Re: kinematics, traditional or not

[Joe Heafner <heafnerj@VNET.NET>]

> From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
>
> I would probably agree with this, if I knew for sure what
> it meant.  "Traditional" means different things to different
> people.  The dictionary meaning of "kinematics" refers to
> the science of motion _without regard to the masses and forces
> involved_ which is probably not what Joe was intending.
>
> Could somebody post a more-specific description of what's
> "got to go" and why it's got to go?
Hi.
I had in mind the usual way in which the 5 (?) equations of kinematics are usually derived from F=ma with the assumption of constant acceleration. These same 5 equations are typically misapplied by students to the extent that they lose sight of the fact that they're only applicable in certain specific situations (namely constant acceleration). It seems a better approach would be to start with dynamics in general, and then show how traditional kinematics is merely a very special (albeit sometimes useful) case. This is the approach taken in Matter & Interactions and it has worked extremely well for me (and others).

> > DO NOT USE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ANYWHERE ON THE WEB!
>
> All postings to this list are automatically archived on
> the web.  You can assume that the spammers have already
> spidered the archives and harvested everyone's addresses.
Right, and I'm aware of that. What I had in mind here was specifically subscribing me to things like those "joke of the day" web sites and mailing lists where subscribing to one subscribes you to twelve. I have a minor problem with this recently.


Cheers,
Joe Heafner - Instructional Astronomy and Physics
Home Page http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/index.html
I'll never be able to afford a Lexus, but I do have a Mac. Same thing.
DO NOT USE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ANYWHERE ON THE WEB!