Physics

Man, this intention is hard. I'm helping some twins through their physics course next monday (a little extra income, you know), but this means I have finally got to face some of my only non-understandings in my maths studies. What is with the energy?

I have a vague feeling for potential energy and kinetic energy, but now I have to REALLY figure it all out by monday. Why do physics books never present their theories in a simple, mathematical way, like:

Potential Energy is generally defined as ... (some integral formula, probably) and then in a sidebar: "by this definition, the potential energy is a value applicable to a {particle?, system?, can of worms?, ...}".

In most cases considered in this course, we only look at this simplified definition: ..., which is applicable in these cases: ... etc etc...

And then I'm using the course these twins are following, which is basically "physics for dummies": only half the steps in any "proof" are given, nobody ever mentions that a proof given for a particle cannot simply be repeated for a body, let alone that there is a proof for a body as well, but this is considered proven for the rest of the course.
I REALLY HATE dummy-courses in any exact science, and I am convinced that they only make matters worse. there is just no way that people are going to do anything remotely interesting with science that is "thrown upon them" without reasonable explanation. They will not even learn how to think because of it (obviously). I learned chemistry this way, and though I am interested in the subject (there HAS to be a REASONABLE explanation for all these funky rules that you get battered with, no?), I am disgusted as well: fat chance I will never understand chemistry at all.

I'm going to stop ranting now, and switch to the positive news: The Go For Music newsletter once again proved its relevance to me: it taught me that Badly Drawn Boy ([captain's voice]Ladies and gentlemen, when you look to the left, you will see a cloud that looks exactly like BDB. [passenger's voice]My god, this guy is everywhere!) has a new CD out, but even better so: NIN is coming to Belgium again, for two concerts, on 18 and 19 march. If anybody buys me a ticket to one of them for my birthday, they'll probably be too late.

Ilse is now into jazz and blues on her violin (well, she's taking that kind of course). Tonight, I got to accompany her on guitar: that was beyond cool! Demonstating to her that she just learned all about twelve bar blues, finding out that major and minor pentatonic scales are not just some fooling around (her teacher, Sioen's violin player, is showing her some of the theory behind it all), and finally finding something in music that I have a tiny edge over her (Uh, that will last for... maybe a few lessons more =) ). It's incredible fun to just make music together, whether she's playing piano and I am putting on my best Louis Armstrong (you might be amazed - I do a terrific Yoda too), whether she's singing along to my guitar-abuse or whether we just play something together: there is more than one meaning of harmony.

Great way to end my post: harmony is after all just about physics in one of the two meanings. Would the other one be too?