PhysicsÂ
Does Von Baeyer show an understanding of physics with the paper he turned in for his final? Yes he does, Von Baeyer showed a knowledge of where physics has come from. He demonstrates a conceptual knowledge of physics by discussing how the greatest minds of the physics came up with the laws and theories that change world as we know it. Von Baeyer use history to his advantage by summarizing the history of heat, by talking about the laws of thermodynamics and how they were discover. Even before the laws were discovered, some great minds were discovering first hand the effects of heat and the potential it holds. In the first chapter Von Baeyer talked about Benjamin Thompson, whom did not discover any laws or theories, but what Ben did was come up with idea that help shape physics for the next generation. After that the paper dived into the discovery of the laws of thermodynamics, starting with the first law and how the law of conservation of energy assigned with the discovery of the first law of thermodynamics. Von Baeyer goes over the peddle wheel, which is uses water to produce electricity. He expressed the importance of waterfall with the higher the waterfall the greater the heat, as scientists did experiment with the peddle wheel they quickly realize that water can generate heat. The paper moves on to the second law of thermodynamics, which is the explanation of entropy, his paper goes on to talk about temperature and the discovery of E = MC square. Von Baeyer has a lot of great ideas, but it’s not with errors, yes there are a lot of historical knowledge in the paper. The problem is that physics isn’t just conceptual knowledge it is also perpetual knowledge.
In Von Baeyer paper, he show a great knowledge of the history and the conceptual parts of physics, but he does show in his paper the perpetual knowledge of physics. Physics is not just theoretical, there are calculus concepts and equations to be derived. Von Baeyer does not demonstrated any knowledge of perpetual physics in his paper. Half the battle in physics is the equations that go along with the laws or theories you’re experimenting with and he shows no equations in his paper. Furthermore physics isn’t just about heat and pretty much Von Baeyer paper is over heat. Does he incorporate other concerns of physics? Yes, but he does not go in depth with those concerns as he does with heat. Would I give him credit for turning this paper in for his AP physics final, yes I would, he would receive probably about a C for a grade maybe a B. If he would have shown some of the equations that go along with perpetual knowledge of physics then he would have received an A, but yes he did deserve some credit for his paper.
In Von Baeyer paper, he show a great knowledge of the history and the conceptual parts of physics, but he does show in his paper the perpetual knowledge of physics. Physics is not just theoretical, there are calculus concepts and equations to be derived. Von Baeyer does not demonstrated any knowledge of perpetual physics in his paper. Half the battle in physics is the equations that go along with the laws or theories you’re experimenting with and he shows no equations in his paper. Furthermore physics isn’t just about heat and pretty much Von Baeyer paper is over heat. Does he incorporate other concerns of physics? Yes, but he does not go in depth with those concerns as he does with heat. Would I give him credit for turning this paper in for his AP physics final, yes I would, he would receive probably about a C for a grade maybe a B. If he would have shown some of the equations that go along with perpetual knowledge of physics then he would have received an A, but yes he did deserve some credit for his paper.