Re: impulse/momentum

[Herbert H Gottlieb <herbgottlieb@JUNO.COM>]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:42:35 -0500 Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>
writes:
> Early in my teaching career I decided to devote the entire first
> lecture of the beginning intro course to giving the students at least a

> tentative  philosophic framework on which they might hang the ideas to
be
> developed in their study of physics.


*** Such a lecture is an EXCELLENT idea. However, I suggest
that you give it at the end of the course rather than give
it on the first day! Students will appreciate it more.

Herb Gottlieb


> This lecture would cover such topics as:
> Physics as
> a human construct of models; the construction, use and limitations
> of models
> (conceptual, empirical, mathematical); our search for usefullness
> rather
> that "truth";  the unique nature of revolutions in physics, etc.
>
>  I have not been so grateful to myself for any other pedagogical
> choice.  (I
> recognized the students' need for this ground work because it was a
> lacuna
> in my own education.)  Throughout the subsequent physics course(s)
> the
> material of this foundational lecture lies in wait as a reference to
> quickly
> and meaningfully answer questions which otherwise lead to endless
> semantic
> confusion.
>
> Bob Sciamanda
> Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
> http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
> trebor@velocity.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Uretsky" <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>
> To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: impulse/momentum
>
>
> > Hi all-
> >         In the spirit of my answer to Jim Green I will ask Bob:
> Why should
> > this be emphasized in the first lecture?  The suggestion has been
> made
> > that this might very well be much more than the student wants to
> know at
> > that time.
> >                                         Regards,
> >                                                 Jack
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
> >
> > > The first lecture in an Intro Mech course should emphasize that
> revolutions
> > > in physics are unique (compared to the "humanities").  In
> physics an
> > > accepted model will have been tried and proven useful, by
> experimental
> > > tests.  The new, rival model must include these results as a
> special
> case of
> > > a wider model.  He must embrace his predecessor and stand on
> his
> shoulders,
> > > in order to see farther.  Contrast this with revolutions in the
> > > non-scientific fields.
> > >
> > > Newtonian Mechanics is an exceedingly useful model - and will
> always be
> so -
> > > both as a learning first step, and as a lasting tool for
> countless
> practical
> > > applications.
> > >
> > > Bob Sciamanda
> > > Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
> > > http://www.velocity.net/~trebor/
> > > trebor@velocity.net
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jack Uretsky" <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>
> > > To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:58 PM
> > > Subject: Re: impulse/momentum
> > >
> > >
> > > >         Jim, you are really raising a number of points here.
> A decade
> ago
> > > > I decided to get a high school teaching certificate; as part
> of the
> course
> > > > I student-taught at a local high school.  The chair, who was
> my
> suprvisor,
> > > > had been running a very succussful program requiring 3
> physics
> teachers
> > > > plus others for the so-called physical science courses.  He
> was very
> > > > critical of my opening remarks, which were somewhat along the
> line you
> > > > suggested.  His criticism, possibly well-based, was that
> young
> students
> > > > don't want to be told that they're not getting the best, the
> latest,
> and
> > > > the most blessed that the educational system has to offer.  So
> my
> answer
> > > > to your question "Can't we say...?" is: I don't know.  At some
> point
> the
> > > > interested student is going to find out what is being offered
> in the
> big
> > > > tent.  Don't give him/her more than it wants to know.
> > > > . . .
> > > >                                         Regards,
> > > >                                                 Jack
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Jim Green wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >         What we are endeavoring to teach - no! What we
> are
> endeavoring
> > > to
> > > > > > make available to the students is the opportunity to
> attack
> problems
> > > that
> > > > > > they have never seen before, because that is what they will
> be
> doing in
> > > > > > real life.  We can model for them how we attack such
> problems, but
> the
> > > > > > actual solutions are irrelevant.
> > > > > . . .
> > > > > True enough, Jack, but there is no need of camouflaging
> reality.
> Can't
> > > we
> > > > > say as we approach Newton's Laws with an introduction that
> explains
> that
> > > > > Newton only deals with slow speeds ie common speeds Ie only
> those
> that
> > > are
> > > > > everyday -- and it does this quite well -- but that later in
> physics
> > > > > education we will deal with faster speeds and then Newton
> doesn't
> work.
> > > > > . . .
> > > > > Jim Green
> >
> > --
> > "Don't push the river, it flows by itself"
> >                                 Frederick Perls


Herb Gottlieb from New York City
A nice friendly  place to live and visit