Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

Still no answer, Max? You're what would be called a "hostile witness."

Your own wiki citation says this about what Galileo concluded. Do you agree with your own citation?

Quote:

...any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

Yes or no, please.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

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

Lol. I have now answered the question; "no" on four different posts now. But it really doesn't matter does it. You are here to win an argument "in a court of law" rather than to understand how real Physics works. This "court of law" brings up another misunderstanding; a basic misunderstanding about how science works. And it is an interesting one. And I write this not to Layman, but because it is probably more interesting in a general sense.

The language of Physics is mathematics. When you enter University, you take at least one math course in every semester, and every Physics course involves solving math problems. Once you gain a certain level of understanding, you don't need a "court of law". Answers are well-defined mathematically and decided through experiments.

There are a few reasons for this. English is imprecise, when Layman says that it is "impossible to determine" which object is moving, he isn't really understanding the physics. The word "determine" implies a human agency, and a lack of the ability to calculate. Both of these meanings are feeding into Layman's misunderstanding of what a frame of reference is. He is getting caught of on the words (and then using them to hold onto his misunderstanding) rather than learning.

Of course, to anyone who has taken at least a year of college Physics, Frames of Reference are quite simple and obvious. That is because instead of a "court of law" students go to a physics classroom. We do experiments, we work through problems, we listen to lectures from people with expertise. All of these things lead to an understanding.

There are right answers in Physics. You get them through mathematics, not arguing over the meanings of words. And you get them in a Physics classroom, not a "court of law".

I do not have much education in Philosophy (and I may jokingly swipe at Philosophy, but when pressed I do not pretend to have any expertise other than the books I have read and discussions I have had).

I do have an education in Physics, when Philosophers wander over to the realm of Physics without having any real knowledge of the mathematics behind it.... it is rather ridiculous. I am not sure how Layman rates as a Philosopher (I will have to let people with some expertise in the subject judge that).

But as a Physicist he has a basic misunderstanding of Physics that would be greatly helped by even a single course in Physics at a local college.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Lol. I have now answered the question; "no" on four different posts now[

You've never made it clear what you were answering "no" to, despite repeated requests for clarification.

Are you DENYING what Galileo said? Yes, or no?

Yes will mean: Yes I DENY it.
No will mean, NO, I don't deny it, I admit it.

Yes or no? Admit, or deny?

0 Replies

@layman,

Just so we're clear, respond to this post, yes or no, please:

layman wrote:

Still no answer, Max? You're what would be called a "hostile witness."

Your own wiki citation says this about what Galileo concluded. Do you agree with your own citation?

Quote:
...any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

Yes or no, please.

Do you agree that Galileo came to that conclusion? I've already said that I DO. I agree that he concluded that AND I agree that he's correct about it.

Are we on the same page about that, or not?

0 Replies

By the way Lay, I have the response to your riddle about whether you or L.A. is moving when you fly towards it: both you and Los Angeles (together with the rest of the planet) are moving, and at the wooping speed of 1 million miles per hour, towards the constellation Leo.

That's a lot of miles per hour. I hope you enjoy the ride.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

By the way Lay, I have the response to your riddle about whether you or L.A. is moving when you fly towards it: both you and Los Angeles (together with the rest of the planet) are moving, and at the wooping speed of 1 million miles per hour, towards the constellation Leo.

That's a lot of miles per hour. I hope you enjoy the ride.

I agree with that, Ollie (although not sure about the million MPH part, offhand).

Where we disagree, I suspect, is that, by making that claim, you're repudiating and renouncing Special Relativity.

You're doing that, you probably just don't know it.

You sound like Galileo, not Einstein.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There are a few reasons for this. English is imprecise, when Layman says that it is "impossible to determine" which object is moving, he isn't really understanding the physics. The word "determine" implies a human agency, and a lack of the ability to calculate. Both of these meanings are feeding into Layman's misunderstanding of what a frame of reference is. He is getting caught of on the words (and then using them to hold onto his misunderstanding) rather than learning.

