Timeline for Why do we always assume in problems that if things are initially in contact with each other then they would be like that always?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2022 at 12:46 | comment | added | Dale | @ArunBhardwaj Yes, you do get to more detailed analysis later. Essentially you treat the object as though it were composed of microscopic springs that obey Hooke’s law. I will be glad to reopen if you edit the text to remove some of the extra side-questions. As it is I cannot vote to reopen since it still has multiple questions | |
| Dec 16, 2022 at 6:17 | comment | added | Arun Bhardwaj | @Dale thanks for your reply, by reading your answer and your conversations in the comments. I think its as difficult concept for me to understand for now. But I wanna ask do we get to know this kind of things in higher education or not? and is my analysis completely incorrect? and I request you to please vote to reopen this question because I think it expresses my views correctly | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:53 | comment | added | Dale | I disagree. The judgement about the realism of the model that I expressed there is simply echoing the concern of the OP. They are considering more realistic models of the collision. The simplified model is indeed unrealistic at the level that the OP is asking about. When an OP is wrong, then I will correct them. But when they express a valid opinion or judgement I prefer to accept it for the purpose of their question | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 2:25 | comment | added | Yakk | Your opening sentence also needs work. "At this point in your studies you are not sufficiently advanced to realistically model the interaction of the two blocks." -- I believe what they are modelling is realistic for a reasonable subset of situations. It isn't lack of realism -- it is a limited subset of realistic situations they can model. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 23:48 | comment | added | Dale | @Yakk thanks for the feedback. I have clarified the last sentence. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 23:47 | history | edited | Dale | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2022 at 23:36 | comment | added | Yakk | I don't see where you stated clearly that the simple stuff is not only simple, but also quite accurate. The OP's solution isn't a toy math exercise, but actually solves (with reasonably high accuracy) what happens in a reasonable, physical situation. Maybe you are trying to state that in the very last sentence of your answer, but it isn't clear. Is the last word a typo? Or "easy assumption" your name for the OP's solution? If so, it is awkward; introduced in the conclusion, and worded strangely. And "they" in the last sentence; what that pronoun refers to is ambiguous. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 22:40 | comment | added | Dale | @Yakk that is a strange comment. You seem to be objecting to my answer by saying things that I already said in the answer. I explicitly said it is a good approximation and I explicitly said we need to teach the simple stuff first. I am not sure where in my answer you think I disagreed with either of the points in your comment. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 21:04 | comment | added | Yakk | This sort of underplays the fact that, at low force levels, the model the OP is trying to solve generates answers that are extremely close to correct. And all of physics is full of these situations; higher order effects may exist, but we can neglect them in the model. Teaching someone to only use lower order physics is reasonable, unless you think we should start with relativistic effects instead of (lower order) Newtonian approximations. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 15:05 | history | edited | Dale | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2022 at 14:34 | history | edited | Dale | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Dec 7, 2022 at 14:28 | history | answered | Dale | CC BY-SA 4.0 |