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] |
Personally I think there is some very important physics tied up in this
discussion with 'clearly' some mistakes being made by some of us in our
instruction. The thread, while long-winded, is sorting out some of
these.
Just seems to me you have gotten too complicated here. One of yourGenerally, for introductory work I agree, and I adopt the Marlow view; I
purposes for introducing 'forces' into the non-inertial frame was (I
thought) to preserve a 'Newtonian' view. Now you're willing to abandon
the third law where convenient. I think your methodology involves too
many 'ifs', 'ands', and 'buts'. To adopt the 'Marlow' view for
introductory work, I need only preserve gravity as a 'traditional'
force--thus only one 'but'! ;)
Actually my preferred way to work with the non-inertial frames is NOT to
analyze from within. That is, we acknowledge the sensations within the
accelerating frame BUT then analyze it from the point of view of the
inertial frame. This then allows the student to 'see' that the effects
felt ARE 'backwards' from the real forces causing them. This seems to
work reasonably well in my classes!