Why have I seen memers on /sci/ praise this book? I just read

>practical
there's your problem

>>7755878
So is physics essentially wankers patting themselves on the back over differential equations and euclidean geometry?

The cover is all you need to know about it

Seriously, the derivation of the parallel axis theorem, and a derivation for transforming the total angular momentum of a system from one reference frame to another can both be fit on a page. Why is it excluded?

File: engineering mechanics.png (116KB, 584x796px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 584x796px

>>7755871
>On a side note, are there any texts that have descent coverage on that topic

Any Engineering Mechanics - Dynamics book.

>important for a practical working knowledge

Because this is physics, Griffiths' Electrodynamics book doesn't cover any of the applications you would see in an EE Electromagnetics book either.

>>7755871
I own a copy and as a ChemE I love it. The review chapters are kind of shitty compared to introductory texts, but it is more extensive than most general classical mechanics textbooks and it covers what it needs for the intended audience (ie. physicists, not engineers)

You're complaining about the wrong thing entirely. If someone asks you to recommend them a continuum mechanics textbook, you wouldn't say "oh yeah go grab Taylor's book there's a chapter on it". You'd recommend a momentum transfer textbook. As an aside that chapter is really shit btw, spends half the subsections reviewing the wave equation and then glosses over the continuum derivations.

>>7755908
So physics is just handwavy differential equations without any application?

>>7756005
>handwavy differential equations

What do you expect? It's a 2nd year mechanics text with most students doing vector calc and ODEs at the same time. If you want something deeper than read Goldstein or Landau & Lifshitz or better yet Arnold.

>without any application

If you want applications, do engineering.

>>7756040
>It's a 2nd year mechanics text

It's actually intended as a graduate level textbook according to the author, except for Part I which is just review and is less comprehensive than something like Halliday or Freeman. Landau & Lifshitz is best if you really want to get in depth though.

File: Mech.png (154KB, 537x554px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 537x554px

>>7756068
>It's actually intended as a graduate level textbook according to the author

No.

>>7756068
>It's actually intended as a graduate level textbook according to the author
The author is full of shit. It's a freshman-level text. For a more advanced (2nd year) book see Landau and Lifshitz or Goldstein.

Anyway, it dosen't go into a ton of detail, but it's written for a physicist audience. Who cares about engineering applications, or whatever? For most physicists, classical physics (E&M, Classical Mechanics) is just background for quantum mechanics and QFT, the details of the applications mostly are left to the engineers.

>>7756005
No. Even classical mechanics can be far more mathematically advanced.

i.e. Like this book: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Classical-Mechanics-Graduate-Mathematics/dp/0387968903/

You just don't see this stuff in regular books on the topic because most physics students can't handle it.

>>7756092
Junior is third year.

>>7757579

It's typically half and half 2nd years and 3rd years.

>>7757857
Well, I was wrong anyway. But still I maintain the book fills it's niche between intro physics and more theoretical mathematical classical mechanics quite well.

It's worth it's cost for any undergrad to buy it anyway.

>>7755882
>>7756005
yeah you got it mate. Nice one