Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It occurs to me that if it weren't for the risk of derailing this thread (yes, it's hard to say that with a straight face), I'd LOVE to get Humber's thoughts on the Monty Hall problemWP. Just think of the fun we could have.

The fun there would be that we could actually bet on the outcome.

Sorry, go back to discussing physics.

Tunny
 
It occurs to me that if it weren't for the risk of derailing this thread (yes, it's hard to say that with a straight face), I'd LOVE to get Humber's thoughts on the Monty Hall problemWP. Just think of the fun we could have.

The fun there would be that we could actually bet on the outcome.

I'm willing to bet we could get a spirted discussion going on that topic even among those here that can think. If not, I have a problem along those same lines that's very easy to express that will definitely cause some interesting discussions.
 
I'm willing to bet we could get a spirted discussion going on that topic even among those here that can think. If not, I have a problem along those same lines that's very easy to express that will definitely cause some interesting discussions.

The Monty Hall problem has been done to death here on a thread that started in 2004 and woke up again last year: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31025

We've also had an extensive discussion of the 3 Prisoner Problem, which is very similar to the Monty Hall problem.

If you have another neat problem of this type, go ahead and start a new thread: I'm sure we'll all have fun.
 
The Monty Hall problem is not that hard to understand once you realize that your goal at the start is to pick one of the two losing boxes and not the winning one. Everyone (except for humber maybe) will agree that in the Monty Hall problem your odds are two out of three that you will pick out a losing box. Once Monty shows you a losing box then of course you want to switch from the losing box that you chose to the winning box that is remaining.
 
Talking of puzzles, here's one that is actually something to do with classical physics. It involves kinetic energy and frames of reference so it's rather more relevant to this thread that the Monty Hall problem! (I'll also own up now to not really solving it correctly when I first heard it, although I think I was "heading in the right direction"! :o)

First, "the rules" (it's an honour system)!

1. You may not post a solution on this thread after reading any other posted solution, and you agree to "hide" your solution between [spoiler]...[/spoiler] tags.
2. No public discussion for 24 hours after this is posted to give others a chance to post their solution.
3. No cheating!

By reading past this point, you agree to to abide by the rules. :boxedin:

Imagine that we have a cart (an ordinary wheeled trolley, no propeller or anything complicated like that!) with mass m near the top of a sloping hill. As we're viewing it the hill slopes down from upper left to lower right where the ground gently levels out at a height of h metres (vertically) lower than the initial position of the cart. The cart is initially at rest on the hill.

We want to look at this in terms of conservation of energy.

Initially (say at time 0) the cart has no kinetic energy (w.r.t. ground) and potential energy of mgh (if we take the level area at the bottom of the hill as "zero" to keep things simple). When the cart is released, it begins to roll down the hill and ends up rolling at constant velocity v along the level area at some fixed time (t) after being released. At that stage it has zero potential energy and kinetic energy of mv^2/2. Our cart is very streamlined and has very low friction bearings, etc., so we'll ignore the tiny losses from that stuff during the roll down the hill.

At time 0, total energy = mgh
At time t, total energy = mv^2/2

Therefore, conservation of energy tells us that:
mgh = mv^2/2

Pretty much a standard high school type problem so far.

Now we'll look at the same thing again but this time use a frame of reference that moves to the right with the same velocity (v) that the cart ends up with in the earlier description. This means that in our new frame the cart's initial velocity (at the top of the hill) becomes -v, which also means it has non-zero kinetic energy to start with. At time t it will have zero velocity (it's at rest in our new frame) and so its kinetic energy is also zero at that point. Our new energy budget looks like this:

At time 0, total energy = mgh + mv^2/2
At time t, total energy = 0

Therefore, if energy was conserved we'd have:
mgh + mv^2/2 = 0

Clearly that can't be right. The cart had non-zero energy at the top of the hill but zero at the end. What has gone wrong? :boggled:
 
I do notice Humber has stopped commenting on the balloon that, magically, is at once pushed by wind from behind, yet leaves a bow-wave as it passes "Through" the air to the front.

