The Language of Bad Physics

Bookmark and Share

Welcome to The Language of Bad Physics at its new home on the PLoS Blogosphere (PLoGosphere?)*.  For those not familiar with this blog, I focus on three main types of posts, a weekly “This Week in the Universe” series highlighting what papers/results researchers are excited about in general relativity, astrophysics, cosmology and high energy physics, “Bad Physics” posts discussing either papers or popular articles that are propagating misconceptions about physics (specifically, relativity) or are just plain wrong, and finally “Language” posts talking about how we use terminology in science, sometimes incorrectly.  Occasionally when something exciting or important comes along in general relativity that I feel deserves more of a write up than an inclusion in the weekly happenings, I’ll also be writing about that.

From the old home:

This Week in the Universe

The Bad Physics Side

The Language Side

*I say living “on the Blogosphere” as opposed to “in the Blogosphere” because you live on a sphere, not in one.  That is because I’m anal and make clear distinction between a sphere (a two-dimensional spherical surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space) and a ball (a three-dimensional shape consisting of a sphere and its interior).

The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.

- E. Dijkstra

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Creative Commons License
The The Language of Bad Physics by PLOS Blogs Network, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This entry was posted in Bad Physics, The Language of Science, This Week In The Universe and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.