringent tests of competing theories of gravity.

I am so lost onwere to even begin. I just need help trying to find the Ѳ (angle)for part part 1 of the experiment if anyone can just explain how todo that and maybe give me a step-by-step example so I can finishthe rest. Thank you! Experiment 6 ~ Friction

Purpose:

In this lab, you will make some basic measurements of friction.You will measure the coefficients of staticfriction between several combinations of surfaces using aninclined plane, and you will measure the coefficient ofkinetic friction between two of the combinationsof surfaces you used in the static friction part of thisexperiment.

Part 1: StaticFriction

Theory:

The coefficient of static frictionms can be measured experimentally foran object placed on an inclined plane (a.k.a. ramp, a.k.a. hill).The coefficient of static friction is related to the criticalangle qc for the ramp, at whichthe object just begins to slide. Using what we havecovered in class, you can derive this relationshipyourself! At this critical angle, static friction preventing theobject from sliding down the hill is just exactly equal to thecomponent of the object’s weight along the hill. If the componentof the weight along the hill were just a little greater, it wouldovercome friction, and the object would start to slide down. Thefree body diagram for this situation will look like the figuresketched below. Use this diagram to find an equation that relatesms toqc.

Questions:

1. How do the values of ms compareto the values of mk? (Of course, youcan only compare them for the same pairs of materials.)

2. Is the relationship betweenmsand mkwhat you expected?

3. Of the two parts of the experiment, measurement ofmsand measurement ofmk, which had more sources of error?What were some of the sources of error?

4. Could mk orms ever be greater than 1? Explain whyor why not.

5. Is the coefficient of friction the same as when the block wasstanding on its larger (or smaller) end?

6. Think about your results. Do they make sense when youconsider your everyday experiences?

Could you please proofread and correct scientifically andgrammatically my work, thanks ^_^

Here itis:
The percentage error was found to be 0.186% and 6.66%respectively.

This implies that the predicted value of the freefall accelerationis fairly accurate while the predicated value of deceleration isnot as much. The encountered errors were due to severalexperimental and human limitation was that the experiment involved.The experimental limitation was due to the uncertainty of theclinometer which was ± 0.5o.

I.e. In our calculation, a difference of 0.5o can lead to adifference of 40 - 80 cm in height as shown below:

The human limitations was due to the human eye being unable todetect the exact point on the track at which the gondoladecelerates. This is because the braking happened very quickly.This adds an uncertainty to the location of deceleration when theangels are being measured.

In addition, the human ability cannot decide on the exact period oftime at which the gondola freefalls or decelerates. This is due tothe human reaction speed being unable to exactly determine thestart time of the momentary freefall and deceleration. The timetaken for humans to react cannot be measured thus it cannot besubtracted from the findings to get an accurate timing.

All of these limitations that have affected the accuracy of theresults could be avoided to some extent by marking the exact zonesrequired on the track of the giant drop as well as using anelectronic angle measurer to measure the angles . Additionally, theusage of an electronic timer to measure periods of the freefall anddeceleration is also suggested.

During the analysis, finding an average to the deceleration in theaccelerometer reading (using Logger Pro) was only estimated usingthe human naked eye. This is because an average could not be takenelectronically. Thus, there is also some uncertainty involved inthe theoretical value.

NOTE:

The value for freefall acceleration obtained from thevideo-analysis technique was 9.754 ± 0.3237 m/s2. 9.754 m/s2 has apercentage error of :
0.469%

This value indicates it is fairly accurate and can be used as aconforming result to the theoretical value. The error involved isdue to the fact that the video was shaking, thus plotting thevelocity/ time graph of the gondola at different times wasnegatively affected; although the axes was roughly re-set at everyframe.