Talk:895: Teaching Physics - Revision history

Sure at 23:36, 4 February 2021

2021-02-04T23:36:53Z

Meneldal at 02:16, 29 January 2015

2015-01-29T02:16:29Z

Meneldal at 02:15, 29 January 2015

2015-01-29T02:15:46Z

108.162.219.58 at 21:36, 5 February 2014

2014-02-05T21:36:28Z

141.101.99.240 at 14:56, 14 January 2014

2014-01-14T14:56:24Z

69.174.58.132: Created page with "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..."

2013-01-09T20:15:06Z

Created page with "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..."

New page

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 4 February 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Maybe the problem 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]]) 02:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)meneldal		Maybe the problem 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]]) 02:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)meneldal
		+
		+	:I understood the positive curvature version of the Universe as one where the Universe is the surface of a 4D sphere, where there is no real centre.

	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)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 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
+Maybe the problem 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]]) 02:16, 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:15, 29 January 2015
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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 5 February 2014
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)
		+
		+	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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 14 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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 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. ([[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.240\|141.101.99.240]] 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)MARK ZAMBELLI, edited 20140114)