旧地球物理学教科书有用吗?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换

旧地球物理学教科书有用吗?

2016 - 12 - 25 - t21:19:05z

我有太多成功与旧的数学教科书。一般来说,对于任何一个数学分支,我(作为non-mathematician)想学或重新学习,我可以从1970年代购买一本经典的教科书,是准确的和便宜的。 然而,作为一名计算机科学家,我知道这并不是一个伟大的策略对所有科目。 我感兴趣学习更多的关于地球的地质和太阳系的其他岩石的身体。如果我买的老版本教科书(如< a href = " http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0023851503 " rel = " noreferrer " > < / >, < a href = " http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0023494808 " rel = " noreferrer " > < / >,和< a href = " http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0721640265 " rel = " noreferrer " > < / >),我要失踪的最新理论?我可能购买的教科书不再接受理论或证伪事实? 跟进的问题,如果从1979年的课本太过时了,多大了我通常可以去得到一个精确的文本?

回答Gimelist为旧地球物理学教科书有用吗?

2016 - 12 - 26 - t03:11:36z

数学和计算机科学是精确的科学。如果发现和认识,这不是错误的。随着时间的推移,可能会有更好的新方法做,但旧的东西仍然是正确的。这就是为什么你可以得到一个从60年代教科书和学习。柯西的法律仍然正确,欧拉定理仍然是正确的。 与地球科学事实并非如此(我扩大从你的“物理江南体育网页版”)。几乎所有在地球科学领域发表的论文的主题“我们认为的东西但是现在我们发现它实际上是错误的”。江南体育网页版每年有成百上千的那些。而数学教科书教事实,地球科学教科书存在的意见作者在写作的时候,也通常江南体育网页版更广泛的地球科学界的普遍观点,但它没有。在大多数情况下旧教科书不会 坏,但会有丰富的精度和遗漏。 If you go back enough, you might finds that are completely wrong (plate tectonics was only accepted in the 1960s!). But it doesn't have to be this: take subduction zones. The understanding of what happens to slabs once they subduct was only somewhat understood (at least on an undergrad textbook level) in the past 15 years. Whether the slabs themselves melt or not isn't even known today (even though textbooks will mostly say they don't: again, this is the opinion of the author). The inner structure of the earth as understood from seismicity and tomography is being refined every year.

In your textbook links you gave the example of planetary science and volcanism. In the case of planetary science, every time there is a new mission we learn so much. Just example of some discoveries of extraterrestrial volcanoes: Io in 1979, Triton in 1989, and Titan in 2005. Also think of the latest understanding of minor planets, comets and asteroids obtained in the past 5 years. This is not something you will find in even moderately new textbooks.

To sum it up, old earth science textbooks are not completely wrong. But they are wrong to some degree, and they most probably contain a lot of omissions (depends on the exact sub-field). Online sources are usually much better for that. Maybe start with related MOOCs? These can be good starting points. Even if you prefer reading and not watching videos, you can usually find a list of (somewhat) up to date sources there.

答案由旋钮刮管器旧地球物理学教科书有用吗?

2017 - 04 - 29 - t15:41:35z

约1930,说.....之间每本教科书现在,是无用的,对于你的目的。你会更好看许多漂亮的,大学生产的视频讲座。他们充满了伟大的运动图中un-reproducible页的一个二维的书。毕竟,地球科学在很大程度上是关于动态过程和电影是一种更好的媒介传达这样的概念。 尽管迈克尔很好回答,,<强>老地质的教科书是很棒的!< / >强我不能传达这一切是多么的迷人的无知状态中显示的世界就在我们脚下的这些书。 我的家是挂满老地质地图、插图,和现场草图从旧的表册、美国地质调查局报告和探险纲要。我有一个19世纪的魔鬼塔地图显示了塔截面的窗台上,而不是火山颈,它是……这是一个小细节底部的地图和容易错过,但它是非常重要的在解释的地质区域。毕竟,你能想象解释政府专业地质学家的天mis-identified最大的标志性块地质在落基山脉吗? 这些旧书籍和文字是精心收集地方细节的财富可以用来比较当今环境与观察到的一百年前。许多老报告引用19世纪早期远征指出,把谎言紧紧举行“真理”重复在沙漠西南。

They are also anthropological treasure troves filled with the state-of-mind of the times: for example, most textbooks view geology strictly in terms of mineral opportunities, others are flights of dinosaur fantasies. European paleontology textbooks are incredible works of art filled with DaVinci-esque illustrations of fossils and their modern counterparts that have yet to be equaled for detail. And the most informative textbooks? Those that expound on evolutionary processes before Darwin. This is all outright fascinating stuff!