| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2006 05:19:00 AM |
| Object: |
Teaching physics to biology students |
Hi,
I am currently in my first year of teaching an algebra-based
physics class to students who are primarily biology majors.
For whatever reason, most of the biology professors at our school tend
to "spoon-feed" these students, giving them review sheets that tell
them
exactly what they need to know. So they just memorize the information
on
these sheets. Most of these students do not put much effort into their
biology classes.
In the physics class, I am trying to emphasize the main concepts,
and then the students are expected to apply these concepts to novel
problems. My approach has been to assign
lots of practice problems, and to make the exam problems somewhat
different than any of the homework. The students need to put in much
more effort than their biology classes, and if they do not, they tend
to do poorly on the exams. I have had some low averages on class exams.
I am finding out the hard way this year that the students resent
this
approach alot. When they do bad, rather than concluding they need to
put more effort into the class, they think I am being unfair to them.
As a result, my teaching evaluations took a major nosedive this year,
and there was even a petition drive protesting my policies. So I was
hoping to get some advice on how I can improve my approach, or if I
just need to expect this kind of response as a result of making the
students think.
Thanks - Leon
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Feb 2006 01:23:09 PM |
|
|
<lgardner@flsouthern.edu> wrote in message
news:1140607140.393574.221410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
I am currently in my first year of teaching an algebra-based
physics class to students who are primarily biology majors.
For whatever reason, most of the biology professors at our school tend
to "spoon-feed" these students, giving them review sheets that tell
them
exactly what they need to know. So they just memorize the information
on
these sheets. Most of these students do not put much effort into their
biology classes.
In the physics class, I am trying to emphasize the main concepts,
and then the students are expected to apply these concepts to novel
problems.
Herein lies the problem: The main concepts of modern physics can be wrong,
counterintuitive and incomplete. This is the reason why your students are
reisiting your efforts. To do a better job I suggest that you explain why
these main concepts are valid and emphasize that they are not the final
words.
Ken Seto
My approach has been to assign
lots of practice problems, and to make the exam problems somewhat
different than any of the homework. The students need to put in much
more effort than their biology classes, and if they do not, they tend
to do poorly on the exams. I have had some low averages on class exams.
I am finding out the hard way this year that the students resent
this
approach alot. When they do bad, rather than concluding they need to
put more effort into the class, they think I am being unfair to them.
As a result, my teaching evaluations took a major nosedive this year,
and there was even a petition drive protesting my policies. So I was
hoping to get some advice on how I can improve my approach, or if I
just need to expect this kind of response as a result of making the
students think.
Thanks - Leon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Feb 2006 04:41:41 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Herein lies the problem: The main concepts of modern physics can be wrong,
counterintuitive and incomplete. This is the reason why your students are
reisiting your efforts. To do a better job I suggest that you explain why
these main concepts are valid and emphasize that they are not the final
words.
Ken Seto
Thanks for registering as a crack Seto
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Modern physics is empirically sound and is *not* the reason why
student don't want to work hard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 08:02:16 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FM5Lf.791987$_o.696208@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Herein lies the problem: The main concepts of modern physics can be
wrong,
counterintuitive and incomplete. This is the reason why your students
are
reisiting your efforts. To do a better job I suggest that you explain
why
these main concepts are valid and emphasize that they are not the final
words.
Ken Seto
Thanks for registering as a crack Seto
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Modern physics is empirically sound and is *not* the reason why
student don't want to work hard.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Feb 2006 10:15:59 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FM5Lf.791987$_o.696208@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Herein lies the problem: The main concepts of modern physics can be
wrong,
counterintuitive and incomplete. This is the reason why your students
are
reisiting your efforts. To do a better job I suggest that you explain
why
these main concepts are valid and emphasize that they are not the final
words.
Ken Seto
Thanks for registering as a crack Seto
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Modern physics is empirically sound and is *not* the reason why
student don't want to work hard.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Feb 2006 10:30:11 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FM5Lf.791987$_o.696208@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Herein lies the problem: The main concepts of modern physics can be
wrong,
counterintuitive and incomplete. This is the reason why your students
are
reisiting your efforts. To do a better job I suggest that you explain
why
these main concepts are valid and emphasize that they are not the final
words.
Ken Seto
Thanks for registering as a crack Seto
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Modern physics is empirically sound and is *not* the reason why
student don't want to work hard.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Why do you have a problem with special relativity. The observations
confirm the theory--What do you find wrong about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Feb 2006 03:32:29 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:nwGLf.796117$_o.624663@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:FM5Lf.791987$_o.696208@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
Herein lies the problem: The main concepts of modern physics can be
wrong,
counterintuitive and incomplete. This is the reason why your students
are
reisiting your efforts. To do a better job I suggest that you explain
why
these main concepts are valid and emphasize that they are not the final
words.
Ken Seto
Thanks for registering as a crack Seto
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Modern physics is empirically sound and is *not* the reason why
student don't want to work hard.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Why do you have a problem with special relativity. The observations
confirm the theory--What do you find wrong about it?
OK runt since you asked a sensible question I will answer.
SR is incomplete. An observer does not see all the clcoks moving wrt him are
running slow. Instead he sees some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
slow and some are running faster than his clock.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Feb 2006 06:26:28 AM |
|
|
<lgardner@flsouthern.edu> wrote in message
news:1140607140.393574.221410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
most of the biology professors at our school tend
to "spoon-feed" these students, giving them review sheets that tell
them exactly what they need to know. So they just memorize the
information on these sheets. Most of these students do not put
much effort into their biology classes.
In the physics class, I am trying to emphasize the main concepts,
and then the students are expected to apply these concepts to novel
problems.
What age are they? When I was at school many years ago the teaching approach
changed at around 15-16. Broadly speaking you could get away with memorising
things before 16 and the exams tended just to require you to produce answers
from memory. After 16 and in the exams at 17-18 you had to demonstrate a
greater understanding and be able to apply what you had memorised to new
problems. I exagerate that difference slightly but you get the idea.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Feb 2006 08:06:51 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Hi,
<snip>
Thanks - Leon
Leon,
Oh man.... I have been there and I know exactly what you are talking
about. I taught physics I and II to pre-meds. You are exactly on
target with your observations, both of the students and of the way
biology is taught.
First piece of advice: what does your chair or more senior faculty have
to say about this? I suppose I am lucky, I was told not to worry about
it, and we made fun of the students for a little while, sharing horror
stories. If you are not getting support from your department, that's a
whole different problem.
It's not a simple problem to solve. First off, make your expectations
explicitly clear on the very first day. Second, try and make your
presentations relevant to them: for example, they have no idea what a
block on a frictionless plane is, or why it's important. The onus is on
the teacher to select the material and make it understandable: Can you
discuss why holding a block up in that air makes your muscles tired, and
tie it into 'work' and 'equilibrium'?
Lastly, we have a great resource here at Case, UCITE
(The University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education)
http://www.case.edu/provost/UCITE/
It's headed up by Mano Singham, who came from the physics department and
is amazing. Please, I urge you to contact him (use my name if you want)
and discuss your frustration. He can help.
Good luck- for what it's worth, you will be doing your students a favor
by teaching them some rigourous physics- they will be more competetive
upon graduation.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Feb 2006 08:45:13 AM |
|
|
In article <dthr60$gu8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip better advice than I had>
I got problems with a biology degree program that doesn't require
a knowledge of calculus and real physics. How in the world
does one do bio science without these basic tool groups?
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
22 Feb 2006 09:35:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <dthr60$gu8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip better advice than I had>
I got problems with a biology degree program that doesn't require
a knowledge of calculus and real physics. How in the world
does one do bio science without these basic tool groups?
Simple- they don't need it. Current physical models (even simple things
like mechanical properties of cells) are so poorly understood by
physicists, there's no way to reasonably expect a biologist to
understand it. Why teach a biologist F = ma when we have no good way to
write down what F is? Much better to teach things like diffusion,
electrodynamics, fluids, etc- concepts conspicuously lacking from
traditional physics courses.
I came from the other direction- quantitative science into biology. I'm
faced with systems that change hourly, are non-repeatable, and can
frequently appear to lack causality. And these are cloned cell lines,
where every cell is suppsoedly identical to every other cell! Even
controlling for cell media to 0.0001%, CO2 concentration to 0.1%,
temperature to 0.1 degree, my measurements of, say, transepithelial
current in neighboring dishes can vary by more than 30%. And the reason
is that we don't understand the chemical processes occuring in cells.
Sitting in clinical lectures, where people try to establish causality
based on patient responses; where the only available metric is (for
example) exhaled NO2 concentration, and from that create this elaborate
cell signaling pathway; it's mind-boggling. Let's turn it around: how
well can you understand this:
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/ab6/docs/jcs8538p_poster.pdf
I had no idea the amount of effort it takes to do something small and
incremental, for example, establish if one molecule binds to another
molecule. That can take several months, becasue it's entirely possible
that (1) the molecules simply happen to be near each other, (2) both
molecules bind to a third molecule, not each other, (3) they may bind
only under some conditions, (4) etc. etc. etc.
Now in graduate school, and postdocs, we expose the students to more and
more physics. The graduate class I help teach, "Cellular Biophysics",
we assume the students can handle the relevant math, and we get the
students to use MatLab.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 06:25:24 AM |
|
|
In article <dti0bl$q9l$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <dthr60$gu8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip better advice than I had>
I got problems with a biology degree program that doesn't require
a knowledge of calculus and real physics. How in the world
does one do bio science without these basic tool groups?
Simple- they don't need it.
Nuts. When I was majoring in biology many years' ago, the
pre-requisites included physics and enough chemistry to have
a chemistry minor. Now, from reading in this newsgroup,
chemistry uses physical theories that were developed after
Newton and after the Bohr Model.
Current physical models (even simple things
like mechanical properties of cells) are so poorly understood by
physicists, there's no way to reasonably expect a biologist to
understand it. Why teach a biologist F = ma when we have no good way to
write down what F is? Much better to teach things like diffusion,
electrodynamics, fluids, etc- concepts conspicuously lacking from
traditional physics courses.
Those subjects can't be learned until after Physics 101.
I came from the other direction- quantitative science into biology. I'm
faced with systems that change hourly, are non-repeatable, and can
frequently appear to lack causality.
Yes. It is not unlike soft/hardware development.
And these are cloned cell lines,
where every cell is suppsoedly identical to every other cell! Even
controlling for cell media to 0.0001%, CO2 concentration to 0.1%,
temperature to 0.1 degree, my measurements of, say, transepithelial
current in neighboring dishes can vary by more than 30%. And the reason
is that we don't understand the chemical processes occuring in cells.
Thus, isn't it about time that bio majors find out what we don't
know?
Sitting in clinical lectures, where people try to establish causality
based on patient responses; where the only available metric is (for
example) exhaled NO2 concentration, and from that create this elaborate
cell signaling pathway; it's mind-boggling. Let's turn it around: how
well can you understand this:
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Users/ab6/docs/jcs8538p_poster.pdf
I had no idea the amount of effort it takes to do something small and
incremental, for example, establish if one molecule binds to another
molecule. That can take several months, becasue it's entirely possible
that (1) the molecules simply happen to be near each other, (2) both
molecules bind to a third molecule, not each other, (3) they may bind
only under some conditions, (4) etc. etc. etc.
Now in graduate school, and postdocs, we expose the students to more and
more physics. The graduate class I help teach, "Cellular Biophysics",
we assume the students can handle the relevant math,
By this time, it's a little too late to learn basic math skills,
isn't it? I never understood the nonsense that math was an
esoteric subject. It seems to be a waste of grad time to have
to go back to learn how to crawl.
and we get the
students to use MatLab.
Well, thanks for the opportunity for me to vent. :-)
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 09:43:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <dti0bl$q9l$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
wrote:
In article <dthr60$gu8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip better advice than I had>
I got problems with a biology degree program that doesn't require
a knowledge of calculus and real physics. How in the world
does one do bio science without these basic tool groups?
Simple- they don't need it.
Nuts. When I was majoring in biology many years' ago, the
pre-requisites included physics and enough chemistry to have
a chemistry minor. Now, from reading in this newsgroup,
chemistry uses physical theories that were developed after
Newton and after the Bohr Model.
This is absolutely true. No argument here. And there are many fine
biochemists out there doing interesting research.
<snip>
Why teach a biologist F = ma when we have no good way to
write down what F is? Much better to teach things like diffusion,
electrodynamics, fluids, etc- concepts conspicuously lacking from
traditional physics courses.
Those subjects can't be learned until after Physics 101.
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and
clarified our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no
way more fundamental that these other concepts.
<snip>
Thus, isn't it about time that bio majors find out what we don't
know?
It requires a multidisciplinary effort. I don't understand enough
biology to know what I should be looking for; my colleagues may not
understand enough physics to know what to measure. Working together, we
make progress.
Biology, as a research enterprise, is unimaginably more vast than
physics. More people, more dollars, more topics of inquiry. Several
things result from this: the training period is much longer (the average
age of first NIH award is inching toward 40), there are more topics to
learn and more journals to read, and the specialization required of lab
workers is very high. For example, we have a lab tech who, all day,
extracts fetal mouse kidneys for study. The training required to do
this took a long time (and a certain temprament), and her time was
better spent learning how to do this, rather than reading a book about
Atwood machines.
Biology is also different from quantitative science, in that all
results come by observation, not by prediction. There are no practical
predictive models, no useful fundamental concepts, nothing like what we
have in physics. The state of theoretical biology is close to that of
pre-Copernican physics. Nearly every "axiom" in biology (one gene, one
protein, for example) has been shown to be false. The good news is that
there are many scientists who see this as an opportunity, rather than a
deficiency. It's an exciting time to be involved.
<snip>
By this time, it's a little too late to learn basic math skills,
isn't it? I never understood the nonsense that math was an
esoteric subject. It seems to be a waste of grad time to have
to go back to learn how to crawl.
<snip>
I've come to the conclusion that MD's are a lot like engineers, with the
same attitude towards knowing non-job-critical information. Just as
some engineers are curious about the world around them, so are some
docs- but there are plenty that are perfectly happy living in their own
little existence.
Well, thanks for the opportunity for me to vent. :-)
My pleasure. I understand the frustration, I really do.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 10:02:43 AM |
|
|
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Kinetic energy also has such problems for the
same reasons.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 10:11:28 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:HeSdncj_lKALQWDeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
Kinetic energy also has such problems for the
same reasons.
It's just harder to track down where KE ends up
in inelastic collisions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 10:38:46 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:A8lLf.20239$%14.514467@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HeSdncj_lKALQWDeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
You apparently never worked with reality it seems.
Does a 1 kilogram piece of styrofoam
produce the same force onto another object
as a 1 kilogram steel ball would?
with both having the same acceleration?
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 03:18:03 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9ZednTqbN7-UeGDenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:A8lLf.20239$%14.514467@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HeSdncj_lKALQWDeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
You apparently never worked with reality it seems.
Does a 1 kilogram piece of styrofoam
produce the same force onto another object
as a 1 kilogram steel ball would?
with both having the same acceleration?
Sure, unless the forces are such that deformation
converts some of the energy into other forms (heat,
stress, sound, etc.). Just be sure to account for
all the forces involved.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 03:02:35 PM |
|
|
In article <9ZednTqbN7-UeGDenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:A8lLf.20239$%14.514467@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HeSdncj_lKALQWDeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
You apparently never worked with reality it seems.
Engineers seem to like it.
Does a 1 kilogram piece of styrofoam
produce the same force onto another object
as a 1 kilogram steel ball would?
with both having the same acceleration?
LOL
You didn't include all the forces on the left hand side-- bouyancy and
wind resistance should be there, too.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 03:09:29 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dtl7tb$6tv$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9ZednTqbN7-UeGDenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:A8lLf.20239$%14.514467@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HeSdncj_lKALQWDeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known
before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and
clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way
more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
You apparently never worked with reality it seems.
Engineers seem to like it.
For some things, not for all.
Does a 1 kilogram piece of styrofoam
produce the same force onto another object
as a 1 kilogram steel ball would?
with both having the same acceleration?
LOL
You didn't include all the forces on the left hand side-- bouyancy and
wind resistance should be there, too.
It happens in a vacuum.
Do you still think the steel ball and the styrofoam
will be able to produce the same amount of Force?
How about the same KE tranfer if it they collide with something?
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 03:23:43 PM |
|
|
In article <BJednXq9CdfhuWPenZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dtl7tb$6tv$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9ZednTqbN7-UeGDenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:A8lLf.20239$%14.514467@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:HeSdncj_lKALQWDeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"Andy Resnick" <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote in message
news:dtkl7l$d8c$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known
before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced
as primary to anything else. Certainly, it has firmed up and
clarified
our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no way
more
fundamental that these other concepts.
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
You apparently never worked with reality it seems.
Engineers seem to like it.
For some things, not for all.
Does a 1 kilogram piece of styrofoam
produce the same force onto another object
as a 1 kilogram steel ball would?
with both having the same acceleration?
LOL
You didn't include all the forces on the left hand side-- bouyancy and
wind resistance should be there, too.
It happens in a vacuum.
Do you still think the steel ball and the styrofoam
will be able to produce the same amount of Force?
How about the same KE tranfer if it they collide with something?
Now you're getting into deformable body mechanics. That's still based on
F=ma, but it doesn't treat a cubic yard of styrofoam as if it were a rigid
body.
There's nothing wrong with F=ma, but sometimes things are wrong with the
assumptions made in applying it.
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 03:31:20 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dtl94v$7lf$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Now you're getting into deformable body mechanics.
Correct,
the basic F = ma has lots more work needed now.
That's still based on
F=ma, but it doesn't treat a cubic yard of styrofoam as if it were a rigid
body.
I know,
I stated to begin with. it does not work for elastic conditions.
Simply because you need other equations for such.
There's nothing wrong with F=ma, but sometimes things are wrong with the
assumptions made in applying it.
That is why I said it does not work all the time
along with KE.
But of course, I know you can't stand my posts
and always try to prove me wrong even if I am correct.
You should really find something better to do.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 08:24:18 PM |
|
|
In article <j8OdnWSjP_EAtGPeRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dtl94v$7lf$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Now you're getting into deformable body mechanics.
Correct,
the basic F = ma has lots more work needed now.
That's still based on
F=ma, but it doesn't treat a cubic yard of styrofoam as if it were a rigid
body.
I know,
I stated to begin with. it does not work for elastic conditions.
Simply because you need other equations for such.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. But even for styrofoam, dF=dm*a
still works. You just have to add up a bunch of little F's and m's.
That's how you get the other equations.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 08:35:10 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dtlqoi$dic$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <j8OdnWSjP_EAtGPeRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
Spaceman <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dtl94v$7lf$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Now you're getting into deformable body mechanics.
Correct,
the basic F = ma has lots more work needed now.
That's still based on
F=ma, but it doesn't treat a cubic yard of styrofoam as if it were a
rigid
body.
I know,
I stated to begin with. it does not work for elastic conditions.
Simply because you need other equations for such.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. But even for styrofoam, dF=dm*a
still works. You just have to add up a bunch of little F's and m's.
That's how you get the other equations.
Yes,
Of course.
and how about a car on wheels and a 130 lb person pushing it.
again.. F=ma has problems alone.and would need even more
factors, so it is not perfect at all and has plenty of faults when
by itself.
