Should I Try Newtonian Mechanics Again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andyroo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges faced in learning physics, particularly in a Newtonian Mechanics course. The original poster expresses dissatisfaction with their experience, attributing it to a lack of textbook reading, ineffective lectures, and a dislike for memorizing equations. Despite this, there is a genuine interest in physics, albeit on personal terms. Responses emphasize that effective learning in physics should not rely solely on memorization but rather on understanding concepts and deriving equations. The importance of grasping fundamental principles, such as the relationship between distance, time, and velocity in orbital mechanics, is highlighted. Overall, the conversation suggests that a deeper comprehension of physics concepts may enhance the learning experience and rekindle interest in the subject.
andyroo
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I took a term of Newtonian Mechanics (foundation of physics type of class) and found that I didn't enjoy it very much. I think it was because I never read the textbook and tried to just dive right into problems, I didn't feel attending lecture ever really helped explain things to me, and I also am not the biggest fan of memorizing equations. NOW, that being said, I've finished single-variable calculus and I am taking multi-variable and lin. algebra next fall term. I truly am interested in physics, but it seems like I'm only interested in it when it's on my terms, but I think it might be worth trying physics again.

Opinions? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you were trying to learn physics by memorizing equations, you were doing it wrong.
 
Jack21222 said:
If you were trying to learn physics by memorizing equations, you were doing it wrong.

I don't mean like equations for entire problems. But let's say, whatever the equation for a Joule is...
 
andyroo said:
I don't mean like equations for entire problems. But let's say, whatever the equation for a Joule is...

Forget the "equation" of a Joule, do you know what a Joule is, without looking it up?
 
Meh. I'm leaning towards work
 
Like okay. I understand the differences between forces being acted ON an ojbect and BY an object, I understand work and etc. But here's my problem. Let's say the problem is, "Figure out the velocity of a satellite in orbit around the earth, given variables distance from earth, and et cetera type variables." I'd assume you use gravitational constant to figure out the problem in some way. I just cannot seem to figure out these types of equations though for some reason
 
andyroo said:
Like okay. I understand the differences between forces being acted ON an ojbect and BY an object, I understand work and etc. But here's my problem. Let's say the problem is, "Figure out the velocity of a satellite in orbit around the earth, given variables distance from earth, and et cetera type variables." I'd assume you use gravitational constant to figure out the problem in some way. I just cannot seem to figure out these types of equations though for some reason

You don't really need much memorization to solve something like that, though. If you understand what it all means, it's easy to derive. For instance, with your example:

v = d/t

In a circular orbit, d is given by d = 2\pi r (the circumference of a circle)

\implies v = \frac {2\pi r}{t}

You can derive that from the basic definition of velocity and simple mathematics.
 
You don't really sound like you like physics at all, to be honest.
 

Similar threads

Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
43
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
63
Views
8K
Back
Top