 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is there any other field of endeavor where a phrase like
"""
Like all of my examples it's one of those super-simple examples; small
enough to be unreal, but hopefully enough for you to visualize what's going
on without falling into the bog of a real example.
"""
is common? Where people teach principles with overly-simplified and
unrealistic bits because doing it for real is too obscure?
I mean, it's like saying "here we have Literature 101 class, where we don't
read actual books, but just abstracts, because the real books are too long."
Or "here we're going to look at line drawings of injuries, because looking
at real injuries is too complicated for teaching medicine."
Maybe grade-school science works that way? But that isn't really teaching
science as much as it's teaching results, IME.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-5-2009 22:54, Darren New wrote:
> Is there any other field of endeavor where a phrase like
> """
> Like all of my examples it's one of those super-simple examples; small
> enough to be unreal, but hopefully enough for you to visualize what's
> going on without falling into the bog of a real example.
> """
> is common? Where people teach principles with overly-simplified and
> unrealistic bits because doing it for real is too obscure?
physics and especially quantum physics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> physics and especially quantum physics.
Yeah, that was really the field I was thinking was most likely. Yeah, I
guess any realistic QED equation would be too hard to calculate precisely,
let alone as a teaching thing.
But by the time I was in high school, we were doing some pretty "realistic"
physics stuff. Things like filing the edges off a Hot Wheels curve and then
calculating how high you had to start the car up the ramp to make it go
around without falling off.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-5-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> physics and especially quantum physics.
>
> Yeah, that was really the field I was thinking was most likely. Yeah, I
> guess any realistic QED equation would be too hard to calculate
> precisely, let alone as a teaching thing.
>
> But by the time I was in high school, we were doing some pretty
> "realistic" physics stuff. Things like filing the edges off a Hot Wheels
> curve and then calculating how high you had to start the car up the ramp
> to make it go around without falling off.
Ignoring al least 3 types of friction of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 25-5-2009 0:39, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> physics and especially quantum physics.
>>
>> Yeah, that was really the field I was thinking was most likely. Yeah,
>> I guess any realistic QED equation would be too hard to calculate
>> precisely, let alone as a teaching thing.
>>
>> But by the time I was in high school, we were doing some pretty
>> "realistic" physics stuff. Things like filing the edges off a Hot
>> Wheels curve and then calculating how high you had to start the car up
>> the ramp to make it go around without falling off.
>
> Ignoring al least 3 types of friction of course.
No, we weren't ignoring anything. We had real live hotwheel cars, real live
track, a piece of tape holding the track to the wall. You calculated where
to start the car, and if it went around without falling off, you were done.
Of course, before you started, you made some measurements like how far the
car rolled straight given different starting heights. The strobe
lights/cameras helped too.
We did similar things with dart guns and a couple other experiments.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4a19b3f8$1@news.povray.org...
> Is there any other field of endeavor where a phrase like
> """
> Like all of my examples it's one of those super-simple examples; small
> enough to be unreal, but hopefully enough for you to visualize what's
going
> on without falling into the bog of a real example.
> """
> is common? Where people teach principles with overly-simplified and
> unrealistic bits because doing it for real is too obscure?
Sure. Just because CS is the field you are most familiar with doesn't mean
it's the only field where examples are simplified and unrealistic.
> I mean, it's like saying "here we have Literature 101 class, where we
don't
> read actual books, but just abstracts, because the real books are too
long."
> Or "here we're going to look at line drawings of injuries, because looking
> at real injuries is too complicated for teaching medicine."
>
> Maybe grade-school science works that way? But that isn't really teaching
> science as much as it's teaching results, IME.
You may think simple harmonic oscillator, for instance, is grade school
stuff, but one-dimensional (no less - or, well, no more) simple harmonic
oscillator is pretty much the de facto testbed of introducing concepts all
the way through undergrate to graduate physics classes. Nobody learns QFT
using anywhere near realistic models.
Same with engineering and other sciences (including economics). Complicated
concepts are first introduced with super-simplified, idealistic setups at
all stages of learning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Of course, before you started, you made some measurements like how far the
> car rolled straight given different starting heights. The strobe
> lights/cameras helped too.
I remember we often made a "frictionless ramp", where we had to set the
angle exactly to ensure a rolling ball stayed at constant speed. Then we
did some impact/energy/momentum stuff on the ramp.
I also remember in applied maths at school, working on the *theory* of
friction and sliding/rolling balls etc, until someone piped up and pointed
out that in theory this rolling ball would never stop on a flat surface :-)
It wasn't until University that we solved that one with deformation of the
surfaces and roughness. Actually that was one of my favourite courses, it is
surprising how complicated the wheel/road interactions are, and that exactly
the same theory of rubber tyres on tarmac applies to steel wheels on a steel
track.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Where people teach principles with overly-simplified and
> unrealistic bits because doing it for real is too obscure?
Physics. Try asking a question about the aerodynamics of a cow, and a
physicist will assume the cow is sphere shaped just to simplify things.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, High School physics is really one of the best classes.
Our class built a catapult, a cannon and a concrete fortress. At the
end of the year we had a siege :)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Is there any other field of endeavor where a phrase like
> """
> Like all of my examples it's one of those super-simple examples; small
> enough to be unreal, but hopefully enough for you to visualize what's
> going on without falling into the bog of a real example.
> """
> is common? Where people teach principles with overly-simplified and
> unrealistic bits because doing it for real is too obscure?
Physics is definitely taught this way. Problems routinely involve
frictionless pulleys, drag that is a scalar factor of velocity (instead
of velocity squared), and other things that keep the math within the
first-couple-of-calculus-courses domain.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