Bingo! That is exactly why layman is doomed to stay a 'layman' !

My own citation of Niels Bohr above was based on Bohr's voicing of his appreciation of the inabilty of 'nornal language' to make developments in physics understandable.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Where we disagree, I suspect, is that, by making that claim, you're repudiating and renouncing Special Relativity.

You're doing that, you probably just don't know it.

You sound like Galileo, not Einstein.

Dr. George Smoot, a physics professor at Berkeley, who recently won a Nobel Prize in physics for his work in connection with the CMBR, is a modern, up to date, physicist and is one of the "experts" I learn from (not Max).

Smoot says the CMB is a "cosmic rest frame" and acknowledges that this claim conflicts with SR. It is only by positing the CMB as a "preferred frame" (in violation of the strict prohibitions of SR) that we can draw such conclusions about the "actual" movement of our galaxy (earth included, of course) toward Leo.

Trivial footnote: Smoot is also the only person (or maybe it's only one of two) to win the million dollar prize on a game show which tests general knowledge.

2 Replies

@layman,

Dear Layman, the original site I was in when I made a comment on Galileo's thought experiment is the stackexchange.com.

At the end of that piece in stackexchange there is the invitation to share comments, even by just choosing your preferred website of connection:
"Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook."

I contributed my comment and the comment comes out in the forum of a sort that is in Google+.

See next post from me.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

I don't know if you saw it, but in response to your post, I gave a citation which explained how Pierre Gassandi first did the experiment back in 1640.

0 Replies

Here, dear Layman, read the write-up of the thought experiment.

Quote:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/253512/galileos-ship-experiment-with-a-laser-pen-instead-of-a-rock?sgp=2

Galileo's ship experiment with a laser pen instead of a rock

up vote 0 down vote favorite

Ship's mast experiment with the boat moving at speed v:
If a rock is dropped from the mast, then for an observer inside the boat they will see this:

For an observer outside the boat and on the shore they will see this:

They both agree that the rock hits the base of the mast at the same time. If the experiment is repeated with a laser pen, then the exact same thing happens. Now, according to Einstein’s second postulate “The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference”. So, the individual on the shore what argue that the laser beam is traveling in a curved path at a speed of c, but he would argue that the vertical speed of the laser beam is:
[ graphics not reproduced here. ]

But an individual on the boat would argue that he measures the speed of the laser beam at exactly c (Einstein’s second postulate)

Therefore, an observer outside the boat and on the shore reasons that the equation

Must be changed to
[ Graphics not reproduced here. ]

Therefore, an observer outside the boat and on the shore believes that time inside the boat runs mores slowly this his time on the outside...

He believes that:

(He could argue that the height of the mast has changed or some combination of the time inside the boat and the height of the mast has changed, but this turns out to be incorrect)
Therefore, the speed of the laser beam inside the boat is not c, but ‘nature will conspire’ to make anyone inside the boat to measure a value of c.

In addition, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the boat, but the direction of light is dependent on the speed of the boat since the direction which light travels (for an outside observer) depends on the speed of the boat.
Is my reasoning correct?

special-relativity
share cite edit

asked May 2 '16 at 16:17

If you measure "X" in nature, then "X" it is, there are no conspiracy theories in science. – CuriousOne May 2 '16 at 18:44

And, observers inside and outside of the boat see the rock using, well, photons, just like they see the laser pointer. No, your reasoning is not correct. – Jon Custer May 2 '16 at 18:47

add a comment

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

0 Replies

Okay, everyone here reading this thread, here is again my post on how easy it is today to do an experiment on, whether a steel ball dropped from the mast top of a ship will be seen by a person from the shore as falling in a curse line, or in straight line, as with the sailors on the deck of the ship.

You see, dear readers here, posters you will meet time and again talking endlessly with name-dropping and technical terms dropping, and never coming to anything that is outside their endless talking, like for example, an actual experiment done outside of their endless talking.

Okay, at the risk of annoyance from endless talkers with name-dropping and technical terms dropping, here is my proposal of an experiment on dropping a steel ball from the mast top of a ship, how it will appear to sailors on the deck and to observers from the shore.
_________________________

Quote:
@layman

From layman:
"It was only because of inertia, Galileo concluded, that when a cannonball was dropped from the mast of a moving ship, it would appear (to those on the ship) to fall "straight" down to the foot of the mast (although it would appear to follow a curved path to a stationary observer on the shore)."
____________________________

In re Galileo's ship experiment… I just contributed this comment to the Google forum of a sort.

Quote:
Here below is the comment above appearing in the net, and the link thereto.

Quote:

https://plus.google.com/

Marius Dejess Public: In re Galileo's ship experiment…

No one has undertaken a factual experiment of getting someone to climb up the mast top of a ship and dropping a steel ball, and another person on the deck at one end of the ship taking a movie filming of the steel ball dropping on the ship deck below, and still a third person on the shore taking a movie filming of the steel ball dropping down on the ship deck.

What will the two films show?

This experiment is so easy to carry out today!

And I have not read any account of such an experiment at all.

https://plus.google.com/

_________________________

Annex

Quote:

From Sus to Layman:

Dear Layman, as there have been experiments I am sure conducted on a say steel ball falling in a straight line from the mast top of s sailing boat, it will land at the foot of the mast, but to observers on shore the ball is falling in a curve line.

Dear readers here, I am as I see into myself, good at thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence, I must submit that I need help from you guys here, who are into “Who is your favorite Physicist?"

So, if I may, can you guys just talk with attention to experiments if any at all having been performed even several times already, as to substantiate your talking?

Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read of experiments already done by enterprising scientists, into the matters at issue with the debating posters here in this thread on: “Who is your favorite physicist?"

For I hope to read something here that is not into endless name-dropping and technical terms dropping, but grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence, AND also now on experiments already successfully conducted by scientists.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Dr. George Smoot, a physics professor at Berkeley, who recently won a Nobel Prize in physics for his work in connection with the CMBR, is a modern, up to date, physicist and is one of the "experts" I learn from (not Max).

Now, if you were to ask Max, I suspect that he would claim to know just as much about physics (although probably more) as Smoot.

But, who knows, he might just dismiss Smoot as a total crank, unworthy of even speaking about.

0 Replies

@layman,

I am not repudiating anything but your deformed (mis)understanding of Einstein.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I am not repudiating anything but your deformed (mis)understanding of Einstein.

Hahahahaha. Sorry, Ollie, I can't help but laugh. You flat out prove that you DON'T understand SR when you say that.

I would advice you to "wise up," but any such suggestion would be futile. You have already decided where your "allegience" and faith lie, and you will never consider abandoning your faith, come hell, high water, or God forbid, facts.

But don't feel alone, or that I'm singling you out. Nobody who's posted here seems to understanding the theoretical underpinnings of SR.

Certainly not Max, the cargo cult scientist. And certainly not Fresky, the solipsistic poseur.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are fighting rather than learning; googling to win your case in some "court of law" (as you said). Physics doesn't work that way, you need to take the time to study the concepts, do the problems. You don't learn by just taking quote out of context that you find on Google.

For you to understand what Smoot is saying about the rest frame, you need to first understand what a frame of reference is. This is the problem with everything you are saying on this thread.

You can't do physics by just googling quotes out of context to support what feels right to you. That isn't how Physics is done. If you don't want to take the time to learn about what a "rest frame" is, not in a "court of law" sense... but in a scientific mathematical sense.

You may think you are winning your case in this court of law. But that isn't how science is done. Everyone who takes a first year course of Physics in college learns about what frames of reference are and how to use them. I keep suggesting that you do this.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Yeah, yeah, Max, post that for the 10,000th time.

