Why is the shape of an object not considered in motion on an inclined plane?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the consideration of an object's shape in the context of motion on an inclined plane. Participants explore whether and how shape influences motion, particularly in educational settings, and the implications of simplifying assumptions in physics problems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the shape of an object is not considered when deriving motion equations for inclined planes, using examples of a ball and a matchbox to illustrate different behaviors.
  • Another participant asserts that shape is indeed taken into account, referencing the concept of toppling as an example.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while shape is considered, introductory physics often simplifies scenarios (like using a frictionless inclined plane) to facilitate learning, implying that more complex factors are addressed later.
  • One participant emphasizes that the teaching approach involves starting with simpler cases before progressing to more complicated scenarios, indicating a structured learning process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the extent to which shape is considered in introductory physics. Some believe it is often overlooked for simplicity, while others argue that it is accounted for when relevant. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the balance between simplification and comprehensive understanding.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumption that introductory physics scenarios are always simplified, which may not reflect all teaching approaches. The discussion also highlights the potential for confusion regarding when shape becomes a significant factor in motion analysis.

Deepak K Kapur
Messages
164
Reaction score
5
While deriving formulas/describing motion on an inclined plane, why don't we take into account the shape of the object undergoing motion?

e.g.
1. If I take an inclined plane and place a ball on it, only a small amount of inclination would make the ball move down the plane...

But...

2. If a take a matchbox and place it on the inclined plane, a lot of inclination would make it move down...

Why aren't such factors taken into account?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We do take those factors into account. See toppling.
 
I don't know about you, but "we" always take into account the shape of the object.
When you are being taught how to work out equations of motion, you are taught only the simplest cases - then gradually more complicated cases, until you are good enough to cope with the really hard cases.
 
Deepak K Kapur said:
Why aren't such factors taken into account?
They are when they matter. Often in introductory classes we use scenarios (like a frictionless inclined plane) where such factors are irrelevant or deliberately idealized. This is not an indication that those factors cannot be taken into account, but just a way to simplify learning and avoid overwhelming students all at once.
 
Thanks a lot...everyone.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K