 |
| The online version of 2.002 offers video lectures searchable by keyword, and organized as a tree of basic concepts that branch into related subtopics. |
mit | Jasmine Chan’s course schedule this semester would suggest that the MIT sophomore is more than a little overbooked.
Chan,
a mechanical engineering major, is taking two classes that meet at
exactly the same time. Despite this apparent scheduling snafu, she
hasn’t missed a single lecture in either course — and her approach to
juggling the conflicting courses may represent the future of ambitious
academic scheduling.
Chan is one of 11 students this semester
who are participating in i2.002, a new online version of 2.002
(Mechanics and Materials II), a core requirement in mechanical
engineering. The online course features videotaped lectures from 2.002,
as well as recitations and a discussion forum that are similar to
elements of edX, MIT’s OpenCourseWare, and other massive open online
course (MOOC) platforms.
What may set i2.002 apart is its ease
of searching: Search a key word or concept, and a video will start at
exactly the moment in a lecture when that concept is introduced.
“It’s
like Googling your class,” says Ken Kamrin, the Class of 1956 Career
Development Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering. “It’s a
clickable, searchable index of videos … something that might be
considered as part of the next generation of textbooks.”
“These
are exciting times for online education,” says Pedro Reis, the Esther
and Harold E. Edgerton Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. “There’s huge momentum at the
moment for developing technology, through edX and other MOOC platforms,
to deploy to a very large number of students. We’re saying, ‘Let’s take
that approach and apply it to benefit our own students.’” Fist tap Dale.
20 comments:
I'm happy to find numerous useful info here in the post. I would really like to come back again right here for likewise good articles or blog posts. Thanks for sharing...
Top 10 Fashion Colleges in India
How can anyone teach mechanics and material without explaining IN DETAIL how an airliner can or cannot destroy a skyscraper 2000 times its own mass in less than two hours?
Umbra, please STFU about this already. Your incessant prattling on this favorite topic of yours has nothing to do with the post. By CHOOSING to remain ignorant in spite of the fact that the phenomena involved have been clearly and thoroughly explained, you're just making yourself look stupid now. Feel free to do whatever you want, but PLEASE STFU about it here. Thank you.
ROFL
It is not my fault that you believe idiotic graphics. If you check the NIST report you will find that they tested FOUR floor for sections in furnaces for 120 minutes and they did not fail. So how do we get these silly graphics for the masses to believe in?
And even those graphics do not explain how the top of the south tower tilt/rotated 22 degrees. But then our engineers do not discuss the center of mass or the center of rotation of that phenomenon for 11 years. How many columns had to shear for that to occur?
And then people talk all of this trash about STEM education in the US. LOL
How can it be clearly and thoroughly explained when they can't even specify the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers? I bet you can't even figure out a good cost estimate for a skyscraper without that info much less analyse the Conservation of Momentum of a collapse. But after 11 years engineers and physicists have a problem for not having explained it long ago. The Laws of Physics will never change. The 9/11 Affair can never go away. It needs to be turned into a religion that people just believe. Very unscientific!
I have yet to hear an explanation of why a MOOC is better than a video library of courses.
Don't you think it would be more worthwhile to share these nuggets of genius with those willing to listen? You.are.a.broken.record.
Stand firm bruv!!! haters gonna hate...,
mebbe a mechanics and materials collaboration in which you lay out the physical case link by link, branch by branch against the backdrop of a video of the towers failing?
Newtonian Physics is a broken record. It's 300 years old. So how is it we don't have information as simple as a table specifying the amount of steel and concrete on every level of the towers? Didn't that have to be determined to construct the buildings? Didn't that have to be determined to estimate the cost of the buildings before the decision was made to construct them?
That is part of what is so weird about 9/11. Does being an "Educated Kneegrow" mean thinking what the White man says or does it mean understanding physics for oneself? Of course if airliners could not possibly have destroyed the towers it means that the majority of White folks are stupid. We can't have that now can we? LOL
I had hoped that the "silly graphics" would be simple enough to explain the collapse of the twin towers to you but alas it appears I was wrong. Unfortunately, your blind spots appear to be superbly effective.
Unlike the case of the coconut-carrrying capacity of sparrows, this is NOT a simple matter of weight (mass) ratios. Nor, except at the most fundamental level, does simple physics suffice to describe the mechanics of Twin Towers' collapse. What you need to do is to take it to the next level: Structural Engineering, specifically, the Mechanics of Progressive Collapse.
You continue to bring up these largely irrelevant questions in a futile attempt to prove...what, exactly? That the towers didn't fall because noone has bothered to publish a "... table specifying the amount of steel and concrete on every level of the towers?" That Newtonian physics doesn't hold in the case of the design of the World Trade Center towers because it a 300-year old theory? What???
