I asked for tutoring help in GQ, stated the thread could be moved, said that the tutoring would happen off site, and Chronos closed the thread because he doesn’t like what I’m asking for.
No one asked you to participate, Cronos, and I know you outrank me in physics by about 10k times, but the fact is that the methods taught in school for this topic ARE cheats to get the right answer, and not explanations of what’s actually happening. You don’t have to like it, but you certainly don’t have to bully me into not asking for a deeper explanation. You wouldn’t even just move the thread.
This thread may shortly be moved, however, to ATMB, because you appear to be complaining about moderation, and that’s where those threads go. Which, since you’ve apparently been a member for 22 years, I would think you would already know.
I’m not a moderator, unlike @Chronos, but I imagine that you could have posted the request in the Marketplace and had a better response. You’re a Charter Member so you should have access to create a thread there. Also, I don’t think your request would violate the rules in that forum, maybe if you ask him he would reopen it and move it there?
I suspect that it was your aggressive stance that got the thread closed, though.
Objections to my request and attempts to tell me how I’m wrong will be ignored when they are put in this thread. Just stop. The fact that the physics classes teach it this way does not mean it’s the real explanation.
Starting off a thread in such an authoritarian way does not bode well, which might be why he said…
If you are referring to the thread linked below, I assume it was closed because of the immediately combative tone and insistence that you would ignore anyone you disagreed with:
I had considered attempting a response but I’m not interested in ‘tutoring someone’ via Zoom nor being told how I can and cannot attempt to explain the phenomenon. I will say that trying to explain precession in the fashion you demanded (“Your answer has to be that ‘this pushes here, and this forces that’”) is gong to be unsatisfying at best, and likely deeply misleading because the phenomenon involves an understanding of vector calculus and differential equations as well as the concept of rotating frames of reference and moments of inertia, which can only be really understood with math.
Just as you wouldn’t write a sonnet with trigonometric formulas (at least, not a very good one), you can’t really explain anything beyond trivial physical mechanics in natural language. The things you refer to as “mathematical cheats” are the formulas and techniques to provide a way to illustrate the principles without mathematics beyond algebra and simple trigonometry; if you eschew these for a more fundamental understanding then you have to get into the math because that is the language of physics.
What you can say to a high school level audience is that gyroscopic precession is the result of conservation of angular momentum of a rotating system that is acted upon by an external torque (in the case of a top, that is gravity acting at the center of mass and the reaction force at the tip) and that instead of just falling over like a non-rotating object it falls around in a circle. That is the clearest and most succinct natural language explanation there is to be had, and getting to anything more fundamental requires the above-mentioned mathematics.
Hire A Tutor, you Entitled Jerk. Get off your ass, hire someone, and go from there.
Who do you think you are that we are some group of servants to jump to your every beck and call!?
Out of the spare time available, some of us may be willing to answer some questions… but to be so entitled!?
This is a forum for discussions. Your post was combative and specifically excluded any discussion. What exactly did you expect other than it being closed down? The people who could actually help you understand are the very ones you are turning away from with your hands over your ears saying “LALALALALALALALA DON’T TALK TO ME STOP HELPING STOP HELPING”.
Not quite a sonnet. But Stansislaw Lem was up to the challenge!
" Come, let us hasten to a higher plane,
Where dyads tread the fairy fields of Venn,
Their indices bedecked from one to n,
Commingled in an endless Markov chain!
Come, every frustrum longs to be a cone,
And every vector dreams of matrices.
Hark to the gentle gradient of the breeze:
It whispers of a more ergodic zone.
In Riemann, Hilbert or in Banach space
Let superscripts and subscripts go their ways.
Our asymptotes no longer out of phase,
We shall encounter, counting, face to face.
I'll grant thee random access to my heart,
Thou'lt tell me all the constants of thy love;
And so we two shall all love's lemmas prove,
And in our bound partition never part.
For what did Cauchy know, or Christoffel,
Or Fourier, or any Boole or Euler,
Wielding their compasses, their pens and rulers,
Of thy supernal sinusoidal spell?
Cancel me not - for what then shall remain?
Abscissas some mantissas, modules, modes,
A root or two, a torus and a node:
The inverse of my verse, a null domain.
Ellipse of bliss, converge, O lips divine!
The product of our scalars is defined!
Cyberiad draws nigh, and the skew mind
Cuts capers like a happy haversine.
I see the eigenvalue in thine eye,
I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh.
Bernoulli would have been content to die,
Had he but known such a^2 cos 2 phi! "
It’s a good effort but still in English (or translated from Polish into English, I assume). I have have seen actual efforts to produce different forms of short poetry (couplets, acrostics, haiku) in actual mathematical formula or proof, but they are rarely good mathematics and never aesthetically pleasing to read even for mathematicians. Mathematics is great as a grammar and vocabulary for describing formally rigorous mechanics, but not so much for beauty (and those who go looking for ‘beauty’ as a guiding principle of fundamental physics often get wrapped around the axle over what that even means) while natural languages offer nuance and multiple interpretations that can express great beauty and complexity but are not explicit enough to use for formal logic or describing physical principles without applying onerous constraints on semantics.
Slighty more seriously, I believe it’s in Canticle For Leibowitz that somebody asks a scientist to explain his discoveries ‘Not in mathematics, but in natural language.’ The scientist responds ‘Mathematics IS the natural language of science. I can say in a short equation something that would take pages of words to explain.’