Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

layman wrote:

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.

You never addressed the second part of this, to wit: "And, furthermore, the fact that you could NOT confidently answer that question when you were below deck is irrelevant to the answer."

Do you disagree with that part, Max? I mean disagree with Galileo's attitude about it (not your attitude)?

1 Reply

@layman,

You just agreed that the concept of motion is meaningless unless we have decided on a fixed point of reference.

When you say " is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?" you are asking me a question about motion. So we need a fixed point of reference to answer this question.

What is the fixed point of reference you have chosen for this part of the question?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Just to make it clear what I am doing. I am trying to get you to understand what you have been getting wrong.

Any time you try to talk about motion, without defining a fixed point of reference, the discussion is meaningless. As we have agreed, you can't talk about motion without defining a fixed point of reference... yet you seem to do this a lot.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You just agreed that the concept of motion is meaningless unless we have decided on a fixed point of reference.

When you say " is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?" you are asking me a question about motion. So we need a fixed point of reference to answer this question.

What is the fixed point of reference you have chosen for this part of the question?

This part of the question has nothing to do with any motion, or any reference point. It's a question about relevancy, that's all.

1 Reply

@layman,

You seem to be relapsing from learning (you are close to learning something new) to fighting. I am trying to be patient.

The question you are asking is "is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Really? You want to say that this question has nothing to do with motion?

You are so close to understanding something new. Take a little time to think about this.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Just to make it clear what I am doing. I am trying to get you to understand what you have been getting wrong.

OK, fine, you can do that to your heart's content, later, if you want. That's not the topic right now. The topic is galilean relativity and what it implies (or doesn't imply) about "knowing" which of two things is the one moving.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You seem to be relapsing from learning (you are close to learning something new) to fighting. I am trying to be patient.

The question you are asking is "is there any way to confidently say which is moving, and which is "at rest?"

Really? You want to say that this question has nothing to do with motion?

You are so close to understanding something new. Take a little time to think about this.

You seem to have completely lost track of the subject again, Max. I'll reframe the issue in my next post.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The topic is galilean relativity and what it implies (or doesn't imply) about "knowing" which of two things is the one moving.

Yes... and we just agreed that in order for any discussion of motion to have any meaning, we must specify a fixed point of reference. If you don't do this, the question is meaningless.

You agreed to this principle.

The question about whether things are moving or not is clearly a question about motion. So please, what is the fixed point of reference for this question? If you give me this fixed point of reference, I can answer the question. If you don't, then you have agreed that the question is meaningless.

Are you going back on the progress we have made?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

You seem to have completely lost track of the subject again, Max. I'll reframe the issue in my next post.

Sigh! Back to the court case mentality. You are close to reaching an understanding... you really are.

If you stop fighting, and start trying to learn I think you will get it.

0 Replies

@layman,

The question is this:

Does the (presumed) fact that

(1)physical experiments made in a windowless cabin on a ship can't inform you if you're moving or not

necessarily say anything at all about

(2) whether of not you can ever, under any circumstances, know which of two things, moving relative to each other, is the one moving?

1 Reply

@layman,

Here is the problem, you keep trying to define motion without specifying a fixed point of reference. You agreed with the principle that any discussion of motion is meaningless without specifying a fixed point of reference. And yet you continue to do it.

This shows the basic misunderstanding you have.

If you specify a fixed point of reference, I can answer questions you have about the motion of the boat, or the shore or anything else. If you don't specify a fixed point of reference, these questions are meaningless.

That is the clearest explanation I can give you about why you are having such a hard time understanding the parable.

I don't know what else to do, since any time it seems like you are close to understanding... you change the subject.

The principle of the fixed point of reference is at the core of what you are getting wrong.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here is the problem, you keep trying to define motion without specifying a fixed point of reference. You agreed with the principle that any discussion of motion is meaningless without specifying a fixed point of reference. And yet you continue to do it.

This shows the basic misunderstanding you have.

If you specify a fixed point of reference, I can answer questions you have about the motion of the boat, or the shore or anything else. If you don't specify a fixed point of reference, these questions are meaningless.

That is the clearest explanation I can give you about why you are having such a hard time understanding the parable.

I don't know what else to do, since any time it seems like you are close to understanding... you change the subject.

Max, the question I'm asking doesn't have a DAMN THING to do with motion, per se.

Can't you see that? It's a question about logical implication, which is completely independent of ANY particular empirical circumstance

1 Reply

@layman,

You are claiming that a question about whether things are moving or not has nothing to do with motion.

Are you being funny?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No, I'm not.

Do you understand logic at all? If I say A implies B, it makes no difference whatsoever what either A or B is.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

No, I'm not.

Do you understand logic at all? If I say A implies B, it makes no difference whatsoever what either A or B is.

That said, I' ll give you an A and a B:

A: A blindfolded man can't see what's directly in front of him.

B: No man can ever see what's directly in front of him

In this case would it be valid to say that "A implies B?"

1 Reply

@layman,

I think you just lost your court case Wink

.

This is getting absurd now. When you start claiming that a question about whether things are moving or not have nothing to do with motion, and then try to explaining as A and B, this is turning into philosophical nonsense.

I will let others take it from here.

If anyone else wants to continue this scientific track, with an actual interest in learning rather than fighting, I would be happy to continue.

1 Reply

@layman,

To expand on (and change) the question, let me throw in a second premise:

A: A blindfolded man can't see what's directly in front of him.

B. All men, at all times, are always blindfolded.

Now, given that, do A and B, put together, imply C?

C: No man can ever see what's directly in front of him

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think you just lost your court case .

Heh. That's it, declare victory and run. The question here has always been about what galilean relativity implies.

That is a question of logic, which you, Max, will simply have no truck with.

You simply can't deal with logic.

1 Reply

@layman,

Nonetheless, I'll state the point.

It is a logical fallacy to say that galilean relativity, standing alone, says anything whatsoever about whether you can (or cannot) know which of two things is moving.

It is a simple case of insufficient information being given for one to arrive at an answer.

To reach any valid conclusion at all, you would need at least one additional premise (piece of information).

That "additional" information would have to come from some other source, OUTSIDE of galilean relativity, standing alone.

1 Reply

@layman,

You can fully believe that the outcomes of all physical experiments, as measured and determined within an a given inertial frame, will be the same outcome that you would arrive at if you were in a different (but also inertial frame). Galileo believed this. So do I.

But that cannot tell me anything about what OTHER information, not derived from conducting physical experiments in a given frame, might inform me of.

1 Reply

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know