Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:19 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,171 Year: 9,207/19,786 Month: 1,629/2,119 Week: 389/576 Day: 64/128 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   Using your common sense to solve a physics problem.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 136 of 188 (145325)
09-28-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Ooook!
09-28-2004 9:40 AM


Re: Nonresponse
Here:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=146&m=49#49 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=146&m=49#49">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=146&m=49#49

And he does indeed implicitly claim an understanding of physics at PhD level (I'd love to see him try to deal with QM or General Relativity - even at graduate level - on the basis of "common sense" :-)

The particular subject in question seems to be under discussion in the "Existence of Noah's Ark" thread. Even there Riverrat seems to be doing badly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Ooook!, posted 09-28-2004 9:40 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 10:13 AM PaulK has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 137 of 188 (145329)
09-28-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
09-28-2004 9:58 AM


Re: Nonresponse
I can I be doing badly if I expect to be wrong?
And why would I not have a better understanding of pyhsics than a scientist who maybe didn't do well in physics?

Wouldn't you agree that some people can see whats going on better than others?

The reason why you guys are getting confused with what I said is that you think common sense and education are the same, its not.
Ones common sense can be greater than anothers regardless of education. Some of the best inventers in the world, had very little education.

That doesn't make me right or wrong. I came up with a common sense theory, and looked to prove it through those who are educated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 9:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 10:31 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 149 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2004 4:02 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 159 by nator, posted 09-29-2004 10:05 AM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 138 of 188 (145330)
09-28-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Ooook!
09-28-2004 9:40 AM


Re: Nonresponse
Well I was insulted first.
I have a right to defend myself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Ooook!, posted 09-28-2004 9:40 AM Ooook! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Ooook!, posted 09-28-2004 11:17 AM riVeRraT has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 139 of 188 (145334)
09-28-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 10:13 AM


Re: Nonresponse
Given the attitude you are displaying then yes, you should be doing a good deal better to justify the bravado.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 10:13 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 6:25 PM PaulK has responded

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 3981 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 140 of 188 (145339)
09-28-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Nonresponse
Well I was insulted first.
I have a right to defend myself

Hang on a mo! I don't want to start off on the wrong foot - I didn't mean to accuse you of anything. All I was trying to do was see if I could get a summary of your position now, and compare it to the statement that started all this off. You've been throwing little bits of this into your exchanges with Percy, I just thought it would be good for you to round it all up into a single coherrant post. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that you've mellowed from the original statement.

Would you accept (for example) that in order to boldly declare a theory you need to know the specific facts that are involved, and common sense alone cannot help you with this - accumulated knowledge and therefore some kind of education (of the appropriate subject) is irreplacable. That said, you must then agree that it is a bit premature to form a theory without knowing the facts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 10:15 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 6:29 PM Ooook! has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 141 of 188 (145444)
09-28-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
09-28-2004 10:31 AM


Re: Nonresponse
Don't confuse my attitude with your bad one towards me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 10:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2004 7:42 AM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 142 of 188 (145448)
09-28-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Ooook!
09-28-2004 11:17 AM


Re: Nonresponse
I am not accusing you of anything. I meant that the comment about common sense was a defensive statement from what NEd told me, about I astound people on how little I know.

I have no prblem with you, or anyone else really, except myabe rhain (lol).


Would you accept (for example) that in order to boldly declare a theory you need to know the specific facts that are involved, and common sense alone cannot help you with this - accumulated knowledge and therefore some kind of education (of the appropriate subject) is irreplacable. That said, you must then agree that it is a bit premature to form a theory without knowing the facts?

Yes, I agree completely. Ned pointed out that my thought was really not a theory. But it wasn't just a thought based on nothing. I based it on what I see around me when it rains. Through my comoon sense, I would think that what I'm saying might actually be right. Through science, we will prove it.

Common sense can be wrong, just like science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Ooook!, posted 09-28-2004 11:17 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 6:34 PM riVeRraT has responded

Rei
Member (Idle past 5179 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 143 of 188 (145451)
09-28-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 6:29 PM


Re: Nonresponse
And when it rains, do you watch all of the water in the water cycle on Earth (which would be involved in your flood model)? Do you see the upstream and downstream rammifications of the rain? Do you get any data about the continents? Do you see ice dams breaking or glaciers melting or anything of the sort? Anything?

Gee - even ignoring the fact that I think we've conclusively shown that common sense usually fails in complex problems like the one you discussed, I'd say that you have a severe shortage of data on this one as well, wouldn't you?

