Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

Quote:

Feynman made an excellent point in a witty way. As I recall he said (paraphrasing) "Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it." This is an excellent point.

You also fail to understand what Feynman meant when he made this point. You are using this to criticize education (or at least to say that education doesn't mean anything). Feynman was a college professor who went through the process of getting an education himself.

Feynman (who I listed as my favorite Physicists) always pointed out that the experimental results are what matter. He pointed out that when the experimental results don't match your beliefs, your beliefs are wrong. And, Feynman not only relied on the mathematics, he advanced the mathematics.

Everything I have argued on this thread is consistent with what Feynman said.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

maxdancona wrote:

Layman,You have a basic misunderstanding in how galilean relativity works. you would learn it.

Show me HOW, Max. All you do is repeat your incorrect assertion millions of times over.

If I patiently walk you through what you have wrong, will you learn it? Learning means being willing to drop wrong ideas and develop new ways of thinking about things. This is particularly important when learning to see different frames of references.

I have tried to explain what you have wrong. Every time I do you get defensive, and you start name-calling.

I would try again, but if you keep lashing out rather than learning it would be a waste of both of our time.

I still recommend that you take a course on Physics at a local college. That would be the best way for you to learn what you have wrong.

2 Replies

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I will discuss it with you Max, how's that? If you're asking in advance for unquestioned agreement with any and every thing you may say, then no.

Just answer the question: Get it?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I have, on the other hand, taken your claims, and your citations from wiki, and have demonstrated PRECISELY where your reasoning goes astray, and you ignore every word of it, REFUSING to respond. Who's the bigoted dogmatist here, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Some of your questions are wrong, which makes it hard to answer them without you lashing out. There is something basic that you are missing about Galilean Relativity, you aren't even wording your questions to get at what you are missing.

It is impossible to understand Special Relativity without first understanding Galilean Relativity.

And for you to understand this, you are going to need to drop a preconceived way of viewing motion so that you can see things the scientific way. To this this, any teacher needs to challenge your way of thinking. Can you accept this without calling me a "dumbass"?

I think if you took a physics class, the process of learning might be easier for you. You have already said you think I am "pompous" and that you would never learn from me.

But sure I am game if you are.

1 Reply

@layman,

You learn Physics by studying. You take Physics classes, you do problem sets, you work through the mathematics you do experiments, you accept help from people who know more than you do.

You do not learn Physics from Youtube videos.

You are treating Physics as if it is something you just make up on your own. That isn't how we do it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But sure I am game if you are.

Great. Please start by answering my question, to wit: Get it?

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't believe in the idea that science holds no belief. Science is based on the belief that the human mind can understand nature.

Quote:

I responded with my reasons for disagreeing

In the version of your post I read, you did not. I see that you edited it later adding inter alia the following:

Quote:

I can BE SURE that LA did not come to me as I remained motionless.

There's plenty of ways to answer your riddle about the plane flying to LA, one answer per frame of reference.... But to cut the chase, you and I being street smart and all that, what object in this universe is NOT in motion?

As you are being carried by a plane toward LA, do you think that LA remains motionless?

Do you think the sun remains motionless, as the earth turns around it (for that it certainly does)?

Do you think the center of our galaxy remains motionless as the sun turn around it?

Etc.

Nothing is motionless, Lay. Everything in this damn universe is moving n' shaking. So the question is not "who is motionless?" The only important question is: what's our speed and trajectory relative to other stuff out there.

0 Replies

@layman,

Start with a question then.

If it is poorly worded question that shows that you are missing an important piece of understanding, I am going to say so. I will try to explain what piece of understanding you are missing.

The key to Galilean Relativity is the idea of a "frame of reference". You can define a frame of reference with a "reference point" which, by definition is not moving. So any answer is going to need to have this key concept at its core.

0 Replies

@layman,

Please stick to the topic, which you seem to quickly forget, Max. To remind you THIS was my initial question:

layman wrote:

Refresh my memory now, eh, Max: If I'm not mistaken, your contention is that Galilean relativity "tells you" that, if two objects are moving with respect to each other, it is impossible to know which one is moving. Is that right?

1 Reply

@layman,

That is incorrect.

The concept that you are missing is the concept of a frame of reference. You need to specify a frame of reference (i.e. a reference point). Then I can know with certainty how fast each object is moving.

You are misstating the question because you don't understand frames of reference.

1 Reply

@layman,

To further refresh you memory, Max, after you made a number of incorrect assertions that I disputed, I made this post, the "Get it?," post

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
Galileo pointed out that both frames of reference are equally correct, since the laws of motion work out in each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

You, in both your "logic" and grasp of scientific history" go wrong with the use of the word "since" (meaning "therefore) in that sentence.

Your wiki cite says this:

Quote:
Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames.

This part is quite correct. But the conclusion you draw from it is both logically unsound and contrary to Galileo's own conclusions.

Again, you own citation says this:

Quote:
. Galileo Galilei ... used the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

That too is accurate, as far as it goes, but you fail the pay attention to the qualifications and conditions which make it correct.

Galileo was taking only about what you could detect IF you were in a windowless cabin on a calm sea. Had there been a window, you could have detected your motion (or lack of it) by merely looking out the window.

Galileo went on to say that, once you went up to top deck, felt the winds blowing in your face, saw the billowed sails, and saw that you were moving relative to things on the coast, then would then be NO QUESTION that the ship was moving, relative to the coast, and NOT vice versa. This conclusion would be based on (fuller) empirical evidence and knowledge of elementary physical facts such as: It takes a force to move things, and the wind blowing into the sails give evidence of the necessary force. The wind is NOT causing the earth to move, while the ship remains motionless.

Get it?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The concept that you are missing is the concept of a frame of reference.

Let's stop right there.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are arguing rather than trying to learn or understand.

In this argument, we had an implicit frame of reference. The assumption in this argument is that the Earth is stationary. And since the person in the ship has no way to measure the Earth, he or she would be unable to have this information.

You are misunderstanding the concept.

If you take a Physics course, you will understand. In most first semester Physics courses you not only learn about frames of reference, but you also experience them through experiments and problem sets. These are concepts that every Physics student understand by year 1 of their studies. They aren't debated after that.

If you want to set a frame of reference, than we can work through the problem.

0 Replies

@layman,

I remind you, for about the 5th time, that we are talking about GALILEAN relativity. He had no "frame of reference" analysis.

What one can, if he hauls in some philsophical assumptions of his own, argue that galilean relativity must (given his new baggage) imply, is a SEPARATE question. I would be happy to discuss this separate question too, but let's stick to what galilean relativity, standing on it's own, implies first, OK?

2 Replies

@layman,

He spoke in Italian and Latin, what is your point? The word "world systems" was the same as what we called frame of reference.

You are still more interested in fighting than in learning. These aren't really things to fight about, they are well understood by students after a year of study.

0 Replies

@layman,

As a matter of simple historical fact, Max, Gaileo did NOT have a "special relativistic" view of nature. He believed that you could tell which of two objects was moving, whether you like that, or not, or whether you subscribe to Galileo's view, or not.

Can you agree with that?

2 Replies

0 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know