All,
I think we must think about what it means if something becomes zero or
infinite.
If the something in the denominator goes to infinity or in the numerator
goes to zero, the term becomes zero, a physically realizeable state.
If the something in the numerator goes to infinity or in the denominator
goes to zero, the term tends toward infinity, a physically unrealizeable
and undefineable state.
Physics cannot decribe or analyze a physically unrealizeable state.
However, how about singularities?
Cheryl Hanzlik
"Zajac, Richard" <rzajac@sal.ksu.edu>
Sent by: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
02/23/2011 02:07 PM
Please respond to
Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
To
"'Forum for Physics Educators'" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
cc
Subject
Re: [Phys-l] irresistible force v. immovable object
A fundamental problem-solving skill in physics is the ability to choose
simplifying models that are both useful and appropriate. If you're going
to
toss out immoveable objects, then you also need to throw out massless
pulleys and string, frictionless surfaces, zero resistance wires, etc.
Unfortunately, the choice of which simplifying model to use is usually
already decided for the student, and even then, seldom explicitly
recognized
as being either a model or a choice. And students are hardly ever placed
in
a position to evaluate a model's usefulness or to recognize when a model
fails.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Viotti
Who cares? There's no such thing as either an unstoppable object or an
unmovable object. (...)
But no matter what you tell them, it isn't physics.