Blog post: swansont: Misconception or Approximation?

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM630Z8lho8]<br /><br />For the second time in the past month, Minute Physics is making a statement about <a href="http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/12738">what gets taught</a> in introductory physics. It is consistent, but I still disagree. I have had too many interactions with people who want to discuss relativity (or quantum mechanics) and are either very confused or think its wrong, and this is exacerbated because they have no familiarity with classical physics. <br /><br />I have no problem with telling students that what they are going to learn in introductory physics is an approximation, but the claim that presenting Newton's gravitation equation is akin to telling students that the earth is flat is an exaggeration. If you go down that path, then what of all the other approximations that we make in physics? Speaking of a flat vs curved earth, do you really want to force students to solve trajectory problems on a curved surface rather than flat one? Is a frictionless surface a <em>lie</em>, or is it a convenient approximation to simplify a problem? And, on the topic of friction, should we really delve into the morass that is friction, rather than just say that it's proportional to the normal force and try and get the big picture across? <br /><br />I think the objections are wrong in a few different ways â One of the principles you learn in solving problems is how to ignore complications that do not affect the answer to the question. Also, learning physics through to relativity and other advanced topics takes <em>years</em> of study. Introductory classes carry with them the need to prune the information to fit, and convey the material that is most important to the students' needs. Most of them don't need to learn about relativity, which is why it's not part of the introductory classes. <br/><a href="http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/12820">Read and comment on the full post</a>