|
Originally Posted by golf_sceptic
|
If one of my students wrote it, I'd say that they demonstrate a pretty good understanding of the ideas, but I'd suggest they tighten up some of the expression.
For example
might become
I could go a bit further in modifying the text, but you get the idea. Basically it is fine, but some of the wording could mislead somebody who does not already understand the subject. I probably would not use the "law of inertia" in my explanation, but would not tell a student to remove it.
|
We'll we definitely disagree.
Before I touch on the problems- a couple of quick comments. We're 91+ posts into this thread- which is based on whether there is centrifugal force, or what if anything causes "throw-out" action. I understand the nature of the issue- but it's your thread- your premise- your baby, and in my opinion you've not moved anyone closer to understanding your issue/perspective in regards to this issue- I said it last time and I'll say it again- that's a problem. It's either one of understanding or one of communication or a combo of both- but it's a problem. Just so we're clear - that last sentence is not saying that the problem is a result of the combination of the communicator and the listener- I'm saying the communication/understanding issue in this case is a problem solely with the communicator i.e. with you and not your audience. If you understand a subject matter thoroughly- it doesn't matter if you're talking to Albert Einstein or a guy sitting on a street corner somewhere who has only a basic - common sense - understanding of the world- you should be able to communicate clearly your idea - no matter how complex it may be-in an understandable manner- in a relative short period of time- really not that difficult to do.
Secondly, Not that I need to post this but I always feel a sense of obligation to post to questions- etc. but as I think I implied previously- I find this a waste of time- something that I understand- and watching it go nowhere. So if I don't post on this thread - even if feedback is directed at me - you'll know why.
Now to the essence of the problem- A scientist(don't know if you are one but the principle is the same) without a solid foundation in epistemology (The second branch of philosophy- which studies the basic nature of knowledge, logic, etc.)- any branch of science such as Physics rests on a philosphical foundation- and any results that that science produces is only as good as the base that it rests on.
So from my perspective, in your Post #79- you touch on the problem gently but when it really requires to be attacked with vigor but then in your Post#86- you clearly agreed with and promoted the flaw in the internet quote that I posted. It's that flaw in reasoning that I think is part of the reason for 91posts going nowhere.
Here's the quote from your Post#86:
"It may take one of your own to explain it to you before you believe it, but the laws of physics are different in non-inertial frames of reference (as Mike's quote says). That doesn't discredit Mr Kelley's work. If my interpretation is right it places his work in a different and in many ways more favourable light."
Here's where your dead wrong- The laws of physics are
NOT different in non-inertial frames of reference. Make no doubt about it - that's an attack on reason, knowledge,logic. The laws of physics don't change. You don't pick a frame of reference and drop all your other knowledge- drop your entire context of understanding of how the world works! The car breaking resulting in you moving towards the dashboard- that's not creating a different law of physics. The only thing it may create is someone making a mistake of judgement- based on not understanding the nature of what's happening.
The same mistake is made when describing something as a "fictictious force"- if your a normal person then that "concept" should make your brain fry- because there is no fictictious force- there either is or is not a force. And if one were to make a mistake in judgement - then you explain the context and understanding of what's happening to put things in the right perspective- but you don't say that the "laws of physics don't apply" nor do you call something a "fictictious force", you explain the context which the mis-perception applies.
Knowledge is not automatic. For example, if you put a straight stick half-way in water- it looks like it is bent - the stick outside the water all of a sudden doesn't line up with the portion of the stick in the water. You've missed the boat above- as much as someone has missed the boat in regards to this stick example by saying that - A) That's an example showing that you shouldn't trust your eyes- that they aren't always reliable- because they can fool you- No, your senses haven't fooled you- your eyes have worked exactly how they should have- they are taking in the data that they are receiving. It takes an act of understanding and scientific study to understand that light travels slower in water -creating this "illusion".
In summary, if anyone is wondering why they are feeling a sense of fright and wondering why a discussion on "centrifugal force" should cause such an emotion as a result of your line of "reasoning" -
THEY SHOULD BE, because its that detachment from reality that has caused horrific events in the history of man. And they all said the same thing- "I don't really get what their saying but I'll just sit back and see what happens" and before you know it - it's too late.
P.S. Bucket does this allow me to lose my "Mediator" tag that you gave me!
Linear Mode
