Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
If the explanation had
any socially redeeming quality other than that it unasks the question
I might go for it, but as it stands it looks like a *counterexample*
to the "Bernoulli effect", since one gets the incorrect direction for
the lateral force with straightforward application of the principle.
learnFor the 1% that goes on, they will recognize later that Bernoulli was a
gross simplification of the 'real' situation--just as they eventually
movementthat massless strings, frictionless pulleys, air resistance free
and the like are all simplifications to the real world.
Nonsense. 99% of my students know that those are idealizations, not 1%.
That knowledge is not arcane.
We already have a perfectly good way of specifying the direction of
spin. It is specified with respect to an axis, and there is no
"common sense" direction ascribable to any direction perpendicular
to that axis. In fact the axial direction of the spin is only
ascribable by convention; but the axis is defined in both technical
and "common sense" terms.
When you've all figured out how to explain all natural phenomena in
terms of high school physics, I would like some help on a problem
I've been wondering about for some time. Why does a spinning
curling stone curl the way it does? Every simple explanation I can
think of has it curling the opposite way. I know it curves in the
"common sense" direction, but I'm unsatisfied by that explanation.