Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

I'll repeat myself. Will you listen this time, Max, or will you just copy and paste your standard 12-page diatribe touting your own education in response?

I will show you, once again, where your logic goes astray regarding GALILEAN relativity. Newsflash: Galilean relativity is NOT special relativity.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are wrong on two counts.

- You are misusing the term "special relativistic". Galilean Relativity is not the same thing.

- Under Galilean Relativity, motion can only be measured according to a reference point. This defines a frame of reference. Galileo said you could tell which of the two objects was moving... once a reference point had been set.

Galileo also defined an "inertial frame" vs a non-inertial frame, obviously he didn't use these terms, but he defined it mathematically.

2 Replies

@layman,

You are fighting rather than learning.

The problem in your reasoning is that you don't understand how frames of reference work. Under Galilean Relativity all motion is measured from a reference point.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are misusing the term "special relativistic". Galilean Relativity is not the same thing.

Thank you for that concession, FINALLY. SR is NOT GR. That's step one.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are wrong on two counts.

- You are misusing the term "special relativistic". Galilean Relativity is not the same thing.

- Under Galilean Relativity, motion can only be measured according to a reference point. This defines a frame of reference. Galileo said you could tell which of the two objects was moving... once a reference point had been set.

Galileo also defined an "inertial frame" vs a non-inertial frame, obviously he didn't use these terms, but he defined it mathematically.

You are trying to re-write history, Max. That is not what Galileo said. Here's what he did say (next post)

1 Reply

@layman,

Galileo said ( perhaps not in so many words): The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

Do you agree with that, so far, Max?

1 Reply

@layman,

Other than being slightly amused that a few posts ago you were upset with me for using the term "frames of reference" in conjunction with Galileo then sure.

But the problem is that you are misunderstanding what the term "frame of reference" means. So I don't know how this helps you understand. Any discussion that is going to be helpful to you is going to revolve around defining a reference frame. I think that is the first piece that you are missing.

I think you are still more interested in fighting than in learning.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

OK, good. At least we agree on one thing.

Next question: What did Galileo conclude from that?

He said what he concluded, and one thing was this (again, just summarizing via paraphrase)

If you rely solely on the knowledge you can glean from conducting physical experiments in an inertially moving frame, then you will not be able to determine if you are moving or at rest.

Do you agree with that, Max? I do.

1 Reply

@layman,

No, you have it wrong.

Are you interested in learning or just in fighting? This is a key point... if you can get this than it will help you understand a lot more. If you are just interested in fighting that you are wasting both of our time.

If you are interested in learning, then lets focus on this... because it is key.

All motion is defined based on a reference point. Galileo understood this. Without a reference point, motion doesn't have any meaning. It isn't that it can't be "determined" it is that it is undefined.

The examples of the boat and the train assume a reference point... they all assume that the Earth is motionless for the sake of the examples and so the Earth acts as a frame of reference. That might be why these examples are confusing to you.

Again, we are not talking about Special Relativity or General Relativity. This is Galilean relativity that is at the core of classical physics. This is taught in high school and has been well understood by Physics students for the past 500 years.

I can walk you through a couple of examples if you think it would be useful. If you are interested in fighting (rather than learning) they probably won't be very useful since you won't be able to have the change in mindset to understand them.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

All motion is defined based on a reference point. Galileo understood this. Without a reference point, motion doesn't have any meaning. It isn't that it can't be "determined" it is that it is undefined

I asked you if you could please stay on topic. You can't. The question was what did Galileo SAY he concluded. The question was NOT, what words does Max want to put in his mouth 500 years later

Let's stick to one question at a time, OK? Do you agree with this:

Quote:

If you rely solely on the knowledge you can glean from conducting physical experiments in an inertially moving frame, then you will not be able to determine if you are moving or at rest.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are fighting rather than learning.

I answered your question pretty clearly. The answer is "no". And, I explained to you that your question doesn't make sense. And, I tried to explain to you what you are misunderstanding.

The problem is that you still don't understand frames of reference. If you understood this, than I think you would be able to understand a lot more about Physics.

The problem is that you are fighting, rather than trying to understand. This makes it impossible for us to progress.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I answered your question pretty clearly. The answer is "no".

Just to be clear, are you denying that Galileo came to this conclusion?:

Quote:

If you rely solely on the knowledge you can glean from conducting physical experiments in an inertially moving frame, then you will not be able to determine if you are moving or at rest.

1 Reply

@layman,

I am saying that you don't understand the example, and so the question as you are asking it doesn't make any sense.

Galileo understood that motion was defined from a reference point. In the example you are citing, the assumption was that a point fixed to the Earth defined a reference point. The example he was using was making a point about inertial frames.

But before you can understand Galileo's example, you first need to understand what a frame of reference is.

You are fighting rather than learning. There are right answers in Physics, and you have a basic misunderstanding. But instead of learning, you want to argue.

We are both wasting our time.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am saying that you don't understand the example

OK, so you're admitting that you are NOT answering a simple question. What else is new?

Do you, or do you not, agree that Galileo came to the conclusion I stated?

Just "yes" or "no," please.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You could actually learn something here, if you chose. You need to take it step by step, I am not asking you to agree with Physics mindlessly... but you need to be willing to drop misconceptions and work to understand the actual logic behind Physics.

Instead of working through the examples, you are playing word games and taking things out of context based on your misunderstanding. You aren't even making an attempt to understand how Physics really works.

I am serious about my suggestion that you take an actual course in Physics at a local college. It would help you.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Just "yes" or "no," please.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

OK, so you're admitting that you are NOT answering a simple question. What else is new?

Read again. I answered the question. Anyone can see I answered the question.

The answer is "no".

Now you are going to twist words around to make an argument, rather than trying to learn the piece you are missing. You are more interested in fighting than in learning.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The answer is "no".

You've inserted you many irrelevancies that it's no longer clear what you're answering.

Do you deny that Galileo concluded what I said he did?

If you are denying it, I will fetch you a quote from his dialogues. If you are not denying it, then I won't bother.

1 Reply

@layman,

The problem is that you have a basic misunderstanding of what a frame of reference is. You are having trouble understanding the examples of Galileo because of this.

The only way forward is for you to learn about frames of reference. Without this you will not make progress in understanding Physics. That is why I am patiently trying to get you to work on defining a reference frame.

You are here to fight, rather than to learn. And so you are stuck.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Just "yes" or "no," please.

If we were in a court of law the judge would have been ordered you long ago to just answer the question, rather than go on an opinionated diatribe, and by now you would probably in in a jail cell for contempt of court

One step at a time, OK?

Yes, or no?

We've agreed on one thing. I'm trying to see if it's possible for us to agree on two quite simple propositions.

2 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know