Motion Maps

**This is a very important post for our physics class. I wrote it in an attempt to make my classmates lives a little easier if they don't get motion maps yet. But make sure to see the BOTTOM of this post when you're done so that you can read my new awesome features! (Also known as WIDGETS :)**

It's here. It's scary. It's confusing. But the code has been cracked! The secret discovered! The confusion unraveled!

MOTION MAPS (cue scary thunder music and a flashing picture of a spooky house with lightning striking through- you know what I'm talking about)

Now, many people have expressed concerns in class about their trouble grasping motion maps. But my table is evidently a group of secret geniuses (shoutout to Lisette, Akshil, Jakob, and Zuzanna!) because they explained it to me and all of a sudden I GOT it! So hopefully I can bestow the same calm understanding they have gifted to me over the worldwide web.

You have a set of data points. And a random line that strongly resembles a number line. You have no clue how to transfer those points onto the line in a way that conveys any logical sense. But do not panic! There is an easy way to fix this dilemma!

First- you have to think of the circles you see on motion maps as the TIME, and each dash on the line as a certain POSITION. My table figured out that it is muy facil (very easy, for my snooty French friends ;) to see it if you write the "t value," also known as writing t=1 under the point that is one second, t=2 under the point that is two seconds, and so on. PLOT THE POINTS FIRST. Do NOT even CONCERN yourself with the arrows yet. When you're done plotting the points, you should have each second (or whatever time interval you're using) at the position shown in the data table (or if you're looking at a graph, the coordinates). At this point in time, (see what I did there?) there should be no arrows.

Second- All you have to do know is connect the end of the arrow to the corresponding dot, so that it looks like the dot, a line connected to it, and the tip of the arrow close to the next dot. This totally covers the whole short arrow for slow movement and long arrow for fast movement thing! You wanna know why? I know you're dying to find out! It's BECAUSE, when you plotted the time, you already have how the time corresponds to the position. Therefore, if you only moved one meter per second, you'll have one dot at one meter, another dot at two meters, etc. But if you reached ten meters and started moving at THREE meters per second, all of a sudden the dots are much farther apart right?? Because you'd have one dot at ten meters, another at thirteen meters, and a third at sixteen meters! So when you draw the arrows, you'll get short arrows until ten meters, then they'll be longer! It just makes sense! Right?? (I seriously hope this is making sense right now.)

Try it! See if it makes sense! If you have any questions (I know sometimes I explain things and they totally work in my brain, but to everyone else it looks like crazy talk), ANY questions at all, I BEHOOVE you to leave them in the comments. I want to help!!

**Did you notice my new WIDGETS in the right sidebar? At the top of the page, you can vote on your opinion on my blog! I BEHOOVE you to vote "Definitely!" Also, under my archives, you can see that some people actually look at my blog! You're one of them! It gives me great joy to see those numbers go up, so I BEHOOVE you to visit back often to see my new posts. OR!! You can put in your EMAIL under the views, and then every time I write a new post, BAM! A new email will arrive in your email inbox telling you to COME VISIT ME! So you don't have to check back every day to see- though that's totally fine with me :) I know you all check this EVERY DAY because you love reading my ramblings ;).**

Have a great day and THANKSGIVING!

Velocity, Positon, and Time- Oh My!

This week, we focused on three main graph types after doing the Dora Lab.

Position and Time Graph

These are easy peasy pumpkin squeezy- any simple algebra training makes these no brainers. It seems to me that everybody in class understands this- it's just simple x and y coordinate plane graphing.

Velocity and Time Graph

These can be a little trickier, though I personally am no longer having any problems with them. Velocity is on the y axis, with time on the x. Basically, what we needed to grasp is that the x axis is the reference point. If you have a positive steady velocity heading away from the reference point, it will be a horizontal line above the x axis. If you are stopped, it will be a horizontal line at the x axis. If you are heading back towards the reference point at a steady velocity, it will be a horizontal line beneath the x axis. How far below/above the axis depends on how fast/slow you're moving. My main issue was whether there can be a negative velocity, seeing as it depends on displacement yet we determined there can't be a negative displacement? Is it dependent on whether you're heading towards the reference point or away? I know now that if you're heading away from the reference point it's positive and toward it it's negative.

