Difference between revisions of "Talk:895: Teaching Physics"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
I hit something like this when analogising the expansion of the Universe with dots on a balloon... people have a hardtime ignoring the insides of the balloon and think that is the centre. Goes to show how analogies can only go so far. ([[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.240|141.101.99.240]] 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)MARK ZAMBELLI, edited 20140114)
 
I hit something like this when analogising the expansion of the Universe with dots on a balloon... people have a hardtime ignoring the insides of the balloon and think that is the centre. Goes to show how analogies can only go so far. ([[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.240|141.101.99.240]] 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)MARK ZAMBELLI, edited 20140114)
 +
 +
Maybe with the universe is that the actual topography of the universe is still unknown. So since nobody knows what is the shape of the universe, it makes indeed little sense to try to define a centre. If the universe turns out to be a sphere (even if it doesn't seem likely) we could define a centre.[[User:Meneldal|Meneldal]] ([[User talk:Meneldal|talk]]) 02:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)meneldal
  
 
An analogy doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be helpful. It is meant to be a stepping stone between not understanding and full understanding, so your mind can take two smaller leaps instead of one huge one.  Apologies for the poor analogy.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 
An analogy doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be helpful. It is meant to be a stepping stone between not understanding and full understanding, so your mind can take two smaller leaps instead of one huge one.  Apologies for the poor analogy.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 21:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:15, 29 January 2015

I guess that this emphasize how a good intended teacher try to explain the general parts of the topic with simple words and this is ruined by a douche student.... I think that is the same student that says "Boooooring" when the teacher explain it without any analogy. Pablo Ochoa

I hit something like this when analogising the expansion of the Universe with dots on a balloon... people have a hardtime ignoring the insides of the balloon and think that is the centre. Goes to show how analogies can only go so far. (141.101.99.240 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)MARK ZAMBELLI, edited 20140114)

Maybe with the universe is that the actual topography of the universe is still unknown. So since nobody knows what is the shape of the universe, it makes indeed little sense to try to define a centre. If the universe turns out to be a sphere (even if it doesn't seem likely) we could define a centre.Meneldal (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)meneldal

An analogy doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be helpful. It is meant to be a stepping stone between not understanding and full understanding, so your mind can take two smaller leaps instead of one huge one. Apologies for the poor analogy. 108.162.219.58 21:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)