[Phys-L] Re: Energy is primary and fundamental?

[clement at HAL-PC.ORG (John M Clement)]

Is the idea of force fundamental?  What you really feel is the
impulse.  I can make the force undetectable by reducing the time of
application.  In many ways pressure is easier to perceive, and as a
result many students confuse the two ideas.

Actually when concepts are categorized, all concepts that can not be
seen were classified by Lawson as theoretical.  He found that a very
high level of thinking is needed to easily understand such concepts.
 Most physics concepts fall into that class.  Incidentally evolution
would be theoretical, but gelogical change would not because you could
conceive of seeing it with time lapse photography.  However,
geological change is still more difficult than descriptive concepts
which can be readily seen.

That being said, I would tend to think that energy is less evident
than force, which makes it in some ways a more difficult concept.
 Certainly it is primary in advanced physics, but I think that
students need to recapitulate the historical development to be able to
construct the ideas correctly.  Skipping over ideas may be disastrous,
just as there is evidence that babies who don't crawl and go straight
to walking may have problems later.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> > I would be interested in your definition of force...not referring to
> > Newton's laws, since that would be circular and your inference is
> > that somehow force is more fundamental than energy...so don't define
> > it in terms of energy either.
>
> Folks, why is this so difficult?  The idea of "energy " is an
> INVENTION for
> Pete's sake.  If you think that the idea of "force" is similar, let
> me
> smack you on the nose once or twice.
>
> I suspect that at the time of Galileo the contemporary physics list
> argued
> that the idea of impetus is correct -- and Galileo was full of hot
> air --
> Parabolic arcs? Hogwash!
>
> Jim