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] |
From: SSHS KPHOX <kphox@MAIL.CCSD.K12.CO.US>Careful! That's not what I said. It's the *approach* to kinematics that can be improved. The traditional textbook kinematics can be improved by showing how that approach is merely a special case of F=dp/dt. Students need to see the big picture before they see a limited view.
PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu writes:
There' s no useful physics there either (cue the
dropping chins).
A story that is largely true:
A friend and I were hiking in an area with many abandoned mines. We came
across one that we foolishly considered climbing down into with no ropes
or anything ( a loooooooong time ago). We wondered how deep the hole was.
I dropped a stone and heard it hit in about 2 sec. Ignoring the time for
the sound to return my kinematics equation gave me a depth of about 64 ft.
I think that was useful information.
I guess I do not agree with you, or Paul Hewitt. I do agree that there is
more fun stuff and elegant solutions in the conservation laws but I am
needed to be educated as to how that can fully replace basic kinematics.