I know I can get the "right answer," and it feels like I do know what I'm doing, but- let me put it this way. This is harsh, but I can't help feeling like we are traveling a lot of distance right now, but our displacement is close to zero. In other words, we talk a lot, but never make any real progress. That has made physics one huge frustration for me lately. I've talked to some other people, and they feel the same way. I know this doesn't speak for the whole class, but the friends I've talked to and I just want to conclude a topic and MOVE ON. For instance last class, we were arguing for about 15 minutes, and both sides wanted the SAME. THING. I wish we would spend less time on whiteboards and get to actually doing more experiments, because that seems to help a lot of people. Actually seeing how things work. If only the people who don't really understand topics would speak up, because otherwise people who do understand are just randomly talking in circles. If we established the main concerns, people who get it could help, check back in with the people who didn't get it, and if they get it, move on and say, "What are the other concerns?" Say there were four issues people didn't understand. They throw one issue at a time out there, we resolve it, and move on. But when people don't say what they don't understand, the people who do get it don't know what to do and end up wasting the hour and a half talking about things either everybody understands or things that have nothing to do with anything or simply explaining the main concept ten thousand and two different ways, which sometimes confuses even the people who get it and then the class is over and we've made no ground (And that, my friends, is a run on sentence). Then, two whiteboards later, the people who didn't get it say, "Wait, I don't get this." This poses obvious problems. No one's going to laugh at you if you speak up! Don't pull a Melinda on us! (English reference) If you get the problems out there, we can fix them, but if you don't, well, we can't make you talk! We need a solid foundation of knowledge to continue on with other projects, but if we leave a hole in the foundation, when we try to build on it, it will just crumble!

Physics used to be fun. A class I looked forward to. Now, it's starting to be that we make no ground, and we don't have time to talk about fun topics that relate because we're behind schedule.

Sorry. I just needed to get that out there. I was planning on talking about motion maps, but that will have to be saved for another post. I hope when people read this, they either express their concerns in class, speak up when people say, "Is that it? Can we move on?," or help conclude a topic. I'm not writing this for people to just make up an issue to speak on- if we all get it, let's (say it with me now) MOVE ON.

Don't worry. I won't post depressing things too much- hopefully. ;) How about another picture of a cookie to cheer you up?

You enjoy that. Then head over to your pantry and grab one. You deserve it if you persevered through this blog post. :)

Position vs. Displacement vs. Distance

This is a topic we've discussed for quite a while and I think we hopefully landed on some firm definitions for three key terms:

Position, Displacement, and Distance

Position:
Position is where an object is at the end of a time period in relation to the starting point.

Displacement:
Displacement is the length of the space between the reference point and where an object is.

Distance:
Distance is the amount of space the object traveled all together.

So, that's that. I know, short post, but this is an important topic and short and sweet can be best sometimes. :)

Have a good day!   

Dora the X-Plorer

This week I experienced some frustrations concerning a worksheet. It involved position vs. time graphs. The slope was a main topic of discussion; at first the majority thought it was speed, then we decided it was velocity. I guess my main concern was how we got there, and how to solve for velocity. Some people kept saying, you can't divide position, and you have to consider instantaneous speed. To be honest, I was very confused with that. I tried to ask a couple questions, but I was not understanding and I just started getting increasingly frustrated- to the point where I excused myself to go to the restroom and calm myself down- I. Just. Didn't. Get it. I'm not used to that feeling- and to be fair, I was having a bit of an icky day, so I had a short temper. However, I did some research on my own, and found this site that really helped me! (I did this fancy shamncy pants thing where you click on those words and it takes you to the site I found! Wowzers!) Back to happiness! Basically, the slope is velocity- because it involves direction. It is very easy to find- it was getting over complicated in class. All you do is take the change the position and divide it by the change in time, using two distinct points. I felt much more at ease knowing how to solve it- and more importantly, the reason behind why I have to do it that way- it's simple. You just take the distance you traveled and the time it took and you're set. Now, if it is a negative slope, that means it is going in the opposite direction- in essence, you're traveling in "negative distance," because you're going in the opposite direction (towards the reference point). Easy peasy pumpkin squeezy.

We also started a lab this week that I will totally nerd out on and say I LOVEEE. We barely started, but I am already really excited! I think it's mainly because of the crazy awesome tools* we use- the main one being Dora the X-Plorer. She is much nicer and helpful-er (yes. I made that word up. Since this is my own blog I'm pretty sure there's a law that says I can do that. I estimate that's a thing. No, that's old now, right? Yeah. But I hereby declare I can make up words whenever I want to sheiebsklski.) than the real Dora. And Dora's evil stepsister Maraka who I love even though she has a slight 'tude. I will definitely update you on that when we get further! (Further in the lab I mean. Not Maraka.)

