Re: Energy, etc (fwd)

["Darwin Z. Palima" <dpalima@NIP.UPD.EDU.PH>]

Ludwik wrote:
> They conclude: "in this way, one arrives at a picture of an
> energy transfer process which is strictly valid, yet simple
> and easy to present even at an elementary level."

I have been following the thread on energy and was interested with the
idea of presenting the concept in a "practical way" (i.e., more easily
understood) which was enthusiastically opposed by others since it is not
the "physics way" (i.e., w/ abstractions but argued as more correct).

In Ludwik's recent post, the idea of "elementrary level" caught my
attention. In mathematics, I remember being taught first that you cannot
subract a larger number from a smaller number. Later, they told me I can
subract them, but I cannot take the square root of negative numbers,
etc...

several questions:

Do we have enough time to go through these steps in teaching
elementary physics?

Can we allow for misconception of "you cannot subract larger nos. from
smaller ones"-type in teaching physics, or do we put in the "imaginary
nos."  right away?

Is there any study on this two approaches to teaching elementary physics?

I hope the list can help me with some answers.


-Darwin Z. Palima
University of the Philippines.