Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 82: Line 82:     
: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate.  I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand.  Good teaching is about .... clear teaching.  It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 
: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate.  I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand.  Good teaching is about .... clear teaching.  It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.
 +
:: [[Pauli exclusion principle|Pauli]]'s version in not only more ''historically'' accurate, it is more ''scientifically'' accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.
 +
:: BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.
 +
:: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
178

edits

Navigation menu