My Math or Science Teacher: Who is Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atriusbread
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science Teacher
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the contrasting views of a math teacher and a science teacher regarding the behavior of a bouncing ball. The math teacher argues that the ball will continue bouncing indefinitely, as it bounces half the height of its last bounce, while the science teacher asserts that gravity will eventually bring the ball to rest. The practical implications of this theory are highlighted, noting that after numerous bounces, the ball's movement becomes negligible and undetectable. The cooling of coffee is used as an analogy, illustrating that while it theoretically takes infinite time to reach room temperature, in practice, it cools to a point where it is effectively at rest. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the difference between theoretical models and practical observations in physics.
Atriusbread
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
This is a really simple question. My math teacher was explaining how if you drop a ball with some amount of air in it, it will never stop moving because it will always bounce half of the height of its last bounce. Then my science teacher said the force of gravity would eventually stop the ball. Who is correct... (The math makes sense to me.. isn't the math already taking into account gravity)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In theory it will never stop moving - in practice it will.
Similarly the rate that you coffee cools is proportional to the temperature difference between the coffee and the room. As the coffee approaches the room temperature the cooling rate slows and it will take an infinite time to cool down.
 
Atriusbread said:
This is a really simple question. My math teacher was explaining how if you drop a ball with some amount of air in it, it will never stop moving because it will always bounce half of the height of its last bounce. Then my science teacher said the force of gravity would eventually stop the ball. Who is correct... (The math makes sense to me.. isn't the math already taking into account gravity)

Perhaps it’s best to look at it this light.

Drop a ball from 4 feet. If each time it bounces back up halfway, by the time the ball bounces just 12 times, it’s already bouncing back up less than one thousandth of a foot. After its 22nd bounce, it’s bouncing back up less than one millionth of a foot. After the 32nd bounce, it's bouncing back up by less than one billionth of a foot. It won’t take very long before its movement is less than that of the orbit of an atom, so who’s going to be able to detect its movement as it continues? For all practical purposes, by the time you can no longer detect the ball’s bouncing motion, it’s essentially at rest. Movement of any sort by that time is considered “negligible”.

Hope this helps.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top