Angry Birds On a Physics Exam

lame question, how do we know the gravitation pull in angry birds world...
...teachers these days...
 
High school exam? It fits.

From the source's blog:

SNQYc.jpg
 
Steve said:
You might want to start thinking about a new school. :D
Click to expand...

I disagree Steve.

A physics problem is a physics problem is a physics problem. It doesn't become any easier or brain-dead if you use a reference to a game, but it does get kids more interested in the problem.
 
It's actually a good way to pose a question, It has a visual that is stimulating to the brain.

Or something like that >.>
 
A smart ass would define the physics of the angry birds universe before answering the question just so the teacher has to do the math to make sure it was answered correctly.
 
A teacher do the math? Easier to just mark it as wrong and tell the student to go f*** themselves.
 
Well if the initial vertical velocity is 13.05 m/s then it will be up 2m after 2.5 seconds. The horizontal component is obviously 22 m/s, so the launch angle is:

atan(13.05/22) or 30.68 degrees ... yeah? no?
 
is it an African or European red bird?


(why not launch the bird backward to get the golden egg, and waste the other 3 birds to call in the Mighty Eagle to clear the level?
 
Cmon guys, the teacher is using a familiar icon during a test to add some humour and possibly relive some stress. Props to the prof on this one :)
 
xorbe said:
Well if the initial vertical velocity is 13.05 m/s then it will be up 2m after 2.5 seconds. The horizontal component is obviously 22 m/s, so the launch angle is:

atan(13.05/22) or 30.68 degrees ... yeah? no?
Click to expand...

I would think it would be more along the lines of 60-55 degrees.
 
duncansil said:
Cmon guys, the teacher is using a familiar icon during a test to add some humour and possibly relive some stress. Props to the prof on this one :)
Click to expand...

Agreed. Im not a physics or a math guy, but I would have been more interested in this problem if it were given (back in the day).
 
So it's not just me that tries to reinforce his feeble physics problem answers with sloppy handwriting and crossed-out equations?
 
xorbe said:
Well if the initial vertical velocity is 13.05 m/s then it will be up 2m after 2.5 seconds. The horizontal component is obviously 22 m/s, so the launch angle is:

atan(13.05/22) or 30.68 degrees ... yeah? no?
Click to expand...


mannyman said:
I would think it would be more along the lines of 60-55 degrees.
Click to expand...

xorbe, you are correct.

For a flight time of 2.5 seconds, assuming a level plane, we can make the equation y = v0yt + 1/2gt^2 = (12m-10m). g is -9.8m, and t is 2.5s, so we can simplify to 2.5v0y -4.9(2.5)^2 = 2. So v0y is 13.05m/s. we can also make the equation x = v0xt = 55m, so we know v0x is 22m/s. Angle is arctan(y/x), which is 30.6 degrees
 
nalc said:
xorbe, you are correct.

For a flight time of 2.5 seconds, assuming a level plane, we can make the equation y = v0yt + 1/2gt^2 = (12m-10m). g is -9.8m, and t is 2.5s, so we can simplify to 2.5v0y -4.9(2.5)^2 = 2. So v0y is 13.05m/s. we can also make the equation x = v0xt = 55m, so we know v0x is 22m/s. Angle is arctan(y/x), which is 30.6 degrees
Click to expand...

I don't think angry birds is an exact replica of real physics, That being said 0 is straight south right? 45 would be between west and south, so 55-60 would put it on a trajectory to knock the pig off, Not land on it.

I didn't steal anything from the comments page i have just played angry birds a lot.
 
It's a trick question. There is no red bird or green pig since it's in black and white.
 
mannyman said:
I don't think angry birds is an exact replica of real physics, That being said 0 is straight south right? 45 would be between west and south, so 55-60 would put it on a trajectory to knock the pig off, Not land on it.

I didn't steal anything from the comments page i have just played angry birds a lot.
Click to expand...

