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] |
Leave out the "In correspondence to its heat
conductivity", but why lie? Hewitt obviously knows the truth and he
*oversimplifies*. I think that is clearly unjustifiable in this case,
and I can't imagine any reasonable defense of Hewitt's (reported)
statement. It can only be defended as a matter of taste, and it tastes
awful to me!
Saying that plastic string won't do it is a misconception
of the simplest kind. It is not a simplification; it is (simply) wrong.
Would it have exceded the bounds of reading level to say that the
plastic string would pass through the cube much more slowly because it
has a much lower capability for transferring heat than the metal wire?
(Sorry, Ludwik; that's the way I would do it in a course for
unsophisticated students.)
For me this discussion illustrates the everlasting contradiction
between the demands of phenomenological and rigorous presentations of
physics. Both extremes are simply not feasible. Each physics teacher
prepares a unique ratio of both approaches in each particular
circumstances.
I remain inflexible.