Re: [Phys-l] Simulating a disturbance of a stable planetary system.

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:21 AM, John Denker wrote:
> I still think we should discuss the physics first and worry
> about terminology later (if at all).
>
> I'm not the one asking the question, so don't ask me what's
> important to me (irrelevant) ... and don't ask me what's
> important to you (I don't know).
>
> Is there a physics question here?  If so, please show us
> the physics!  It should be possible to formulate objective
> statements (and questions) about the physics without using
> any questionable terminology.  For example, you might
> describe an experiment and discuss objectively observable
> outcomes of the experiment.

1) The underlying physics is not different from what students learn in 
a typical introductory course. What we are discussing here might be a 
base for a classroom activity, or a student project.

2) In fact,  am thinking about a possibility of writing a short note 
about the ongoing discussion for The Physics Teacher. Do we have an 
acceptable definition of stability of a state of motion or not?
_______________________________________________________
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physicist
5 Horizon Road, apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist at http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/