[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 39 KB, 388x346, galilean-relativity.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10617017 No.10617017 [Reply] [Original]

How does one explain relativity of motion to a person with no background in physics? Because I must not be doing it right. I don't expect non-physicists to understand general relativity and other mind-bending shit like time dilation; I'm just talking about basic Galilean relativity, in classical mechanics.

People seem to have a lot of trouble accepting it. Or, if they do accept it to some extent, they still seem to have this notion that observing things from a non-Earth reference frame is just some silly mathematical trick to confuse high school students — that, for example, the motion of trees as measured from the frame of reference of a moving train isn't "real" motion, and that the trees are "actually stationary" and the train is "actually moving", as if the frame of reference in which the railroad is stationary is the absolutely correct one, despite the railroad presumably being attached to a moving planet.

I just had a discussion with a guy on another board who was absolutely convinced and repeatedly insisted that, in just such an example, the trees only "appear to be moving" but that only the train is truly "moving through space" as if space itself is a frame of reference we can use. I guess I'm an idiot for even trying to explain anything to this guy because 4chan is full of retards, but I also have to wonder if I was just explaining it very badly. Is there a good video or web site explaining this stuff in concise terms? I looked around briefly but couldn't find anything that was shorter and better than my own explanations which were apparently too confusing.

>> No.10617023
File: 10 KB, 259x194, why-would-you-jackie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10617023

>>10617017
>How does one explain relativity of motion
to a person with no background in physics?
Why would you even do that?

>> No.10617055

>>10617023
Because it came up in a discussion, in which a guy made a claim which would make sense only in a universe in which motion is not relative, and pointing out that motion is relative was the best way to show that his argument was objectively wrong.

When I initially tried to explain the concept, I didn't think he would dispute it with all the confidence of an astronaut explaining that the Earth is round, believing in all his heart that he couldn't be mistaken as if he had earned a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in physics from a university which taught everything wrong as a joke.

>> No.10617159

>>10617055
>a guy made a claim
...so ask him to support the claim, rather than try to give him a free five-minute course in remedial Physics.

>> No.10617184
File: 14 KB, 300x330, duty_calls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10617184

>>10617055

>> No.10617226

>>10617159
>so ask him to support the claim
He already did support his original claim, incorrectly, and implied the existence of only one absolute frame of reference in the course of doing so. It doesn't matter, though. The point is that a discussion revealed that a guy didn't understand one of the most basic concepts in classical mechanics, and when I told him he was wrong about it, he still insisted on the opposite of the truth until I gave up.

>>10617184
Basically this, yeah.

>> No.10617242

I always found pointing out that the planet is moving around the sun helps for some reason. At the very least, you could convince someone that those "stationary trees" are moving with the earth around the sun. Then maybe that could open the door to further explanation

>> No.10617283

>>10617242
I guess so. I considered bringing that up, but somehow I thought it would only make things worse. Considering the motion of the Earth means considering its rotation if someone in the thread wants to be smart ass. I didn't want to get sidetracked by explaining that the Earth's reference frame isn't actually inertial, and I didn't want to get called out on tip-toeing around the issue either.

>> No.10617293

>>10617017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXDYJldnSgs

>> No.10617421

>>10617017
Explain to him how an absolute reference frame would see light going at a different speed than c.

>> No.10617425

One day soon and it won't be long the Sun will finally tell the Earth to fuck off. Earth will break off of it's orbit like the weak little pussy bitch it is and go drifting off towards Neptune at a great velocity.

>> No.10618661

>>10617283
But that isn't tip toeing around the issue, that conveys the crux of your point: the Earth isn't the single absolute reference frame

>> No.10618749

>>10617017
dont try to educate people who arent paying you to do it.

the dumbs can get smarter if they want to pay a smart to explain it, or they can do the research themselves on their own time.

I personally like it that most people are retarded. job security.