Who is your favorite Physicist?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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

When you renounce you own wiki sources, and deny the express words of Galileo, Max, then there's no communication possible.

You are claiming that Galileo said that, by conducting physical experiments in an inertially moving frame, you CAN tell whether you're moving or at rest.

He didn't say that, but, if he had, that would refute your own claim even more directly, right there.

1 Reply

@layman,

Ok here is the eighth time, maybe we should stop it here.

1. Your problem is that you don't understand what a frame of reference is (in a scientific and mathematical sense). This a key concept in Galilean Relativity. This is not a complex concept, it is covered in high school Physics. Any one must grasp this concept in order to pass a first year Physics course in college.

Yet you are not even making any effort to understand this. You are more interested in fighting than in learning.

2. Because you don't understand what a frame of reference is, you are completely misunderstanding Galileo's example. The question "can you tell if you are moving" is only interested in a specific thought experiment where there is a frame of reference defined.

The question "can you tell if you are moving" is not a meaningful question outside of a single thought exercise that you are getting stuck on. I used to use the exact same example in my high school classes (I used a train). You have to understand the concept to understand the example... and the better students in high school understood it.

3. I can try to explain again how frames of reference work. There is a right answer... this isn't in any debate (other than in your own mind). You see this as a "case in court". Physicists see this as just a basic fact... it is like 2 + 2 = 4.

4. The reason you think there is a contradiction is because you don't understand frames of reference. This is kind of the point of the exercise... but generally the student sees what her mistake is and then realizes what a frame of reference is and why it is necessary.

You have missed the point of the exercise (which was proposed by Galileo). Instead of learning, you have chosen to fight against Physics.

5. If you are ever going to learn anything about Physics, you are going to have to accept that in Physics many of the things that you make up on your own aren't correct. Physics is not something you can just make up, you have to study and work through the problems..

And, you are going to have to accept that people who have studied more than you know more than you. If you don't, than you can't learn what they know.

There are right answers and wrong answer in Physics. You learn the right answers through the process of education.

You are here to fight, not to learn. That's why instead of you learning anything, you keep going around in circles.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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)

What "example" are you even talking about? This whole discussion is about "Galilean relativity." That, in essence, is simply the proposition that the laws of physics are the same in every uniformly moving frame of reference. That comes from the part in the dialogue often referred to as the "parable of the ship." There is NO discussion there about any "point attached to the earth."

That's another big problem with you Max. You can never seem to stick to the topic, because you never even understand what the topic is. As a consequence you just assert one non sequitur after another.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

And, by the way, yes I DO understand what a frame of reference is. That's not germane to this discussion (not so far, anyway). But exactly WHAT is it that you claim I don't understand?

Anything?

In particular?

You made that claim at least 100 times. What is your basis for it? What don't I understand?

0 Replies

@layman,

You are fighting, rather than trying to understand.

I have been saying for several pages that the key point you are missing is what a frame of reference means (in a scientific, mathematical sense). I am not changing the topic at all. I have been saying this incessantly

Until you work through your lack of understanding on this single point, it is impossible for you to progress. You can't understand the parable of the ship without it.

I don't have a copy of Galileo's dialog sitting on my desk, I don't think you do either. You are still seeing this as fighting a "court case" rather than trying to understand anything.

The only rational topic (if you wanted to learn) is for you to gain an understanding of what a frame of reference is, and to be able to do some basic calculations around this topic.

But you are going to keep fighting your court case. I don't think you have any interest in learning anything.

0 Replies

You have said several things that would make no sense if you understood how frames of reference work.

You keep asking if "you can tell" you are moving, or whether it is "possible to determine". These questions you are demanding I answer don't make sense to anyone who understands the concept (and yet I keep answering them anyway).

If you understood what a frame of reference was, you would see why your "court case" doesn't make any sense. And if you understood reference frames, you would also understand why Galileo implied a fixed point attached to the Earth. Actually, this is one of the goals of the parable of the ship... to get the reader to see the contradictions without accepting frames of reference. You have seen the contradictions in your own understanding... but instead of growing in your understanding, you have attacked Physics.

When I tried to explain it to you, you called me a "dumbass".

You are fighting, rather than trying to learn. And, as long as you keep doing that, you will never progress in your understanding of Physics.

0 Replies

@layman,

I'll grant you this: Whenever you talk about any motion, in any context, there is always an express or implied frame of reference. So what?

Let's just take two things: (1) the ship and (2) the shore.

When Galileo says you can tell if you're moving or not when you're in the ship's below-deck cabin, making physical observations, then yes, he is implicitly referring to relative motion between the ship and the shore. But that's not the point here. It's irrelevant to the issue.

1 Reply

@layman,

This is hopeful Layman! Are you ready to learn something here? Or is this going to break down again, with you attacking Physics or me or both. I have had this conversation with students who ended up understanding the concept.

Let's continue (hopefully). What is the point then?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is hopeful Layman! Are you ready to learn something here? Or is this going to break down again, with you attacking Physics or me or both.

Let's continue (hopefully). What is the point then?

Heh. I didn't "learn" anything. I knew that many years before I ever met you.

To understand what any "point" is, you must first understand what the question is.

The question is, assuming that you go up to top deck (or look out a window) and realize that there is relative motion between the ship and the shore, is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Galileo's answer to that is "yes," there is.

And, furthermore, the fact that you could NOT confidently answer that question when you were below deck is irrelevant to the answer.

3 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Heh. I didn't "learn" anything. I knew that many years before I ever met you.

This is exactly your problem. You know so much that it is impossible for you to learn.

