(no subject)

[theweaselking]

"Naive Theories Of Motion" - the wrong things people think about how physics works.

We show that these and other findings imply that people develop
on the basis of their everyday experience remarkably well-articulated
naive theories of motion. Further, we argue that the assumptions of the
naive theories are quite consistent across individuals. In fact, the theories
developed by different individuals are best described as different forms
of the same basic theory. Although this basic theory appears to be a
reasonable outcome of experience with real-world motion, it is strikingly
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of classical physics. In fact,
the naive theory is remarkably similar to a pre-Newtonian physical theory
popular in the 14th through 16th centuries.

It's a PDF.

The interviews clearly indicated that at least 11 of the 13 subjects
relied heavily upon a well-developed naive theory of motion in arriving
at answers to the problems. Remarkably, all 11 subjects held the same
basic theory. This theory, which we will refer to as a naive impetus theory,
makes two fundamental assertions about motion. First, the theory asserts
that the act of setting an object in motion imparts to the object an internal
force or "impetus" that serves to maintain the motion. Second, the theory
assumes that a moving object's impetus gradually dissipates (either
spontaneously or as a result of external influences), and as a consequence
the object gradually slows down and comes to a stop.