I'd suspect that shutting up and ignoring is as close as Humber would get to admitting error.


We could give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume (hypothetically) that because of how swiftly these threads are growing that he could be unintentionally overlooking the occasional question directed at him.

On this basis, I'm going to start repeating some of my questions to him until he answers them.

Humber...

Broken record mode: ON

But the balloon isn't passing through the air, it's moving with the air. It's completely stationary relative to the air. If the baloon isn't passing through the air, then it's not getting any drag of any kind from the air. Why then yould the balloon be dragged in the direction the ground is moving relative to the air?

In all your talk, you still haven't explained how the ground's movement relative to the balloon (or, if you prefer, the air's movement relative to the ground) could possibly affect the baloon's motion (or lack of motion) through the air.

Broken record mode: OFF


Humber has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he does not understand the concept of frames of reference.
Yes. That is what you would like others to think. Seems though, you are unable to actually defend your position.


You've had ample chance to explain your "understanding" of this subject with us. For example, you still haven't gotten around to answering the skateboarder example.

Broken record mode: ON

Who can argue with logic like that? I can't, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. So, instead of trying to explain my understanding to you, I'm going to ask you to explain your understanding to me.

Let's go back to the car and skateboarder example for this.

We'll assume that in both situations the car's velocity is unaffected by the impact. (The moving car's engine is capable of instantly compensating for a sudden change in load, and the parked car has a very good hand-brake.)

Let's say the skateboarder weighs 100 pounds, the car weighs 2000 pounds, and the collision is non-elastic.

Using the formula for kinetic energy; E = (M/2)(V^2), it looks to me like...

The kinetic energy imparted to a stationary skateboarder weighing 100 pounds from a car moving at 60 mph would be: E=(100/2)(60^2)

The kinetic energy imparted from a stationary car to a skateboarder moving at 60 mph, and weighing 100 pounds would be: E=(100/2)(60^2)

Clearly, if you're right about the two situations being different, the outcomes should be different; but no matter how hard I look, I just can't find a difference.

So please, explain to me where this difference is, show me how I can apply the formulas to find out what the difference should be myself, and tell me exactly how much kinetic energy is really imparted from the car to the skateboarder in each case.

Broken record mode: OFF

It's been over 70 days since I asked. Can I expect an answer soon?
 
Last edited:
Nonsense! A hot air balloon could never reach train speed! The drag from the air in the enclosed car would keep it pinned to the rear of the coach! Also, you forget that the KE at 1300 feet is vastly different from that at ground level! And there's a laminar boundary flow of air along the floor of the car that would obscure the chalk line. You need to account for these in your computations. Your question is meaningless...

Tunny
Channeling my inner Humber...
:D You're beginning to sound a bit like humb there Tunny.

First, let me say that although frames have been theorized, they are only a notional concept, and not detectable. You cannot put an inertial frame in an envelope and mail it to me...

2 + 2 = 4 is only a notional concept. You can't put that in an envelope and mail it either. Is that why you "deny" it?
Teehee, he's got you again, spork!

It occurs to me that if it weren't for the risk of derailing this thread (yes, it's hard to say that with a straight face), I'd LOVE to get Humber's thoughts on the Monty Hall problemWP. Just think of the fun we could have.

The fun there would be that we could actually bet on the outcome.

Sorry, go back to discussing physics.

Tunny
Yeah, back to physics. And no betting you naughty forummers! You could just invite humber over to that thread to get the benefit of his wisdom - I expect stats is a speciality of his. The danger now is that I start to argue with Subduction Zone...

The Monty Hall problem is not that hard to understand once you realize that your goal at the start is to pick one of the two losing boxes and not the winning one. Everyone (except for humber maybe) will agree that in the Monty Hall problem your odds are two out of three that you will pick out a losing box. Once Monty shows you a losing box then of course you want to switch from the losing box that you chose to the winning box that is remaining.
...but I won't do that here.;) (except I think you're wrong, SZ) [ETA: Now I've looked at wikipedia, I am a goat!]