The same is true of KE.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Lybanon" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 10:36:10 AM |
|
|
in article A8lLf.20239$%14.514467@news20.bellglobal.com, Greg Neill at
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca wrote on 2/23/06 10:11 AM:
.. . .
Force (F=ma) is only good for non-elastic objects.
It fails badly for elastic stuff.
Utter nonsense. F=ma always applies.
Case in point: Fluid dynamics. Check any fluid dynamics or physical
oceanography text.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
23 Feb 2006 10:37:49 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <dti0bl$q9l$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <dthr60$gu8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip better advice than I had>
I got problems with a biology degree program that doesn't require
a knowledge of calculus and real physics. How in the world
does one do bio science without these basic tool groups?
Simple- they don't need it.
Nuts. When I was majoring in biology many years' ago, the
pre-requisites included physics and enough chemistry to have
a chemistry minor. Now, from reading in this newsgroup,
chemistry uses physical theories that were developed after
Newton and after the Bohr Model.
This is absolutely true. No argument here. And there are many fine
biochemists out there doing interesting research.
<snip>
Why teach a biologist F = ma when we have no good way to
write down what F is? Much better to teach things like diffusion,
electrodynamics, fluids, etc- concepts conspicuously lacking from
traditional physics courses.
Those subjects can't be learned until after Physics 101.
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced as primary to anything else.
It's not more fundamental. Mathematicians made it more "fundamental".
But Newton invented the first unified concept of force, and was mosly
of the opinion that action-at-a-distance is the basic concept
that causes physicists to be conceptually stupid.
Certainly, it has firmed up and
clarified our understanding of these other concepts, but force is in no
way more fundamental that these other concepts.
<snip>
Thus, isn't it about time that bio majors find out what we don't
know?
It requires a multidisciplinary effort. I don't understand enough
biology to know what I should be looking for; my colleagues may not
understand enough physics to know what to measure. Working together, we
make progress.
Biology, as a research enterprise, is unimaginably more vast than
physics.
That's the problem with biology. It's a buisness, rather than a
sciece.
Since it has no research that's not Internal IR&D that goes
unreviewed by any critical thinkers on the subject.
More people, more dollars, more topics of inquiry. Several
things result from this: the training period is much longer (the average
age of first NIH award is inching toward 40), there are more topics to
learn and more journals to read, and the specialization required of lab
workers is very high. For example, we have a lab tech who, all day,
extracts fetal mouse kidneys for study. The training required to do
this took a long time (and a certain temprament), and her time was
better spent learning how to do this, rather than reading a book about
Atwood machines.
Biology is also different from quantitative science, in that all
results come by observation, not by prediction. There are no practical
predictive models, no useful fundamental concepts, nothing like what we
have in physics. The state of theoretical biology is close to that of
pre-Copernican physics. Nearly every "axiom" in biology (one gene, one
protein, for example) has been shown to be false. The good news is that
there are many scientists who see this as an opportunity, rather than a
deficiency. It's an exciting time to be involved.
<snip>
By this time, it's a little too late to learn basic math skills,
isn't it? I never understood the nonsense that math was an
esoteric subject. It seems to be a waste of grad time to have
to go back to learn how to crawl.
<snip>
I've come to the conclusion that MD's are a lot like engineers, with the
same attitude towards knowing non-job-critical information. Just as
some engineers are curious about the world around them, so are some
docs- but there are plenty that are perfectly happy living in their own
little existence.
Well, thanks for the opportunity for me to vent. :-)
My pleasure. I understand the frustration, I really do.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Feb 2006 06:30:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1140712669.062060.44120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <dti0bl$q9l$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <dthr60$gu8$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
<snip better advice than I had>
I got problems with a biology degree program that doesn't require
a knowledge of calculus and real physics. How in the world
does one do bio science without these basic tool groups?
Simple- they don't need it.
