Humber, thank you for taking the time to answer some of the questions I asked. I look forward to seeing your responses to the rest of them some time.
OK Brian-M, but how many layers are there to your rather ironic onion?
I will definitely answer the other questions. A little time. I appreciate you noted that. ( Am I not allowed some recreational fishing ? There is a point to that too)
First, Einstein didn't actually put himself in a lift with an accelerometer. It was purely a thought experiment.
You know I know that!. But your remark is the problem, they are taken too literally.
Second, the experiment was intended to explore the equivalence between gravitational pull and acceleration, and has nothing at all to do with the box-car thought experiment that has been put to you. I don't know why you brought the lift experiment up in the first place.
Other experiments explore the speed of light; the speed on information. The lift is
also about what information can be excluded. I can't say that your expression is wrong.
But you see Brian_M, he's Albert bloody Einstein, and I am not sure that I can actually second-guess his reasoning. I may claim to understand his results, but the other?
You are hoisted on your own petard here, because if I put you in the box, do you think that you are going to notice something that "Albert" missed?
Third, the conclusion of Einstein's experiment actually was "you can't tell". I don't think that's ludicrous at all.
No, that I am sure is wrong. I will perhaps cover that in the promised reply.
Mental masturbation. May be correct, but...
It's taking something to the limit, to see how "clever" you are. Compare this with Einstein. He takes a book and two ordinary torches, and through the magic of his thinking, produces a proof that the speed of light is absolute. It is simple, but extraordinary. Einstein is the icon, but there are many others.
Alan Turing, Faraday, Daniel Dennett....
The point of simplified hypothetical situations is to develop a greater understanding of the underlying physics that apply to the situation, so that this understanding can then be applied to more realistic situations.
Yes, but then
not to use it to confound.
This is a proven technique that has been applied successfully throughout history, and has been used to develop many useful ideas. Like Einstein's lift experiment, for example.
How can I a possibly disagree with that, especially since I do it for a living?
Of course,
but,the same technique has, and still is, used to produce BS. Maybe that's it. You think I am arguing about scientific principles, rather than their quality, relevance or abuse.
I don't know what you do for a living Brain_M, but there is a lot of absolute
rubbish orthodox science, let lone pseudo-science. I think it's getting worse. Perhaps it's inevitable. When little is know, only the really insightful can make progress. Then that knowledge builds, and the leading edge moves to somewhere else, perhaps the LHC, to leave some of the remainder to the also-rans. Education standards fall to meet the demand and....
While I do agree that discussing this subject with you does seem rather pointless in many ways, I must disagree with your assertion that the treadmill has nothing to do with frames at all.
OK, I'm still listening.
To me, the road+wind vs treadmill+nowind comparison seems a perfect example of the application of different frames of reference.
Yes, it does seem that way. I nearly fell for it part of it. A car being driven on the road, is not like a car with the road underneath. When I said that the stationary cart is wrong because it has no KE for example, that is correct, but actually, it's not possible in principle. Again, more later.
But if this "perfect example" has nothing to do with it at all, then what does? Is my knowledge of frames of reference so fundamentally flawed that I cannot even recognize a situation in which different frames of reference can be usefully applied?
ETA:
There is not so much wrong with your views, and perhaps you can argue that it is essentially correct, or as good as anybody's, but you can't actually make a frame in the way that is attempted with the treadmill
I really can't say. I will try to explain later, because I think you are genuine, but you have to consider changing your mind. I have been thinking about this, and the treadmill is very odd. I came to the conclusion that it was nonsense almost immediately. That is my "gut instinct" thinking, but of course, I will definitely be the first to remind anyone of the risks of that, but it does give a base from which to work.
So, I managed to come up with a lot of "views" about it. They come in different forms Some are simply physical. It can be the "differential wheel version" or the "balance version", and if I stretch to the metaphorical, the "winsdpeed" idea. The physical versions are really just part of the same effect, they are correct (or close enough) but the emphasis of explanation is moved. I think that's the problem. Which one is right? Check for errors and inconsistencies, to find the winner.
