<p>Gekelman has placed the fear of physics into me. I'm not sure if i can get a decent grade in his class anymore. I was wondering whether it would be possible to switch over to the 6 series if I run away and become a biochemistry major.</p>
<p>Or do you think I should continue on this harrowing journey, seeing as it would be a waste of a quarter if I decide to quit the 1 series? Is that even allowed?</p>
<p>Really? I actually like physics with him (though my grade says otherwise… I guess most people either hate or like him). From what I can tell, it just gets worse from here cause apparently more calculus is needed and it gets “theoretical” with relativity and stuff or something. =/ I’ve heard the 6 series is about the same, just less “hard” calculus. Though this is all based on what other people tell me, so I may be wrong.</p>
<p>I suppose this something you should probably ask a counselor. Aren’t you a Materials Science major though?</p>
<p>It could be worse… (think corbin)</p>
<p>I would switch to biochemistry if allowed. I hear 6 series is basically like AP Physics B. I haven’t been exposed to calculus based physics before, and so it hit me really hard. Or maybe his midterms are just insane. I asked other people, and showed them Gekelman’s midterm, and they said it was ridiculous compared to theirs. Musumeci’s specifically.</p>
<p>Yea, like Zocchi’s was ridiculously easy too. Adding vectors. -__-</p>
<p>Apparently, according to Corbin, Gekelman “likes to be creative, so you actually have to really read the problem”.</p>
<p>So how are you doing in the class? I’m wondering whether I would feel differently had I decided to take one of the other lectures.
Still, does anyone think I should throw in the towel and switch to biochemistry? Or should I stick through physics 1 and potentially wreck my gpa?</p>
<p>If you’re taking 1B next quarter, take Whitten because he’s a gpa booster.</p>
<p>After hearing you say that Whitten would be a good gpa booster, I checked him out on bruinwalk, and got motivated to try again. But, after having taken Gekelman’s latest midterm, it seems like I will have to probably repeat the class or something.</p>
<p>Find the duration of the collision? What the ****? I don’t recall any formula relating to that. The rest of the midterm was strange though mostly doable in 90 minutes.</p>
<p>I really hope Gekelman curves the class as a whole in addition to giving us the little point boost on the midterms. Is that something that probably won’t happen, though?</p>
<p>@ThisCouldBeHeaven To find time of collision you could use impulse=dp/dt</p>
<p>Coldness, I know the feeling. Hopefully I pass enough to take Whitten. That midterm was just what I did not study for / praying wouldn’t be on there <em>cough</em> <em>cough</em> center of mass <em>cough</em>… T_T</p>
<p>Even after 90 minutes I was at a total lost as to what to do. I really hate the fact that I chose Gekelman instead of musumeci or zocci now, like deep deep regret.</p>
<p>Yea, sometimes I think about that too… except, by the time I got to second pass for physics, the only section open was in Gekelman’s. Could have switched into Muscueci later on, assuming they didn’t have quizzes or homework due, but by then, I was in Bauer’s class. (I remember Zocchi’s opened up a bit near 3rd or 4h week, but they already had a couple quizzes and homeworks due.)</p>
<p>And to answer your previous question, I am not doing well, and that was before today’s midterm. (Which has made seriously think about retake plans T_T ) I really do like physics though, despite hating it in high school. (Makes me wonder if I’m doomed to be terrible at things I like… Like chem… >.<… though I’m doing OK at this moment. How are you doing in Tolbert’s btw?)</p>
<p>I’m doing average in Tolbert, but that’s my fault. She’s a good professor with fair midterms.</p>
<p>Regarding the center of mass problem: I split the object into two rectangles, found their geometric centers, and then found the midpoint between the centers of the rectangles. Is this complete BS? lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could you do that even without a continuous function for momentum? I ended up using J = sum(F)<em>delta(t)= p2 - p1, so t = delta(p)/F . I ended up with something like sqrt(8</em>(h-R)/g) which is dimensionally accurate but seemed completely illogical to me. (the collision was a ball hitting the ground, with h-R being the initial height of the bottom of the ball)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I split it into three rectangles, found each center point and took the sum of each center times the mass of its respective rectangle and divided the whole thing by the total mass. I also did the whole square plus the “negative mass” of the missing piece (in scratch to check my answer) and got the same answer. I think the 2nd method is the fastest way, actually.</p>
<p>Yeah, discrete functions for force work well. It’s after midnight, so I don’t really feel like figuring it out for myself now. It looks like you have the right form.</p>