Nuts. When I was majoring in biology many years' ago, the
pre-requisites included physics and enough chemistry to have
a chemistry minor. Now, from reading in this newsgroup,
chemistry uses physical theories that were developed after
Newton and after the Bohr Model.
This is absolutely true. No argument here. And there are many fine
biochemists out there doing interesting research.
<snip>
Why teach a biologist F = ma when we have no good way to
write down what F is? Much better to teach things like diffusion,
electrodynamics, fluids, etc- concepts conspicuously lacking from
traditional physics courses.
Those subjects can't be learned until after Physics 101.
I disagree with that. All of those topics (as well as a lot of other
things) were studied well before the introduction of the concept of
"force". The concepts of "inertia" and "energy" were well known before
the concept of "force", so I don't see why "force" must now be
introduced as primary to anything else.
It's not more fundamental. Mathematicians made it more "fundamental".
But Newton invented the first unified concept of force, and was mosly
of the opinion that action-at-a-distance is the basic concept
that causes physicists to be conceptually stupid.
If you ever end up in the hospital under traction, then you
had better hope that one of the medical people learned about
F=ma.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Resnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Feb 2006 08:52:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
If you ever end up in the hospital under traction, then you
had better hope that one of the medical people learned about
F=ma.
Actually, I'd rather they know how to set a fracture, set up an IV line,
and monitor for infection... :)
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
.
|
|
|
| User: "QCD Apprentice" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
24 Feb 2006 08:56:26 AM |
|
|
Andy Resnick wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
If you ever end up in the hospital under traction, then you
had better hope that one of the medical people learned about
F=ma.
Actually, I'd rather they know how to set a fracture, set up an IV line,
and monitor for infection... :)
And the funny thing is that in some clinical programs,
residents can't even do *those* kindof tasks. Three
residents couldn't figure out that the reason why a surgical
incision was puffy, red, and hot to the touch. It took the
60 year old nurse to yell at them that it was an infection.
I hope that was an isolated incident and that the people
becoming doctors aren't getting dumber and dumber.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
25 Feb 2006 06:23:16 AM |
|
|
In article <dtn6qq$id1$1@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
QCD Apprentice <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
If you ever end up in the hospital under traction, then you
had better hope that one of the medical people learned about
F=ma.
Actually, I'd rather they know how to set a fracture, set up an IV line,
and monitor for infection... :)
And the funny thing is that in some clinical programs,
residents can't even do *those* kindof tasks. Three
residents couldn't figure out that the reason why a surgical
incision was puffy, red, and hot to the touch. It took the
60 year old nurse to yell at them that it was an infection.
I hope that was an isolated incident and that the people
becoming doctors aren't getting dumber and dumber.
Nope, it's not isolated. This is analysis. Now take a look
at how people think when they set up word problems in math.
It's the same kind of thinking. If people don't use their
analysis organ, it atrophies. da Vinci thought that common
sense was seated in an organ; I like to play with the hypothesis
that he was correct. This explains why a majority of people
are proud of being stupid and why no anatomist can find the
organ with dissection.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
25 Feb 2006 07:01:46 AM |
|
|
Da Vinci also thought that Humanity would be extinct shortly after his
era, which was 500 years ago.
I wonder if Leonardo da Vinci knew that he was a Leonardo da Vinci?
He created a woodcut in which common tools rained from the sky with a
caption indicating that he considered them merely ways for humans to
enslave themselves to materialism, instead of them being to key to
great advancement.
Oh, well. The world he lived in was just a seed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teaching physics to biology students |
25 Feb 2006 06:19:26 AM |
|
|
In article <dtn6ja$nt7$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
Andy Resnick <andy.resnick@op.case.edu> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
If you ever end up in the hospital under traction, then you
had better hope that one of the medical people learned about
F=ma.
Actually, I'd rather they know how to set a fracture, set up an IV line,
That's plumbing; as I said before, this is not known by many.
and monitor for infection... :)
Don't get me started on that one. :-)
The "shortcuts" I've seen done makes me wonder why anybody
gets out alive.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
