Sentences with phrase «understand simple physics»

All the teaching and support materials are used to ensure that you understand the simple physics behind NITROX and to give you the confidence and enthusiasm to continue diving after your course.

All the teaching and support materials are used to ensure that you understand the simple physics behind diving and to give you the confidence and enthusiasm to continue diving after your course.

Young children can begin to understand simple physics concepts.

Not exact matches

Ms. Frizzle from The Magic School Bus make understanding physics simple.

Sometimes I could understand recipes and improve them by using simple chemistry or physics concepts.

If you are anything like me and never really understood Physics in school, I will make it as simple as possible here.

There is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the issue of TSI reconstruction, though progress is more likely to come from a better understanding of the physics of the solar cycles than from simple, hard - to - verify assumptions.

But its also not simple to understand — there is a lot of physics in it.

It is interesting that biology has, in the case, provided a universal theory based on a single simple mechanism (if we include genetic drift and neutral theory, though admittedly not part of Darwin's formally stated understanding), whereas physics has not done so for climate change, given that it is potentially caused by many different mechanisms.

For a long time, we've understood, based on pretty simple physics, that as you warm the ocean's surface, you're going to get more intense hurricanes.

You need to move beyond ideas of simple radiative physics to understand how and how much the TOA energy dynamic varies.

The reason is simple — if you take the laws of physics as we best understand them, it gives the wrong answer for you.

However, it's simple enough to argue (not conclusively) that the the «null» hypothesis should be a postive effect rather than zero: our understanding of atmospheric physics predicts that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its clear - sky opacity to certain bands of IR radiation.

Simple — because he, like most scientists, engineers and actuaries, understands the meaning of probability and risk (as well as the fundamental physics of modern reactor design).

That's why I kept the argument in the top post above simple — limited to addressing only Jelbring and the EEJ paper so we could do adiabatic apples to apples reasoning, limited to a picture that even people who don't know much physics can understand — anybody who has tried to touch the handle of a heating pan and found it hot to the touch has direct experience of Fourier's Law, so whether or not they fully understand the algebra they know this happens — and appealing to their intuition as much as to the letter of the various forms of the second law (there are at least four or five that I know of offhand).

If you read through the various posts, and also the responses from others (some) to those posts, it will become apparent that many (too many) of the posters here, are either trolls deliberately trying to muddy the water, or their understanding of the English language is as dismal as their understanding of some simple physics.

We found lots of people who would make definitive claims, such as «it's simple physics», «it's well understood», or «they teach it in school, everyone knows about it...»:

It's really very well understood physics with ample direct empirical confirmation, and actually one of the simplest and best solved problems in climate.

It literally can do nothing else that does not violate one of these very, very, simple laws — where physical laws, recall, are the parts of physics that pretty much always work and are enormously well understood and validated by experiment after experiment.

I am a complete layman in climate, as you all have already understood, but I have studied radio engineering (long time ago) and have used physics for engineering tasks for most of my life, and I find it kind of painful not to be able to get «simple» textbook level atmospheric physics.

Tom Murphy from «Do The Math» blog has a great little video titled «Growth Has An Expiration Date» the math and the basic physics behind it are really simple, it doesn't take a PhD in advanced mathematics or physics to understand it.