*Crazy awesome tools: We have Dora, obviously, who is a calculator- calculadora (omg, the word DORA is in there!!!)- shaped thing that acts like a totally ratchet computer- computadora. (There's DORA again. And yes. I just said ratchet in a science blog even though I have a very very vague idea of the real meaning. Isn't it nice? Or awesome? Or scallywag? Or lolly gagging? Or lacaidasical?**) But that's not all! We also have a motion detector, and this really cool software on the laptops that takes our data and turn it into a graph. We are really lucky to have all these awesome toys- er, tools. We just held a fundraiser where people bought cookies and other baked good products to support our science department to get more things like Dora. I bought Triple Chocolate Chunk cookies and Mini Brownies because I love science! And Dora! And cookies! Mainly the cookie thing.


Seriously! You can't resist 'em! Nom nom nom.

Enough said.

**So I looked up what ratchet means because I was taught never to use a word I didn't know the meaning of. (Which is good advice. Seriously. But then I'd never get to say scallywag! Or lolly gagging! Or lackadaisical!) By definition, ratchet means: a situation or process that is perceived to be deteriorating or changing steadily in a series of irreversible steps. I think us teens are using it wrong. I now change that word to cool. Yeah, cool is a safe word I think I know the meaning of. Cool.


EDIT: I know the cookie picture isn't really working :( That makes me sad. Because they looked GREAT. If you want to see them though, just Google "delicious cookies" and it's the third picture that comes up.

Estimation

I'm baaaa-aack!

I'd estimate it's been almost 3 weeks since my last post! (Fine, you caught me. It wasn't real estimating. I went back and checked, realized it'd been 19 days, and decided to round it to 3 weeks to make it look like an estimation. You're right. I am very ashamed.)

Anyways, a very important subject- or at least a subject I'd estimate is important (that was a good one, eh? Eh??)- brought me home:

ESTIMATION!!!

Now, I personally have very strong feelings toward estimation. I hate it. I just find it easier to find the real number and have no doubt rather than estimating something that we will never need to know. And also, WHY DO THE UNLIKELY SCENARIOS ALWAYS REVOLVE AROUND SCHOOL BUSES????? WHY????

I've given you the troubled past between estimation and I. I know if this was a movie, estimation and I would solve our differences, I'd realize it's history with school buses involved estimation's first love and that's why it feels insistent on using them often, and we'd run slo-mo into each other's virtual arms and declare our everlasting friendship- I mean, that's what I'm estimating. However, the sad reality is estimation and I are on speaking terms, but only during fiestas. When it's required.

Mr. Battaglia has shown us a nice, easy way to estimate that I am learning to accept. I admit, we still have struggles at times- most commonly involving fruit flies (ahem)- HOWEVER, (I think Mr. Battaglia is regretting giving me free reign over my own little section of the Internet where I can freely go on tangents without Mikayla around to PROCESSCHEEECK! me- or at least committing to reading it) it is typically easier to understand than some of the other ways I've been taught.

It involves powers of ten. 10^0 is one, 10^1 is ten, 10^2 is one hundred, and so on. My main issue is once we get to one thousand to ten thousand and things like that, believe it or not. It's hard for me to picture things as big as that, I think is the problem. I typically don't see whether one thousand or ten thousand fruit flies are the length of the bus, so it is very difficult for me to imagine. I need to work on the huge values and how to grasp it. Hopefully I'll get a chance to ask Mr. Battaglia- I'm estimating Monday or Wednesday- what he recommends.

As you can see, estimation and I still have a ways to go, but we are making progress, and hopefully we'll continue to move forward. On a school bus. (I'm estimating.)


***Estimated amount of estimating jokes: 5 (FINE, I counted!)***

5% Rule vs. r^2 value

Starting in the right wing today, we have the lean, the mean, the smaller-the-better.... FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE PERCENT RULEEE!!!!!

And coming to our left wing, we have the "Equation Equalizer," the one that wants to be as close the one as possible, .9999987689 on the calculator but #1 in our hearts, RRRRRRRR SQUARED!!!!!

Today, I asked a question in class. Here, I'll give you the floor, Narrator- or, as boxers refer to it as, the "canvas" of the ring-

Narrator: Well, the floor of our physics classroom is pretty dull- I've been meaning to ask Mr. Battaglia if we can spice it up a bit. But it really works well with spinny chairs and running around in fuzzy socks-

Not that floor, Narrator! Ugh, never mind. Just let me take over. I think we're losing the readers.

We were doing a lab, and a specific group had an r squared value of .997 (the closer r^2 is to 1, the more accurate it is). However, when they used the 5% rule, they got 4.08%- which still falls in the parameters, but is definitely on the higher end of the spectrum. I wondered, how is that possible? Aren't both the r^2 rule and 5% rule supposed to prove the accuracy? So, I asked. And here is the difference:

Both of them determine accuracy. BUT- for different things:

• The 5% rule proves how accurate your data is.
• The r^2 value proves how well your line fits your graph.

