Re: Question about Kepler's second law

In article <1176779703.715199.274320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Apr 16, 9:09 pm, mme...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1176769985.828987.58...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:



On Apr 16, 5:49 pm, mme...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1176754884.114148.59...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Peter" <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> writes:
On Apr 16, 3:41 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 16, 8:06 am, "Peter" <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 14, 8:48 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 14, 6:42 pm, "Peter" <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 14, 6:54 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddled...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <1176590209.784235.154...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

"Peter" <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Angular velocity is a vector too, hence the cross product

(Point of contention - -actually a pseudovector, but it still uses the
cross product)

- Show quoted text -

The cross product is also a pseudovector.

Peter

Are you trolling, or deliberately obtuse?

You tell that to Douglas C. Giancoli (Physics for Scientists and
Engineers, 2nd ed., page 220).

Peter

Ah, well, at least you've moved up to an (old) college text. You'll
note that the terms "pseudoscalar" and "pseudovector" are not listed
in that freshman text. What does that tell you?

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Giancoli does talk about pseudovectors.

Peter

My error. I was looking at a different edition. Now, you will note
that Giancoli also tells you how a "pseudovector" is defined by its
properties under transformation. You'll note that it is not
distinguished as being a "false" or "not real" vector.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not sure I understand what you mean. But I know that if something
is not a true vector, it is just not a vector. You know why angular
displacements are not vectors: they fail the commutative law for
addition.

Sigh. A clear waste of time.

Well, to be fair, this is the risk of introductory to sub-introductory
level material of the sort that Peter is trying to wrestle with.
Material like that has to skirt (at least) two hazards:
- it gives the reader the impression that he understands more than he
really does;
- it uses some jargon flippantly and without fully explaining the
meaning of those terms, leaving the reader to (usually wrongly) fill
in the gaps.
Writers of material like that are playing with fire for a reason. They
have to engage the interest of the novice, and they can't subject the
casual reader to the full-blown exposition that would produce a better
understanding.

Yes, very true.

The problem is that, while most novices know they're getting only part
of the picture, folks like Peter want to be able to work with the
introductory material as sufficient for full understanding, and it's
tremendously frustrating to learn that this just isn't possible.

Well, that's extending lots of "benefit of the doubt" to Peter. Yes,
it is no utterly impossible that he's just confused and trying to
reach some understanding. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Too
many of the telltale signs of a troll are there.


Maybe you're right. I've also seen people on this group who say, "But
it says RIGHT HERE in my Archie and Jughead Discuss Physics book that
[something inane and misleading]. Why would the authors of the Archie
and Jughead Discuss Physics say something deliberating inane and
misleading?"

Some of these people REALLY DO rest their hopes of understanding
physics on material they read on the web or in coffee-table books or
in Newsweek magazine. Porat or Seto, for example, maintains rigidly
that the information he finds on the web is better and more reliable
than the material in journals or textbooks. Sometimes it's because
they've taken a stab at studying a real book but their skills are too
rusty or undeveloped for it to be a useful to them. And so they go
back to what they THINK they understand, and extrapolate to the point
of utter confusion.

Yes, a common (unfortunately) sight. Most of our cranks are in these
category. Note, though, that cranks tend to stake a position and hold
to it, ignoring all argument and evidence to the contrary. Trolls, on
the other hand, tend to be slippery. With each post they introduce a
new tangent till few posts down the line you find yourself arguing
about something hardly related to the original topic.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about Keplers second law
    ... level material of the sort that Peter is trying to wrestle with. ... - it gives the reader the impression that he understands more than he ... introductory material as sufficient for full understanding, ... it says RIGHT HERE in my Archie and Jughead Discuss Physics book that ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question about Keplers second law
    ... is not a true vector, it is just not a vector. ... level material of the sort that Peter is trying to wrestle with. ... - it gives the reader the impression that he understands more than he ... introductory material as sufficient for full understanding, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question about Keplers second law
    ... level material of the sort that Peter is trying to wrestle with. ... - it gives the reader the impression that he understands more than he ... have to engage the interest of the novice, ... introductory material as sufficient for full understanding, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics ... made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. ... overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics ... made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. ... overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics ...
    (sci.physics)