I'm sad it's so quiet on this thread tonight - I usually can't catch up. It's probably a good thing. I might have needed a 12-step program if it had gone on much longer. At least I had the last word.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It is models...

What kind of language is that? Did you leave out more words or are you just randomly inserting extra words. Have you ever heard of the concept of proofreading?

How does the force needed to drive the cart relate to gravity, and how do you know that is the necessary force if the coefficient of friction is indeterminate?

Even after warning humber that he always get his vectors reversed, there he goes and gets his vectors reversed.
 
Clearly that can't be right. The cart had non-zero energy at the top of the hill but zero at the end. What has gone wrong? :boggled:

Actually energy is conserved in both systems. It is not proper to compare energy between two systems in this manner. In both systems you had equal energy changes the kinetic and potential energies changed the same amount.


Okay here is an even worse one for you if that one bothers you. Again two different systems an object is going left to right at v it has a rocket motor on it and doubles it speed to 2v. Its KE was mv^2/2 and now it's 2mv/2, a difference of 3mv^2/2. Our second system is moving with the object at the speed of v. Again the object changes its speed by rocket motor adding v to its speed (which was zero in this frame). Now its change in KE is mv^2/2. The first system seems to have gained more energy:boggled:
 
Last edited:
humber, the air in the caboose is also moving wrt ground, so there'll be no dissipation.
If an oxygen mask were to be released from the ceiling of a fast moving plane, it will remain stationary so long as the plane maintains its velocity. Yet in your world, it should be dragged by the air molecules inside the cabin.

Do you understand your error here?

Ooops! Here is a good example. Oxygen masks are tethered, SD.

If the person jumps within the caboose full of air, then KE will be lost due to the vertical component alone. But what you are telling me is not right. What stops the body from being displaced? The air? The usual friction to the floor being optional? Not at all necessary?
I could go on. Is the displacement such that the air can be considered adiabatic?

What happens to a balloon floating in a car as the driver accelerates?
 
How could I!? Incidentally it's more of a "2 + 2" thing.

But really - give it a crack. You can phone a friend (oops - sorry, honest mistake).

No, it's you tying to get back after I hammered you clay model example. I said centre of mass was notional. Actually, why don't you give it ago, that should be good for a laugh. First steps and all that.
 
Last edited:
Well, originally it was a boxcar, but boxcar or caboose, it's enclosed, so the air moves with it, so no KE is dissipated. Humber has to be trolling here, nobody is that dense.

No, the mistake is yours. See my reply, to SD.
 

Because the ground is moving in the second frame, the cart has done work on the ground, given by force x distance. So the energy has been transfered to the ground.


// CyCrow
 
It occurs to me that if it weren't for the risk of derailing this thread (yes, it's hard to say that with a straight face), I'd LOVE to get Humber's thoughts on the Monty Hall problemWP. Just think of the fun we could have.

The fun there would be that we could actually bet on the outcome.

Sorry, go back to discussing physics.

Tunny

Actually, I am quite familiar with it. The answer is that the probability of success is doubled. It becomes 2/3.
It is easy to extend this to other numbers, but the gain diminishes. (Three is the minimum non-trivial case)
If you are genuinely interested, I have a book where the author claims that the originator, Vos (?) got the answer wrong. I have not seen this posted.
The title is "Duelling (something)". I can find it, and scan the pages if you are interested.
 
I'm willing to bet we could get a spirted discussion going on that topic even among those here that can think. If not, I have a problem along those same lines that's very easy to express that will definitely cause some interesting discussions.

I wait with bated breath for your insights.
 
Humber,

Like I said, please just humor me- it should take a one-line answer-


Pulse Jet- 100MPH TAS into 100MPH Headwind. What is the groundspeed?
 
What kind of language is that? Did you leave out more words or are you just randomly inserting extra words. Have you ever heard of the concept of proofreading?
Have you read of the concept of proof?

Even after warning humber that he always get his vectors reversed, there he goes and gets his vectors reversed.

No, you are wrong. That is underlying cause, but the effects are enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom