Re: [Phys-l] Glencoe physics: music

["Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@bartonccc.edu>]

Let me play devil's advocate.  

> Small constructive suggestion:  When writing a textbook, don't 
> just rely on beautiful "artist's conception" diagrams;  put in 
> some real data.
  
So real-world data should be the gold standard and we should challenge
any author who glosses over the way things truly behave and instead uses
overly simplified laws. 

This begs the question - what is "over-simplified" and what is "properly
simplified?"

> 1) How are you going to grade a test when the student says 
>  a clarinet puts out even harmonics?  Mark it wrong??

How would you grade a test when a student says objects fall with a
constant acceleration g = 9.8 m/s^2 in the -y direction?  

The instructor and the text have reiterated this statement, but ...
* Real data of falling objects will show air resistance.
* The value of g DOES change with elevation.
* Coriolis effect will cause the object to veer to the side
* As the object gains speed, relativistic effects would start to show
up.


>   a) If you think this is an important topic, why are we saying
>    wrong things about something so important?
>   b) If you think this is not an important topic, why are we
>    covering it at all?

Couldn't the same be said for much of physics - especially from the
perspective of non-physics & non-engineering majors.  

They hear us say "friction isn't really constant, but we'll assume it
is" or "this assumes the pulley has no mass" or "we treat the light as
bending once at the center of the lens".  I could argue that just about
everything taught in 1st year physics is wrong at one level or another.

If friction and pulleys and lenses and the rest of it are important, why
teach an oversimplification?  If they aren't important, why cover them?

The Devil's Advocate, 
Tim F ;-)