The question asked of the launch angle in respect to horizontal, so the answer would be the degree of separation from horizontal.
 
mannyman said:
That being said 0 is straight south right?
Click to expand...

Ah, the question says relative to the horizontal (so due east is 0 degrees). I think you're saying the same thing except rotated 180 degrees and off the negative vertical axis.
 
Wow, my Chemistry teacher was obsessed with Angry Birds. If he taught physics, he probably would have made a question like that LOL
 
xorbe said:
Ah, the question says relative to the horizontal (so due east is 0 degrees). I think you're saying the same thing except rotated 180 degrees and off the negative vertical axis.
Click to expand...

We're looking at this from the side, so north/south/east/west don't really apply.

The universally accepted physics convention is that by the angle, we are referring to angle above the horizontal. That's up and to the right in the diagram.

mannyman said:
I don't think angry birds is an exact replica of real physics, That being said 0 is straight south right? 45 would be between west and south, so 55-60 would put it on a trajectory to knock the pig off, Not land on it.

I didn't steal anything from the comments page i have just played angry birds a lot.
Click to expand...

This is a word problem of a very common physics problem, where you calculate the flight time. You have several values - the distance to target, the flight time, the angle, and the initial velocity. Given any two of those, you can calculate the other two. In this case, it's distance to the target (with a slight twist - the target is elevated 2m) and flight time. The math is for hitting the ground directly at the target. For angry birds, the objective is to hit the target from the side with significant horizontal velocity. This isn't taking that into account, and the problem gets somewhat more complicated. It's merely a way to pique the students' interest in the subject matter.
 
nalc said:
We're looking at this from the side, so north/south/east/west don't really apply.

The universally accepted physics convention is that by the angle, we are referring to angle above the horizontal. That's up and to the right in the diagram.



This is a word problem of a very common physics problem, where you calculate the flight time. You have several values - the distance to target, the flight time, the angle, and the initial velocity. Given any two of those, you can calculate the other two. In this case, it's distance to the target (with a slight twist - the target is elevated 2m) and flight time. The math is for hitting the ground directly at the target. For angry birds, the objective is to hit the target from the side with significant horizontal velocity. This isn't taking that into account, and the problem gets somewhat more complicated. It's merely a way to pique the students' interest in the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Steve said:
Angry Birds on your physics exam? You might want to start thinking about a new school. :D
Click to expand...

Exactly...Must be 8th grade school physics.

I guess some bright teacher decided using angry bird examples was the only way to keep it interesting to their kids.

To be accurate, you really would need to be given or know the coefficient of drag for the angry bird object as well. to determine the final velocity and initial velocity based on the average velocity (which is given by flight distance and time), then work backward to find the height and angle that produces the flight height given the gravitational accelleration down through out the flight. Basically, I see it as a shortcut way of teaching rudimentary concepts, not real physics, akin to an electronics teacher teaching AC current squared = voltage squared times current squared (which is junior high school level electronics) when in reality you have to use vector algebra and current angle based on impedance...etc... In short, its not physics, it's just a way to keep kids occupied.


Then again, it kept me occupied long enough to write this critique in the first place, so I guess I am not the best one for complaining about it. ;)
 
BBA said:
Exactly...Must be 8th grade school physics.
Click to expand...

Depends upon the school I guess, but my niece is starting the 9th grade next year and she's in physics, but it's a conceptual physics course, not mathematical. That question is more a Physics 1 for Physics/Engineering majors type question.

Also, I'm curious where the picture came from, if a student took a picture of his test during an exam that'd worry me as a teacher.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Depends upon the school I guess, but my niece is starting the 9th grade next year and she's in physics, but it's a conceptual physics course, not mathematical. That question is more a Physics 1 for Physics/Engineering majors type question.

Also, I'm curious where the picture came from, if a student took a picture of his test during an exam that'd worry me as a teacher.
Click to expand...

