Another week, another hangout with Rhett. In which we actually fielded a couple of questions from readers on Twitter, about the reason for inertia and a kind of meta-question. More audience questions would, of course, be welcome.
A couple of links to things that came up:
Mach's Principle, a past attempt to explain the origin of inertia.
Newton's famous refusal to explain gravity, "Hypotheses non fingo." Sir Isaac was second to none in his mastery of snotty condescension.
Aatish Bhatia's post about a new meta-analysis of "active learning" studies showing that traditional lectures are less effective than active methods.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
We kicked off our countdown to Newton's birthday with his equations of motion, so it seems fitting to close out the section on classical mechanics with another of Newton's equations, this time the Law of Universal Gravitation:
Like all the other equations to this point, I'm cribbing this from the…
That recent study on active learning continues to generate some press, including a new interview with Carl Wieman about why traditional lectures are problematic. Wieman is pretty blunt about his opinions on the subject, which will come as no surprise to people in the AMO physics community...
Anyway…
Last week, a comment I made on Twitter about the annoyance of doing merit evaluation paperwork led to some back-and-forth with Rhett Allain and the National Society of Black Physicists Twitter account about whether blogs can or should count toward academic evaluation. This seemed like a good topic…
A month ago, Eric Schwitzgebel wrote a post critical of meta-analysis, suggesting that studies finding null results don't tend to get published, thus skewing meta-analysis results. I objected to some of his reasoning, my most important point being that the largest studies are going to get published…
I think one must find first the reltions between inertia and "pure" space.