Subject:
|
Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:49:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
730 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > If I were to pose the hypothesis--"If I were to let go of a hammer, the
> > hammer would fall. I do not have to watch the hammer fall to see that this
> > is true."--what does it matter *where* this hypothesis came from? This line
> > (paraphrased to be sure) was stated in Star Trek back in '67--Does that
> > matter?(I'm sure Spock phrased it better, oh well.)
>
> A minor digression...
> You *do* need to make further observations to determine if it's true that
> the hammer would fall. Either you would need to make your deduction based
> on your witnessing of the descent of the hammer from your hand to the
> ground/floor/whatever, or you would base your conclusion on prior
> observations under similar circumstances, or else you would form your
> conclusion based on observations of the environment: "I left the hammer
> hanging by this thin thread, and now it's on the floor. Between the former
> hanging point and the current resting point, there's a hammer-shaped hole in
> the sheet of paper I'd put in the hammer's likely falling-path, and there is
> a chip out of the corner of this table, the shape and size of which is
> consistent with prior observations of the behavior of falling hammers re:
> interposed objects."
> See? The hypothesis, as written, is flawed. If Spock drops the hammer
> while he's floating out to see V'Ger, the hammer *won't* fall. If Spock is
> falling out of an airplane and he drops a hammer, it won't fall relative to
> him. If Spock drops the hammer, but he drops it while standing on some kind
> of Star Trek techno-babble hammer-levitating device, the hammer won't fall.
> So the hypothesis is flawed, and the fact that people will accept it
> unquestioningly is symptomatic of the greater problem.
<snip>
intellectual posturor!
>
> Dave!
This is what I meant by Spock phrasing it better--he said something like 'on
a planet with positive gravity'--it's ST:TOS--when was the last time I
caught one of those episodes? ;)
I don't have to witness the effects of gravity repeatedly to know it exists,
just as I don't actually have to visit Austrailia to know it exists--there
has to come a time when, with enough data, the hypothesis is 'true enough',
theory of relativity included--yes there is a matter of perspective and that
definitly factors into what we know and see, but in that perspective, we can
still make observations and theories--jumping out of a plane and letting go
of a hammer, the hammer will be seen to be stationary (forgeting wind
resistance) with respect to me--but both of us have to hit the ground
*sometime*, and then, of course, still the hammer will be stationary with
respect to me. In a general interpretation, I am standing on the ground, and
holding up the hammer above the ground, and letting go--no Wilde E. Coyote
sawing thru the precipice, and the mountain falling down instead of the
precipice. The hammer will fall, barring any obstacles, such as the ground.
I often wondered what would happen if we were to drill an 8 foot hole
straight through the planet (of course, this idea assumes the core of the
earth to be a nice room temperature, not molten rock...) and if wer were to
jump down said hole--would we go past the center of the planet, slow down on
the way to the other surface and just basically bounce back and forth thru
the tunnel until we came to rest, free floating, at the exact center of the
planet?
Things that make me go "hmmmm....."
Of course, there could be a vast 'Matrix' conspiracy that deludes me into
thinking that there is an Austrailia when there isn't, but it's back to that
'maybe we're all just a big computer simulation' post from Larry--while in
the simulation, given all available data *in* the simulation, I believe
there is an Austrailia (hi Rosco!! 8^) ), that there is such a thing as
gravity, and that I *am* Canadian ;)
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) I've wondered this in the past also. If the planet were not rotating, I think the answer would be that your analysis is correct. Note that you would be in a zero-G environment (or close to it) at the center assuming the Earth is close to an (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing"
|
| (...) A minor digression... You *do* need to make further observations to determine if it's true that the hammer would fall. Either you would need to make your deduction based on your witnessing of the descent of the hammer from your hand to the (...) (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