If you feel that you have such a significant insight into what actually physically happened on 9/11, then please explain it to us IN DETAIL, including a DETAILED structural engineering analysis of what you think did or didn't happen and oh, by the way, please back up your work with the academic and/or real-world experiential credentials that show your qualifications to provide such an analysis. Or, in the alternative, S.T.F.U. about the twin towers' collapse already.
For your consideration:
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse
Oh no, he has found Bazant who can't deal with Newton's 3rd Law.
You see the weight distribution is related to the STRENGTH Distribution. As you come down a skyscraper more and more weight must be supported. That means the building must get stronger further down. But increasing the strength means putting in more steel which of course means increasing the weight.
But the top 15% of a structure over 1300 feet tall must be lighter AND WEAKER than each equally tall segment below. So the Conservation of Momentum means that the falling mass must accelerate the lower stationary masses which are heavier but that means it must slow down in the process. The falling upper portion also crushes itself against the lower which must happen according to Newton's 3rd Law.
Bazant talks complicated bullsh!t and those who prefer to believe the idiotic official story, that defies real physics, make no attempt to check his sophisticated nonsense. Of course it is so curious that no engineering school has tested this experimentally in 11 years. Very strange for the nation that put men on the Moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
And to think computers have gotten so much more powerful in the last 11 years and simulations should have gotten so much better and cheaper. But now experts will look really ridiculous if they say the collapses were IMPOSSIBLE. What are engineering schools that charge over $100,000 for 4 years of education going to say? "Duh, it never occurred to us to do an experiment."
Umbra, your ability to remain (and insistence on remaining) ignorant is quite amazing. Any effort to explain why that oversimplified model does not behave like what happened in the real world would obviously be a waste of time. All I can do at this point is wish you good luck, because you're going to need it if this is how you choose to lead your life.
Obviously, one of us is stupid.
But there is no escaping the fact that in ELEVEN YEARS no engineering school has built a physical mode, simplified or not, in which the top 15% can fall and crush/break/destroy the rest.
Also in ELEVEN YEARS no engineering school has specified the center of mass or center of rotation of the tilted top portion of the south tower. In fact, in 10,000 pages the NIST could not even specify the total for the concrete in the towers though they did it for the steel. What kind of science is that for $20,000,000?
But you can link to other sources and throw insults but you can't explain anything yourself. Do you actually understand the sources you link to.
It is easy to write a computer program of 109 floating masses and have the top 14 fall and impact the rest, putting them into motion. If all of the masses are equal this results in the Conservation of Momentum giving a collapse time of 12 seconds. If the weights toward the bottom are heavier the time can go up to 14 seconds. And yet Dr. Sunder of the NIST said the north tower came down in 11 seconds.
No, our physicists and structural engineers have the problem of explaining accurately and in detail how those buildings came down so fast. The trouble is that so many people who think they are intelligent can't figure out simplistic 300 year old Newtonian Physics. That is rather funny in the nation that put men on the Moon. But I suppose we are not supposed to question what massuh tells us. Whitey has a monopoly on intelligence after all.
Yeah, my model is simplistic. It only costs $30. But our engineering schools can do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGguAFBqhTE
so 9/11 isn't important enough for them to do a meaningful collapse demonstration in 11 years. Of course if the collapse couldn't happen then they would be in conflict with what the US government claims. Of course the Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about the US government.
Now do Black Americans give a damn about physics. Are our minds supposed to be enslaved to the genius White people forever? There must be something wrong with ni@@uhs that don't think what they are told. But what about those who think what they are told and it's wrong? ROFL
hmmmm....., 1.2 billion catholics believe in the transubstantiation of a little styrofoam-like wafer into the literal bread/body of Christ, and a swig of mogan david into the literal blood of Christ. Many of these same true believers also think the old testament is an historically grounded hagiography of the ancient Judean people, notwithstanding the fact that it was written in the 3rd century BC in the Greek language (the septuagent) and there exists not a shred of archeological evidence in support of any of its claims for an ancient Judean kingdom.
That is from 2007. Has anyone demonstrated it experimentally since then? ROFL
But Newtonian Physics is 300 years old and the Empire State Building is 80 years old. If airliner impacts could destroy the towers in less than two hours then most physicists should have explained it in 2002. If airliners could not do it then then that should have been explained. But instead it seems that the vast majority are totally silent and that is taken as evidence of agreement.
But we do know that skyscrapers must hold themselves up. Why should 8th graders have any difficulty understanding that the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings is important to comprehending what happened?
Now this is interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvB9EFdJ1d0
Toward the end he talks about data, evidence and experiment.
So where is the 9/11 experiment?
But umbra... Maybe they didn't understand what happened until that freeway collapse back in 07 near San Francisco. The one with the fuel tanker fire...?
Look at the pictures from that fire. Notice that the vertical columns did not collapse. The roadway fell off the columns.
People analyse reality the way they WANT TO BELIEVE.
qaomascv
s0tsq0yx
f54yewr4t536
vcrv5sov
iuw9mo7z
Post a Comment