Shame that apparently grammar is not  (but that's just me being nitpicky)

Of course, physics being hard or not does also depend on just how advanced you are going with it- some physics is very difficult but most people wont go as far- nor do they need to. 

44 minutes ago, Quaestio Draconis said:

Shame that apparently grammar is not  (but that's just me being nitpicky)

Of course, physics being hard or not does also depend on just how advanced you are going with it- some physics is very difficult but most people wont go as far- nor do they need to. 

 

I scored high in SATs for english comprehension and math and low[er] in grammar. Prolly the bias of 'I understand myself so others probably do too' lol. But I don't really care, because if people can understand abbreviated texts and such, then my speak is within an acceptable range.

As long as I can visualize stuff I am secure in following problems because then I can recognize it for the future. I even try visualizing some quantum mechanics. Like photons 'behave like a wave and a particle'. Just because they behave that way, doesn't mean they are a wave, it could be due to our tools not being good enough to properly detect it, or its very stretchy particles, doesn't mean its actually a wave, but I would have to get into the other classes to see the limitations on our knowledge before making a statement that'd possibly trigger the whole scientific community lol.

Hm, give me an example of something hard to visualize?

I couldn't honestly agree with the statement that 'physics is easy,' although I would agree that most people give up too quickly due to its fearsome reputation; in truth it rather depends on the area. I have it on good authority that fluid dynamics is a horrifically challenging subject, but the ballistics calculations we did at school were extremely easy. When air resistance and similar was factored in later it became more complicated, but for the most part there wasn't anything that required more than a spot of calculus - and that raises the issue of what different people find challenging.

I once met a chap with a neat 'pub skill' of being able to throw practically any even vaguely aerodynamic object into a bin from almost any range - if not on the first attempt then seemingly always on the second. Apparently they were a tank gunner or suchlike, and they have a practiced eye for practical ballistics. Despite this, they have no knowledge of calculus and claim to be 'bad at maths' (as so many people do, sadly.) Compare and contrast myself, with a certificate on my wall proclaiming that I am pretty good at maths* but no capability to apply this in real life (my first attempt at throwing a javelin only narrowly missed my own feet.)

*and a few other lesser ones for physics and chemistry. Sadly, I still cannot play Starcraft 2 with my mind... or particularly well with any control input, in fact. I'd probably be quite good at card games, if I knew any.

5 minutes ago, Once In A Blue Moon said:

 

I couldn't honestly agree with the statement that 'physics is easy,' although I would agree that most people give up too quickly due to its fearsome reputation; in truth it rather depends on the area. I have it on good authority that fluid dynamics is a horrifically challenging subject, but the ballistics calculations we did at school were extremely easy. When air resistance and similar was factored in later it became more complicated, but for the most part there wasn't anything that required more than a spot of calculus - and that raises the issue of what different people find challenging.

 

I once met a chap with a neat 'pub skill' of being able to throw practically any even vaguely aerodynamic object into a bin from almost any range - if not on the first attempt then seemingly always on the second. Apparently they were a tank gunner or suchlike, and they have a practiced eye for practical ballistics. Despite this, they have no knowledge of calculus and claim to be 'bad at maths' (as so many people do, sadly.) Compare and contrast myself, with a certificate on my wall proclaiming that I am pretty good at maths* but no capability to apply this in real life (my first attempt at throwing a javelin only narrowly missed my own feet.)

 

*and a few other lesser ones for physics and chemistry. Sadly, I still cannot play Starcraft 2 with my mind... or particularly well with any control input, in fact. I'd probably be quite good at card games, if I knew any.

 

Oh yeah, I saw videos on scientists dripping stuff into water to measure how it happened to diffuse. Forget why tho. Also there would probably be a generalized equation one could get but predicting the pattern itself might be difficult due to variation like the double pendulum experiments. Then in flowing water its alot easier to predict because, its like randomly moving a nunchuck, compared to a professional controlled swing. Its not just dangling about, its got a force applied to help direct it. Which means that, thinking about it, the liquid is biased into a direction based on the rotation of the drop due to asymmetry in the dropper, air resistance, the vibration of the water etc. Probably would be a heck of  alot more uniform done in space with molecularly symmetrical structures.

StarCraft 2 is supa tough, but theres a way to generally practice. Just do build orders, and while 'waiting' on the next steps, multitask. The co-op mode is great for practice, better than campaign and more interesting than playing against normal bots. It gets you to plan your own build orders.

SC2 is alot like being a professional chef. Professional chefs need to suddenly prepare a well executed dish at a moment's notice, which requires speed and multitasking to produce on time and properly. SC2 is the same in that sense.

But another reason to have it be mind controlled, is so we can control multiple groups of units at the same time. This would boost cognitive capacity even further! A study of older sc2 gameplay shows its good for multitasking and emergency planning and stuff, and found people get more cognitive benefits the more opponents they face at once. Like free for all more than 2 player matches, rather than 1 on 1. And that's before the game got faster paced, and there are mods to play at double the speed I tried out. At my peak I was Platinum league, and it took 60 hours of tutorials, probably a couple hundred hours of random videos and training simulator modes in the arcade subsection. Then a few hundred competitive matches. Oh, and playing vs the ai of course.

Coop is so much funner, ranked play is stressful lol.

Also because of muscle memory being the only way to improve speed, its really about quantity of hours, and meta-game knowledge you put to use more than anything else which makes you a good player. I never put the time in to become a fast player, as zerg my peak apm was like 130-170 apm. And zerg requires more production artificially increasing the number, and pro players get like 200-300 apm average, and their peak hits as much as 700-800 apm which is 12 actions per second lol.

And when I play it was never with structure really, I had strategies instead based on map and races and what happened in match. I beat a diamond player by cancelling tech as I got scouted, to go for economy, then they went defense, and I out economied them, then even tho I had worse engagements I eventually overran them and used some good micro I learned from a micro trainer. It was intense, if I didn't micro I would have lost.

45 minutes ago, CuriUndersXeno said:

Oh yeah, I saw videos on scientists dripping stuff into water to measure how it happened to diffuse. Forget why tho.

That sounds like a demonstration of Brownian Motion - which I know more from the statistics angle. 

47 minutes ago, CuriUndersXeno said:

Then in flowing water its alot easier to predict

Maybe it was just that particular course, but fluid dynamics was considered the most challenging module available (with the possible exception of a couple of the really esoteric pure maths modules.) Flowing water is nightmarishly difficult from a mathematics perspective, although if all you want is a rough idea then you can probably simplify a lot. 

59 minutes ago, CuriUndersXeno said:

StarCraft 2 is supa tough, but theres a way to generally practice. Just do build orders, and while 'waiting' on the next steps, multitask.

I got that far, but at that point it was more work than it was fun. I learned enough to know that getting better wouldn't be fun, so that's pretty much where I left it -  actually understanding how I should play SC2 rather killed the game for me. I enjoy watching it played professionally, though. 

Yes physics be easy. I went all they way to PhD level in physics. I can tell you that undergraduate physics is easy but grad school sucks so much.

Doing physics is more than just using a formula.