@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
You are completely wrong about a basic principle of high school physics. "Momentum/inertia" is not a form of propulsion. In fact, if you took a high school class... the very first thing you would learn is Newton's first law (which is about inertia). The second thing you would learn is Newton's second law (which is about propulsion). In a Physics high school class, you would have to use these concepts to solve actual problems. You would get the wrong answers because you don't understand the difference.
(sigh) I know these laws. What I keep trying to explain to you is that they actually mean something. They're not just words to justify equations and calculations. You won't understand the deeper meaning because your thinking is limited to seeing active propulsion and passive momentum as fundamentally different, and resisting thinking about how they are related and why that is fundamentally relevant to understanding Newton's perspective/physics.
Quote:This is literally the most basic Physics. You are wrong. The stuff about "passive locomotion" is just nonsense you are making up yourself.
I am trying to explain the physics to you but you aren't opening your mind to actually think about the dogma you've learned. You have memorized Newton's laws at the rhetorical level and learned to use the equations and calculate quantities, but you haven't synthesized it into a deeper understanding of motion/energy, which is ultimately the point.
Quote:There are two problems you have.
1) You don't know basic Physics.
2) You are claiming to have expertise.
You think the point of science is to attain status and assert expertise over others for the sake of power and hierarchy, but that is not the point of science or any other true form of education, really.
At least not unless you regard education as a tool for achieving authoritarian rule over mindless automatons.
Quote:So let's ask the real question here relating to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Where do you think your knowledge of Physics comes from? What would someone have to do to reach your level of expertise in the subject?
You could start by understanding how an object in motion remains in motion until/unless acted upon by external force.
Then you could understand how propulsion influences an object's motion by employing external force and action/reactions.
Then you could understand how friction is the product of interaction between a moving object and external force.
Then you could understand how inertia can be understood as a form of propulsion insofar as it keeps objects moving so long as they overcome the friction that they are interacting with.
Once an object's momentum succumbs to friction and it ceases to be in motion, its inertia serves as a force to anchor it against external forces that could otherwise cause it to overcome friction and begin moving.
Basically you just have to start reasoning about various examples/situations of motion and force-interactions to flesh out what you essentially understand from learning physics and doing the math. Math is a useful beginning and tool, but you can go farther by fleshing out how it applies to analyzing the vast array of real-world situations that can be either observed directly or modeled in terms of thought-experiments.
Think of your mind as a word-problem generator and flesh out all the possible scenarios you could use these analytical terms to interpolate physical reality. The word-problems don't have to be solvable using math, or they might be but not in an efficient way. The point isn't to actually set up and solve the problem using variables and numbers but rather to practice modeling physical realities in ways that 'dissect' them down to constituent parts/processes that interact to make up complex systems.