You only prove how utterly insincere you are in claiming to be willing to rationally discuss the topic at hand.

A long time back, for about the 5th time, I asked you a simple question to see if we could agree on just two things (seeing as how we agreed on one, so far).

You refuse to answer, as you ALWAYS do. The question (this time around) was:

Quote:

Do you agree that Galileo came to that conclusion? I've already said that I DO. I agree that he concluded that AND I agree that he's correct about it.

Are we on the same page about that, or not?

I've seen your type of "teacher" before, as I said. They will NEVER answer questions because they don't want to commit themselves to any answer for fear of where it might lead.

1 Reply

@layman,

You laugh a lot for someone who's got no argument... :-)

1 Reply

Dear readers here, I came on the links to these two write-ups in Forbes, almost on the same idea, but in connection with relativity of Einstein on the one hand, and quantum mechanics with the advocates of this most weird kind of physics, on the other hand:

Quote:

Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/.../three-experiments-that-show-relativity-is-rea...
Jul 22, 2015 - Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of ... The "Einstein Cross" seen by the Hubble Space Telescope. The outer four ...
____________________________

Three Experiments That Show Quantum Physics Is Real - Forbes
www.forbes.com/sites/.../2015/.../three-experiments-that-show-quantum-physics-is-rea...
Jul 20, 2015 - Quantum physics predicts a bunch of phenomena that seem really bizarre, but have been unambiguously confirmed by experiments. Here are ...

Hahahahahahaha!

Now, consider in re quantum mechanics. that even its advocates say that anyone, even among themselves, claiming to understand quantum mechanics, does not know what he is talking about.

Wonder of wonder! but when you read any write-up in the media about quantum mechanics, it is now de rigueur that the writer must mention at the start:

That this is the most proven theory from experiments to be true, whatever he means by 'true', when even the advocates of quantum mechanics tell us that even they themselves can't understand it.

And when you search the net for the many experiments proving quantum mechanics to be true, what will you find out?

The only experiment is the double-slit socalled experiment, in wich a ray of light is made to pass through two slits, first through one slit, and then through both slits at the same time, and voila, that proves that matter at its most elementary core is both a particular and a wave.

Now, dear readers, go read about sub-atomic particles, there is endless coverage about sub-atomic particles, but and correct me if I am wrong, nothing about sub-atomic waves.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Okay, dear physicist wannabees, go forth and talk about your favorite physicist.

Quote:

Urban Dictionary: wannabee
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wannabee
They all have stupid pictures of themselves looking shocked and pathetic and they all slit their wrists because someone who isnt a wannabee totally pwns them.

0 Replies

@layman,

I answered six times now. For the seventh time, the answer is "no". I do not agree.

You are misunderstanding what Galileo is saying because you don't understand what a frame of reference is. When you read the example in the dialog, you are getting it wrong because you don't understand that there is an implied frame of reference (a point attached to the Earth).

You have it wrong because you don't understand it. If you took a course in Physics, rather than googling things off the internet to support your misconceptions than you would understand it.

Apparently you don't like being taught (you suggest that you have had trouble with other teachers). That isn't surprising... whenever someone who knows more than you tries to explain anything to you, you call them a "dumbass".

Why do I know more than you? Because I spent years studying Physics, learning from people who were experts in the field. I did the work, solved the problem sets, listened to lectures. When I had a misconception, I didn't fight the people who were helping me understand. I worked through it until I learned.

It is fact... people who study something know more than people who don't. I don't know why this is a problem for you to accept, it is just a fact.

Your understanding of Physics seems to be just things that seem right to you, buttressed by Google searches. You don't claim to have taken a class, or studied math, or worked with a teacher, or done experiments in a lab, or written papers that were critiqued. And yet you are attacking Einstein and citing Smoot.

There are right answers in Physics. And there is a right way to learn them.

But you are more interested in fighting than in learning.

2 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know