Real learning is hard work. You need to study, work through problems, accept help from people who know more than you. This is why we pay so much for an education

You have gotten to the point of "knowing" without ever going through the process of learning. That is why you aren't learning anything. You are more interested in fighting.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The question is, assuming that you go up to top deck (or look out a window) and realize that there is relative motion between the ship and the shore, is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Galileo's answer to that is "yes," there is.

This is incorrect, and it shows your basic misunderstanding. I could explain this to you, it will require that you drop your misconceptions so you can see the right way to reason about this.

This is not a "court case" where you can pull up quotes you googled to prove your misconception. There is a right answer here. I could try to explain it to you, once you see it, you can reason about it to decide for yourself whether it is right or not (once you see it, it is obvious because it will clear up the "contradictions" you see under your misunderstanding). But you have to be willing to drop your misconception.

Can you stop fighting the right answer long enough to learn what you are getting wrong?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
The question is, assuming that you go up to top deck (or look out a window) and realize that there is relative motion between the ship and the shore, is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Galileo's answer to that is "yes," there is.

This is incorrect

What's incorrect? What Galileo said? Are you denying what he said, or are you just rejecting his answer as being the "right answer?"

1 Reply

@layman,

Your understanding of what Galileo's was trying to say is incorrect. Galileo was correct (in this point, Galileo wasn't perfect of course).

You have a basic misunderstanding. Let me try... this is going to be a waste of time if you choose to keep fighting, rather than trying to understand something new, but I will try.

Your mistake is in the phrase "confidently say which is moving, and which is 'at rest'". Here is the point that I think you are missing; any motion has to be measured compared to a fixed reference point. This point defines a "frame of reference" or a "world system". They are a the same concept and Galileo certainly understood this.

So when you say "confidently say which is moving, and which is 'at rest'" you are not suggesting a fixed point of reference. This makes your statement meaningless.

In the parable of the ship, the meaning of the parable is that usually people think of the fixed point of reference as being attached to the Earth... Galileo is challenging you to think of the fixed point of reference being attached to the Ship. He is changing the frame of reference.

If you don't understand this, you are missing the point of the parable.

The first step is for you to accept that any motion must be measured compared to a fixed reference point. Without this, you can't progress in your understanding. Do you think it is worth proceeding?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Galileo was correct (in this point, Galileo wasn't perfect of course).

So, you're saying then, that Galileo was correct in saying that yes, there is a basis for confidently saying the ship is moving, while the earth remains stationary (as between the two of them).

Is that what you're saying?

1 Reply

@layman,

Did you read what I wrote? In order for the word "motion" to have any meaning, you must specify a fixed reference point.

If you use a fixed reference point that is attached to the Earth, then you can confidently say if the ship is moving or not. Without the fixed reference point, the word "motion" has no meaning. It isn't that you can't "know" it. It is that the concept has no meaning.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Did you read what I wrote? In order for the word "motion" to have any meaning, you must specify a fixed reference point.

If you use a fixed reference point that is attached to the Earth, then you can confidently say if the ship is moving or not. Without the fixed reference point, the word "motion" has no meaning. It isn't that you can't "know" it. It is that the concept has no meaning.

You didn't answer the question. Let me answer if for you:

Galileo was treating the shore as the preferred (stationary) frame when he concluded that the ship was moving.

If that's what you're sayng, I agree. So what?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I used this example before (but it may be helpful to someone reading). Motion is like distance in this way.

Consider the question "What distance is Chicago?" The question is no meaning unless I specify a reference point. It isn't that the question can't be known... the question literally makes no sense unless I specify a reference point.

If I ask "what distance is Chicago from Boston?". Now the question makes sense. It can now be answered.

You need to specify a reference point when talking about distance... or the concept of distance is simply meaningless.

Likewise, you need to specify a fixed reference point when talking about motion... or the concept of motion is simply meaningless. Many people who haven't been trained in Physics have trouble understanding this... that is because we learn as children to always consider the Earth as fixed in space. It makes such a convenient fixed point of reference that we rarely need to consider any other until we start to study Physics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

We've already agreed on all that, Max. Why are you repeating that irrelevancy? The topic is Galileo.

0 Replies

@layman,

The word "preferred" is non-mathematical and may be misleading. But sure, it sounds like you are in agreement. We are making progress.

So the problem with many of the things you are writing... you are talking about "determining" whether something is in motion or not.. but you are not specifying any fixed point of reference.

Do you accept my rule? Any discussion of the concept of motion, or any measurement of motion, is meaningless unless there is an understood fixed point of reference. Often the fixed point is understood (usually for humans it is understood as attached to the Earth), but it must be defined or the idea of "motion" is meaningless.

Are you still with me? (We are making progress.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The word "preferred" is non-mathematical and may be misleading. But sure, it sounds like you are in agreement. We are making progress.

So the problem with many of the things you are writing... you are talking about "determining" whether something is in motion or not.. but you are not specifying any fixed point of reference.

Do you accept my rule? Any discussion of the concept of motion, or any measurement of motion, is meaningless unless there is an understood fixed point of reference. Often the fixed point is understood (usually for humans it is understood as attached to the Earth), but it must be defined or the idea of "motion" is meaningless.

Are you still with me? (We are making progress.)

Yes, as I just got through saying, I agree with "your" (it's not yours, but I let that pass) "rule."

OK, so now we argee about one thing Galileo said, as well as the underlying assumption he relied on when he made the statement. Now let's go back to another thing he said, which you haven't addressed: see next post

0 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know