Well, that's all for this physics showdown! I hope you enjoyed this battle between our beloved 5% rule and the honorable r^2 value. And remember- though they are both important and good tests of how well things worked, they are different individuals- and we should treat them that way. Hope you all enjoyed this segment of Shirley That's Not Science! I'm Shirley, reporting from the BIBPBAIICSR- obviously, the Battaglia IB Physics Boxing Association Incorporated International Corporation Shirley Rocks. Back to you, Flying Pig.

P.S.: Has anyone noticed I've used bullet points in every single one of my posts? What can I say? They're handy!

***The DIRECT vs. INDIRECT vs. INVERSE vs. PROPORTIONAL Post***

Ahh, the long awaited post. At least for Mr. Battaglia- for my nonexistent other readers (if you do exist, thank you for reading! Thank you! Thank yo- who am I kidding? We all know the only person who reads this is paid to!) you did not know this was coming. But here it is!


These are our definitions for direct, indirect, inverse, and proportional functions. We came up with these ourselves, and they may be corrected later.

DIRECT:

• When x goes up, then y goes up. OR- the opposite, when x goes down, y goes down. (or vice versa)
• POSITIVE SLOPE

INDIRECT:

• As Btags always says is the best definition for indirect- NOT DIRECT
• When x goes up, then y goes down/ when x goes up, y does not (meaning it could stay the same or other crazy functions) (or vice versa)
• NEGATIVE SLOPE

INVERSE:

• Opposite, reciprocal slope
• When x goes up, y goes down
• IF X DOUBLES, Y IS HALVED

PROPORTIONAL:

• Slope is constant
• x to y has same ratio
• DOUBLE X, DOUBLE Y
• Must go through origin

I found that it seems direct and indirect are opposites, as are inverse and proportional.

Hopefully these will be helpful!

Our... Issues :)

Well, I mentioned our Laborama in an earlier post, and this will be a sort of... Blogorama. I know, I know. Calm yourself; don't get too excited.

First, I'll tackle the cliff hanger I left you on last post. As of that conversation in class, we could tell our communication as a group could definitely use some work. We actually had another discussion today and I could tell we were making progress! I will compare and contrast our first issues, and how we have improved.

Issue Numero Uno (I'm taking Spanish! I want to practice what Senor is teaching me- I have a quiz tomorrow!)

• Nobody would listen to each other: We'd hear the other people talk, but we wouldn't listen. What I mean is, somebody would make a comment or ask a question, and everybody would just be thinking about the point they wanted to make, and wouldn't build off what the person before them said.
• Today, I personally noticed- and I tried to practice this too- that after somebody would make a good point, even if a member of the audience had another point to make, they wouldn't say, "Yeah, OK, that's cool. So what I was thinking was.." It would be more along the lines of "Oh, wow! I never thought about that. So does that mean that..."

Issue Numero Dos

• This is kind of the opposite extreme of the issue above: We'd go off from what somebody said pertaining to the subject at hand and go way into left field with it. For example, we would start on direct functions and somehow split into three conversations, one on why pink leg warmers are soo 80's, one on who wants to move to Iceland, and one on why on Earth Hannah is holding a flying pig and hanging it from the ceiling.
• We made a huge effort on not going off topic, and I was personally very proud of us. :) Even if we just started talking over one another, or communicating about the same thing, but just in separate convos, people would start screeching, "PROCESSCHECKPROCESSCHECKPROCESSCHEEEECKKK!!!!" Process check is the IB way of saying get back on topic, though I'm starting to assume it's just a faculty-accepted way of saying shut up.

Issue Numero Tres

• We often wouldn't come to a good solid conclusion before. This time, though, we did it! We made it through 2 whole white board discussions after asking intelligent questions and then- we all agreed on a solid conclusion! I'm *tear* so proud!! Happy dance!

Well, that was the edition on Communication Problems and How We Resolved Them- More or Less. We still have things to work on, but we are improving.

Until next time! #BtagsforPhysicsNobelPrize @Mikayla

A Socratic Circle Order Share Thingamabob

Alright, I'm back!

Yesterday, in our physics class, we did a sort of inner circle outer circle thing, where we were divided into two groups and one went in the middle of the room, set up chairs in a circle, and discussed a problem referring to direct and inverse relationships while the outer circle used this very cool site in which we could comment our thoughts on what was being discussed. (That had to be THE longest run on sentence. Ever.) At first, I was in the outer circle. We were saying that we were kind of on lost on what they were saying, which mostly focused on the method of substitution they used. We thought we offered good, constructive criticism. Then- it was our turn to go in the circle. These were the main topics we discussed.

