Thread View: bit.listserv.physhare
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by Steve Hamersky
Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:05
Re: Spin forces and terms
Author: Steve Hamersky
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:05
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 04:05
39 lines
2024 bytes
2024 bytes
I am teaching Chemistry for the first time and have noticed there a number of terms that should be eliminated as well. Many seem to have applied to situations that were not completely understood, then as theory developed, could be included as special cases of other more general statements. One example from Physics is Newton's First Law which seems to be a special case of the Second Law, that is when Fnet = 0. Steve > > On Sun, 22 Jan 1995, Charles Toth wrote: > > > We talk about both centripetal and centrifugal. Discussing the > > forces necessary to get a car around a curve and the "forces" due to > > inertia that the passengers in the vehicle observe seems to help students > > get a handle on things. > > > > Charlie Toth > > Why even refer to "forces" due to inertia? Why not emphasize inertia. > Through discussions on PHYS-L, I have to agree that the terms centripetal > and centrifugal should be eliminated and in their place we should refer to > resultant or sum of forces. > > Lowell > -- ============= Stephen Hamersky e-mail: hamersky@bluejay.creighton.edu Daniel J. Gross H.S. voice: (402) 734-2000 7700 So. 43rd St. The Lord prefers common people. Omaha, NE 68147 That is why he made so many of us.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads