| 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] |
On 02/11/2015 01:26 PM, Paul Nord wrote:
I blame the demos. We design too many physics demos to be very
clever and give counter-intuitive results.
I agree ... and it's not just the demos. In many textbooks,
the section on relativity seems to revel in making it seem
as unfamiliar, weird, and counter-intuitive as possible ...
even though the vast majority of what relativity predicts
is perfectly familiar and non-weird.
https://www.av8n.com/physics/spacetime-welcome.htm
This is what I might call David Copperfield mode:
"Hey, pay me money and I'll show you this amazing and
unbelievable thing."
That makes for entertainment, but it doesn't make for
good pedagogy.
On the other hand ... this is not a clear-cut black-and-white
issue. There are arguments both ways:
a) Students who have never seen the ordinary case need
to see that and become reasonably familiar with it
before moving on to the extraordinary case.
b) Step (a) must not be taken too far, because students
have a tendency to over-generalize. They leap to the
conclusion that the ordinary case is the universal case.
There is even a word that covers this: sophomoric.
In this department, as in so many others, teaching is more
of an art than a science.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l