..from thermodynamics --> <My Darlin Clementine ON> "Boxes without topses" ..for shoes. ;^>
Along that line, also too:
Wondering if/yet? there's been any serious Stat-magick postulating Climate ∆ effects;
upon such aspects as ~sorta-lubricating the tectonic plate abutments? ie 'friction' IS: a complex-process not covered well by simplicities
like, * "F=µN" ... especially given the ranges from 'solid' --> enroute to --> liquid (or even plasma! at extremes). And like that.
Lovely Physics! ..at least you can formulate the Questions, even if the what-if 'answers' might become a bit Dodgy, eh?
*In 'Millikan/Roller/Watson's Phys-I primer at a certain Institute: The above was about the only [foolishly didactic] treatment of 'friction'.
(This 'formula' was, in such practical testing--like tires-on-roads? alternating 'twixt static-friction and ∫of rolling-friction+tires 'melting') etc.--a rather gross-oversimplification of Real-world-physics, I thought; aka it was a Shitty 'intro' Textbook, poorly edited-against: such oversimplifications ... by three authors who undoubtedly grokked Physics but flunked "How to Explain things" ... [alas also well-before Sesame Street, as could have edjaKated the suckers]
'Course ya couldn't Say such heresies under penalty of being beaten with a rolled-up Blue Book, so I did the 'Murican-thing; chickened out. :-/
..Then too: re Force! as-in F=MA: one Max Jammer wrote an intricately-mathematical epistle on Theories of Force (which no Freshman possibly could have grokked. Far-enough.) Later-on I could never finish that tome, but it reminded moi that, Nothing IS ever 'simple'. ;^>
(Well, except for Quantum Chromodynamics, say..?)
Wondering if/yet? there's been any serious Stat-magick postulating Climate ∆ effects;
upon such aspects as ~sorta-lubricating the tectonic plate abutments? ie 'friction' IS: a complex-process not covered well by simplicities
like, * "F=µN" ... especially given the ranges from 'solid' --> enroute to --> liquid (or even plasma! at extremes). And like that.
Lovely Physics! ..at least you can formulate the Questions, even if the what-if 'answers' might become a bit Dodgy, eh?
*In 'Millikan/Roller/Watson's Phys-I primer at a certain Institute: The above was about the only [foolishly didactic] treatment of 'friction'.
(This 'formula' was, in such practical testing--like tires-on-roads? alternating 'twixt static-friction and ∫of rolling-friction+tires 'melting') etc.--a rather gross-oversimplification of Real-world-physics, I thought; aka it was a Shitty 'intro' Textbook, poorly edited-against: such oversimplifications ... by three authors who undoubtedly grokked Physics but flunked "How to Explain things" ... [alas also well-before Sesame Street, as could have edjaKated the suckers]
'Course ya couldn't Say such heresies under penalty of being beaten with a rolled-up Blue Book, so I did the 'Murican-thing; chickened out. :-/
..Then too: re Force! as-in F=MA: one Max Jammer wrote an intricately-mathematical epistle on Theories of Force (which no Freshman possibly could have grokked. Far-enough.) Later-on I could never finish that tome, but it reminded moi that, Nothing IS ever 'simple'. ;^>
(Well, except for Quantum Chromodynamics, say..?)