If this is the case, then please explain the concept of frames of reference for me. After all, I wouldn't want to make a fool of myself by stubbornly clinging to a flawed understanding of physics when everyone else is trying to point out my mistakes.
OK, I will try.
Simply asserting that the treadmill example is false does nothing to answer my question as to why you think it is false.
I have done more than assert, Brian_M. In fact, simple assertion is what I
loath about some people's attitude.
Can you post a link to, or quote some text from one of these book that discusses this topic? It would help us better understand what you are trying to tell us.
Links, oh boy. There is a lot of metaphysics at work here. That involves the "observer" a concious being. How and what that "knows" is a minefield, and a big topic.
Put a fan in the van (or box-car) and replace the hobo with the DDWFTTW cart.
If the fan is blowing the air backwards with the exact same velocity that the box-car is moving, then you have exactly the same situation as the treadmill. The air is still relative to the ground, but the surface the cart is on is moving.
No. Here we have some
definite physical errors. Don't start from the boxcar and work backwards. Try it the other way. See the cart for what it is, a real object, and then see what happens if you "box car" it.
Stop the train and you have the same situation as the cart on the open road. The air is moving, but the surface the cart is on is still.
The question is, assuming the train is moving with no acceleration of vibration, does the velocity of the train effect how the cart responds to the air blown by the fan?
If the answer is no, then the treadmill must be valid.
If the answer is yes, then we want to know why.
Tricky. An experiment to confirm a forgone conclusion.
The cart is only connected to the surface it is travelling on and the air around it. It makes no difference to the cart how fast the air or surface it rests on is moving relative to the earth. All that matters to the cart is how fast the air and the surface are moving relative to the cart.
It does!. It definitely does!
Yes. I thought that would have been very clear by now. I don't see any difference.
If you can see a difference, then please explain it to me by answering the skateboarder question. (The car can represent the person moving through the air, and the skateboarder can represent an air molecule.)
OK. But do you not see how that skateboard question is loaded?
Also, how can I answer questions about magical forces? I have not been able to disabuse anyone of this "zero force" idea.
A question for you. An objects is falling through the air under gravity, to terminal velocity. It is agreed that the force of gravity and drag balance, so acceleration stops. Do you then say the force is zero?
If I add instruments that tell me the values of the two forces, does that change the situation?
What about say, 1 second before terminal velocity?
What about friction between the skates and belt? Wouldn't that ensure that you'd never quite get to windspeed on the belt, exactly like you'd never quite get to windspeed on a road in real wind?
Unless, of course, you had frictionless skates. But in that case, you would get up to windspeed in "real" wind too.
(The skates are the only opposing force in this argument, a hypothetical situation. That is understood)
Even still, under the described conditions, the skater can do no better than to go as fast as the parachute.
Do you often get overtaken by people driving at the same speed as you're driving?
That is a question of relative velocities. Now, on the one hand you are saying "how can you not see this if you drive a car?". The question assumes that I do see what you see, right? Why? It's a common experience. We have the same sensory devices, so you expect the same of me. You are right.
If they're traveling at the same speed, there's no need for the water to get out of the way. Relative to the water, the boat isn't moving.
The boat has no more need to push the water out of the way than the guy behind you needs to overtake you if he's driving the same speed you are.
No. Absolutely not, for a number of reasons. However, this analogy is certainly wrong.
Cars have independent power sources, and intelligent drivers, controlling the car so the collision
doesn't happen.
"Flow" is difficult to imagine. It's very easy to settle on one point. The laminar flow is a good one. Some are mentally following the profile of the flow, or the leading edge of the flow, but not the flow.
---------
A really good point came up about the Monty Hall problem. This is full of information about the world, but that is not the point I want to make.
The problem is an assault your senses. "No, you can't change probability, it's one in three", but mathematics says not.
This puzzle is not new even as claimed, but I first heard of it about 10 years ago from, I think, an older copy of New Scientist. At that time, the esteemed mathematician Paul Erdos would not accept the 2/3 solution, yet he's a mathematician!. I don't know if he changed his mind, but he did not accept the initial result. That is at least one problem with appeals to authority, and especially a single authority.
