| 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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Philip Keller
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:12 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] [PTSOS] anvil and sledgehammer inertia demo
It seems to me that all 3 of Newton's laws involve this kind of chasing!
You can "demonstrate" these laws, but I don't think you can "prove" them
in any non-circular way.
For example, look at the slider on the air track. It goes for a long
while after an initial push, but it DOES stop eventually. A student
could reasonably conclude that Aristotle was right, but that with less
friction, it just takes longer to come to a stop. But even if you
ignore that slow deceleration, a skeptical student might suspect that
the air jets that lift the slider might also be providing a small
sideways push, thus keeping the slider from its natural state of rest!
Or here's another example. Even as I type, my students are doing the
experiment where you hang a mass over a pulley to pull a car along a
track. They will do one experiment where they move little masses from
the cart to the hanger, thus "proving" that acceleration is directly
proportional to force and another experiment where they add mass to the
cart, "proving" that acceleration is inversely proportional to mass.
I think this lab has great value, but I don't think it "proves"
anything. These are first year students and it is still September. I
am happy if this lab helps them to remember the direct and inverse
proportions involved in the second law. It is also their first
experience collecting data like this and then analyzing it with a
spreadsheet. So I think it's worth doing. But I know it is not a proof
-- for example, in the second experiment, I claim that the force on the
system is constant because we do not change the hanging mass. (I'm not
claiming that the tension in the string is constant, just the force on
the "system".) But how do I know that's true? Without using the second
law, I can't show that force to be constant.
What I think we can claim is that the three laws together make a
coherent system that we can then use to make predictions about the
behavior of objects. But to me, the laws are like axioms.
-----Original Message-----_______________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Bellina
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:48 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] [PTSOS] anvil and sledgehammer inertia demo
What is wrong with chasing your tail? Since we don't in principle
know what a force is, the only way we can say the forces are balanced
is to observe the motion.
joe
Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Physics
Co-Director
Northern Indiana Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Collaborative
574-276-8294
inquirybellina@comcast.net
On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Derek McKenzie wrote:
To demonstrate equilibrium i.e. balance of forces, put
the puck "here" and "there" and observe that it remains
at rest. Then give it a push and observe uniform motion.
The vertical forces are balanced. The horizontal forces
are nearly zero.
Just out of interest, how do you justify the claim that the forces
are balanced, without chasing your tail?
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l