• "Multiple x's"- This was something we wanted to clarify as discussed by the first group. There was some confusion for them when given a problem such as "When given a/(bx^2), double x," whether they should double the x before squaring it or after. We quickly cleared that up by verifying, Manipulate the variable as instructed in directions FIRST, before following Order of Operations. 
• We also discussed the values of substitution versus theoretical mathematics. Which is to say- plug numbers in for the variables as an example, or just apply the instructions to the variables and try to solve. Using the example I mentioned earlier: substitution would be 8/(4 x 2^2) = 1/2 and 8/(4 x 4^2) = 1/8, so therefore the answer is divided by four. Whereas theoretical would be a/(bx^2) = y and a/(b2x^2) = y and trying to decipher it from there. I've known for a while that substitution is definitely the easier way for me (as you can see, I have trouble even explaining the alternative) but some had yet to decide their method of choice, so we tried many different presentations of how to do it. 
• When using substitution, we talked about which numbers to avoid plugging in, as they can make your answers all crazy-like, therefore leading you in the wrong direction. For instance, if we had used zero in my apparently favorite example ever, we would have gotten the same answer, as zero times two is...well, still zero. So we decided that zero should forever be avoided, and had a lengthy discussion about using 1 which basically resulted in us coming to the conclusion of Feel free to use 1, because sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't, so you have to be careful, because it doesn't always work, except for most of the time in multiplication, and almost always division, but sometimes it doesn't work for multiplication and messes up your results in division, but sometimes it'll work but just be tough to deal with, so only use 1 sometimes. Yeah. 

If you remember from the beginning, the topic was direct and inverse relationships.

As you can see, our class is currently suffering from communication issues. I'm finding myself exclaiming the very title of this blog! (If you don't understand, its because... just leave me a comment. I'll get back to you.) I'll save that post for another time in the near future! I know, I know... She's leaving us hanging?! Shirley that can't be the end of the post!

Hello, Blog!

Well, hello Blogosphere! I've arrived!

My name is Shirley, and this is my blog! This blog will be sort of a diary for my freshman physics class with Mr. Battaglia. I've always wanted to try blogging, so this is sort of exciting.

Anyways, now down to the science-y stuff:

We recently did a laborama, and did a really good board discussion*** on the first lab, Circle Lab #1- which, unfortunately, we did not get to, since our group lollygagged a bit. But thankfully my classmates really cover things well, so I think I really got the gist/what I should have gotten from doing the lab.

We determined/discovered a few key things that should be useful in future labs:

• Data- We realized that if our data obviously doesn't make sense, we should use logic to pick the correct regression for the graph. For example, in this specific lab, which asked the relationship between diameter and circumference, one of the groups found that a quadratic equation best fit their data. However, using common sense will easily show that it's a linear relationship, and from there we found an outlier in their data.
• (0,0)- As a class, we decided that we should add this as a data point in our tables- obviously, only in the labs that make sense (if they have a necessary y-intercept, for instance a fixed weight that you're adding to, adding 0,0 would definitely mess up the data.). We shouldn't force the graph to go through the point (that is an option on Excel), but adding it as a point would definitely help.
• Y- intercept- Again, use our previous knowledge. If it should be zero, take a look at your graph and make sure it's not way out there.
• Slope- This should be easy, but I'll just touch on it for a quick review :). Slope is change in y over change in x. (or delta y over delta x). In this lab, it was change in circumference over change in diameter- and we discovered our slope was pi! That obviously comes from 2*pi*r.
• Units for slope- This was a little trickier for me- not sure I quite grasped it- but basically, I think it you are measuring both variables with the same unit, your slope won't have any real unit. Like for this lab- diameter was measured in centimeters, as was circumference. But if you have speed over distance for example, you will most definitely have a unit (unit for speed over unit for distance).
• 5% rule- This is a rule Mr. Battaglia taught us to make sure our data wasn't crazy wacky: You take the y-intercept and divide by your largest y value in your data, then multiply by 100. If it's 5 or less, your data is within the margin of error. If it's too big, someone made an oopsie somewhere. This proves to be a very good checker. In one of our labs, we got 0.52%!
• The overall equation- we solved 2*pi*r! This was very exciting for me (some people found it thoroughly uninteresting. Humph.).

I think that's it! How's that for my first blog post? :)

***By the way, for the zeros of people reading my blog that aren't Mr. Battaglia, a board discussion is where we write all of our lab group results on big personal white boards and then stand on the outside of the room and take turns discussing our results and coming to an overall conclusion.