Physics

sariane

In the f=ma experiment why was the mass kept constant?

Feral Mutant

The experiment is to show that F is directly proportional to a. The only way to show that the force's affect on the acceleration is to do the experiment with f and a being the only variables ie do the experiment a few times with only force and mass changing.

CrimE

Well in the experiment you are trying to show that force is directly proportional to acceleration, and as the equation is f=ma if you change the mass it will interfere with the acceleration. Mass cannot be variable as only the other 2 'f' and 'a' are the only variables.

Edit: Damn you feral mutant!

whassupp2

I hate questions like that. there usually the last q on each experiment. i usually make something up. eg. 3 sources of error

HoboJesus

Argh, hate those too. Well, only when my teacher corrects it, because he's a robo-****tard. He'll call anything wrong that's not in the book. Seriously, it's like "Sir what's planck's constant?"
*on the word "Sir" he has already started to look for an answer in the textbook*

sariane

the only i thing i'm finding hard about physics is trying to word things the way they want them to be! like in those questions about describe the procedure you took etc!! i hate doing them!! and thanks for the help!

sully-gormo

Theyve posted papers from the old course(pre-2000) on the sec website. They are SO MUCH harder. We have it so easy in comparison. They questions are the same level of difficulty; theres just so much more material on the old one

--MASH--

what's that website? would like to check that out....and what do people think will come up? im gettin prtty aprihensive(cant spell) now!! doin it myself outside school and this is gonna be the first proper formal exam im gonna do.....well apart from the mock.....

Kovik

I was just looking over the papers... anyone notice how about 75% of the questions asked can be handled by simply reciting the definitions or manipulating a few formulae? Then describe a few experiments, explain a few phenomena and then you're done. I mean, it seems... sort of easy. I mean, assuming you have your ROTE LEARNING (FTW) done.

Raphael

Rote Learning ftl. Case in point, honours maths.

helles belles

Kovik wrote:

I was just looking over the papers... anyone notice how about 75% of the questions asked can be handled by simply reciting the definitions or manipulating a few formulae? Then describe a few experiments, explain a few phenomena and then you're done. I mean, it seems... sort of easy. I mean, assuming you have your ROTE LEARNING (FTW) done.

actually its 60%
my teacher last year used to drill us with the formulae and definitions.
still dont know them tho...

NADA

I'm so glad they got rid of rote learning on that maths paper although it did piss me off a bit. I actually understand maths where as guys in my classes are looking for a's and b's and they could not even add to be honest.

:|

You cant not rote learn definitions and stuff though

DonaldDuck

NADA wrote:

I'm so glad they got rid of rote learning on that maths paper although it did piss me off a bit. I actually understand maths where as guys in my classes are looking for a's and b's and they could not even add to be honest.

I didnt mind that paper as much as some,and if any of that tan inverse stuff had been in my book it wouldn't have been the first time i ever saw it .Id like them to in the future make the papers like ours,I find it extremly stupid to see that people can't even add fractions without their calculator,but these are the people that are geting at least Bs since they learn everything off.The slighest variation in a question means they can't do it.Other than the Trig,maths paper 2 was great for me,and the trig was always my weaker questions.Id say I got decent attempt marks on it though.

The thing with physics is,other than section A its rote learning.No argueing it,you even have to keep to specific words to get the marks usually which just encourages furhter learning off and not understanding anything.

Brods

ho the **** do u rote learn maths? i really dont get it... the tan^-1 is in the text and test book, or whatever its called.... i saw it on monday morning and said pheh, they wont ask that... **** my stupidness, but it was quite easy really altho i didnt do that q... ppl cant graph the sq rt of 3??! thats their fault...

whassupp2

Brods wrote:

ho the **** do u rote learn maths? i really dont get it... the tan^-1 is in the text and test book, or whatever its called.... i saw it on monday morning and said pheh, they wont ask that... **** my stupidness, but it was quite easy really altho i didnt do that q... ppl cant graph the sq rt of 3??! thats their fault...

What they mean by rote learning is people who know what to do but not why they're doing it. For example rote learners are the people who can differentiate easily but cant prove rule of diff.

:|

whassupp2 wrote:

What they mean by rote learning is people who know what to do but not why they're doing it. For example rote learners are the people who can differentiate easily but cant prove rule of diff.

Ah here theres actually no one that does that, like in maths they're the kind of people who try homours but drop down

Raphael

No, that's the way the institute and other grindschools teach Maths.

NADA

The trigonometry thing is in my book and I got the graph right. (hopes)

sariane

DonaldDuck wrote:

The thing with physics is,other than section A its rote learning.No argueing it,you even have to keep to specific words to get the marks usually which just encourages furhter learning off and not understanding anything.

I hate that, if you don't word it specificly you lose marks!

:|

Raphael wrote:

No, that's the way the institute and other grindschools teach Maths.

Well its definitely not they way they teach physics
And the using specific words thing annoys me too, but you have to remember if you don't use those words then you're technically wrong, and you dont understand it fully