That question is definitely a grade 10 or lower question..
 
On my freshman college physics exam two years ago, the free-fall acceleration question was based on the the dual masses of two very interesting components: Gandalf and the Balrog.
 
BBA said:
Exactly...Must be 8th grade school physics.

I guess some bright teacher decided using angry bird examples was the only way to keep it interesting to their kids.

To be accurate, you really would need to be given or know the coefficient of drag for the angry bird object as well. to determine the final velocity and initial velocity based on the average velocity (which is given by flight distance and time), then work backward to find the height and angle that produces the flight height given the gravitational accelleration down through out the flight. Basically, I see it as a shortcut way of teaching rudimentary concepts, not real physics, akin to an electronics teacher teaching AC current squared = voltage squared times current squared (which is junior high school level electronics) when in reality you have to use vector algebra and current angle based on impedance...etc... In short, its not physics, it's just a way to keep kids occupied.


Then again, it kept me occupied long enough to write this critique in the first place, so I guess I am not the best one for complaining about it. ;)
Click to expand...

For a relatively small and aerodynamic object, at relatively low speeds, the drag isn't that much. The point is to teach the concept of resolving forces into x-components and y-components, solving separately, then re-combining, which is a very important concept in physics. The coefficient of drag just adds another mathematical step requiring a little more calculus - conceptually, it's not that big of a deal. I don't think your AC current example is quite comparable, because phasors are necessary to understand how AC works. 2D motion works fine ignoring drag under the assumption that the drag term is insignificant compared to the other terms, and adding it in is more of a calculation step than a conceptual step (the concept is just that there is a drag force that is linear with velocity).
 
BBA said:
Exactly...Must be 8th grade school physics.

I guess some bright teacher decided using angry bird examples was the only way to keep it interesting to their kids.

To be accurate, you really would need to be given or know the coefficient of drag for the angry bird object as well. to determine the final velocity and initial velocity based on the average velocity (which is given by flight distance and time), then work backward to find the height and angle that produces the flight height given the gravitational accelleration down through out the flight. Basically, I see it as a shortcut way of teaching rudimentary concepts, not real physics, akin to an electronics teacher teaching AC current squared = voltage squared times current squared (which is junior high school level electronics) when in reality you have to use vector algebra and current angle based on impedance...etc... In short, its not physics, it's just a way to keep kids occupied.


Then again, it kept me occupied long enough to write this critique in the first place, so I guess I am not the best one for complaining about it. ;)
Click to expand...

Drag can be neglected in this case since at low speeds it is very small compared to other forces. It is most significant at high speeds.

Anyway, the problem seems to be part of a basic physics couse so you can't really expect more advanced concepts.
 
BBA said:
Exactly...Must be 8th grade school physics.

I guess some bright teacher decided using angry bird examples was the only way to keep it interesting to their kids.

To be accurate, you really would need to be given or know the coefficient of drag for the angry bird object as well. to determine the final velocity and initial velocity based on the average velocity (which is given by flight distance and time), then work backward to find the height and angle that produces the flight height given the gravitational accelleration down through out the flight. Basically, I see it as a shortcut way of teaching rudimentary concepts, not real physics, akin to an electronics teacher teaching AC current squared = voltage squared times current squared (which is junior high school level electronics) when in reality you have to use vector algebra and current angle based on impedance...etc... In short, its not physics, it's just a way to keep kids occupied.


Then again, it kept me occupied long enough to write this critique in the first place, so I guess I am not the best one for complaining about it. ;)
Click to expand...
Actually, a large part of physics is knowing when to approximate. It's nice to see [H] users are as pretentious as ever, though.
 
Does anyone else in here feel like their physics and math teacher completely failed to teach them enough in Highschool?

I have a good memory, but I never remember being taught flight time & trajectories.

I feel about 2" tall now with everyone else who knows how to work that math problem... and I used to think I was good in math back in HS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top