P.S. - If you don't think that common sense usually fails in complex problems like the one you proposed, I'd like an answer to how long you think it would take Lake Mead to drain. I've computed the answer in both normal and 1000x normal influx situations (I'll want to cross-check my fluid model with someone else first) using Riemann sums instead of direct integration (yeah, I'm lazy, but it works ), so I have the answer - but if you're not yet convinced at how poorly common sense works, I'd like to hear you answer.

A little data for you to make it easier on you. Lake Mead has a volume of 35.2 km^3 and a surface area of 637 km^2. Its deepest depth - at the dam - is 170 meters. The base of the dam is 201.2 meters wide; at the crest, it is 379.2 meters wide. The crest is 221 meters above the base. Its influx of water is about 700 cubic meters per second.

This message has been edited by Rei, 09-28-2004 05:55 PM


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 6:29 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 7:18 PM Rei has responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3608
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 144 of 188 (145454)
09-28-2004 6:38 PM


By the way people, I have no intention of expecting anyone to actually solve the problem of electric field. You can have fun trying to solve it if you want. If someone feels strongly about it and must see the answer, tell me and I'll post it. Well, have fun.

Added by edit:

Again, please don't feel bad if you can't solve it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's like me trying to write an econ paper or doing a geology homework.

Actually, one time I took a world literature class that was intended for English majors. It took me a week of misery and lots of tears to write a paper about a poem that our prof wanted us to analyze. As far as I know, it only took everybody else like a day or so and their papers were considerably better than mine (I was kinda embarrassed because we exchanged papers around for peer evaluation). After that class, I swore never to put myself through something like that again.

Again, don't feel bad because it is not your field.

This message has been edited by Lam, 09-28-2004 05:44 PM


For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.


  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 145 of 188 (145471)
09-28-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rei
09-28-2004 6:34 PM


Re: Nonresponse
What if the water on the other side of the dam was as high as the dam?
where would it go?

Your trying to prove me wrong by figuring out for one small spot of the earth. In a global flood, things would be much different, and the water may not have anywhere to go.

I am well aware of how fast any lake could drain out. Thats common sense.

So tell me, I live on a mountain where the slope is about 30degrees. How long would it take water to run off? The hieght is about 500ft above everything else around it. The base of it takes up about 400 acres. It would seem impossible that it would ever flood right?
Well it does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 6:34 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Lammy, posted 09-28-2004 7:20 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 147 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 8:10 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 150 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2004 4:09 AM riVeRraT has responded

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3608
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 146 of 188 (145472)
09-28-2004 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 7:18 PM


Re: Nonresponse
the rat writes:

So tell me, I live on a mountain where the slope is about 30degrees. How long would it take water to run off? The hieght is about 500ft above everything else around it. The base of it takes up about 400 acres. It would seem impossible that it would ever flood right?
Well it does.


I think everybody has realized this part of your "theory." However, what people have a problem with is the world wide flood continuing on for months, which is an impossibility as was proven by Rrhain.


For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 7:18 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 09-29-2004 6:22 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5179 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 147 of 188 (145487)
09-28-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 7:18 PM


Re: Nonresponse
quote:
What if the water on the other side of the dam was as high as the dam? where would it go?

That's irrelevant to the problem here. We're talking about how quickly water drains away.

quote:
In a global flood, things would be much different, and the water may not have anywhere to go.

Not possible, unless the earth is incredibly flat. In which case, you have a lot of explaining to do on why it's not today.

quote:
I am well aware of how fast any lake could drain out. Thats common sense.

And yet, you refuse to give a number. Gee, I wonder why....

quote:
So tell me, I live on a mountain where the slope is about 30degrees. How long would it take water to run off? The hieght is about 500ft above everything else around it. The base of it takes up about 400 acres. It would seem impossible that it would ever flood right? Well it does.

Tell me, how deep does the water stand on your 30 degree slope? On a real 30 degree slope (i.e., not just something that averages 30 degrees), you can make the soil *soggy*, but water can never stand more than a centimeters or so without constant influx. If you're talking about an average, you can get hills and troughs, in which some parts are above water, and others aren't. I don't think that's what you're proposing for the global flood, though, because that would still leave much above the surface.

*Standing water*, when given an unobstructed path to a state of lower potential energy, moves *very fast*. The water near the base of Hoover Dam, should it collapse, would be going almost twice the speed of a car on a highway (ignoring drag; there's actually an effect in which the water *right* on the bottom moves slowly, and there's a speed gradient from there up to a few feet where it is moving at full speed). That's only 170 meters in height's worth of water pressure.

This message has been edited by Rei, 09-28-2004 07:24 PM


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 7:18 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by riVeRraT, posted 09-29-2004 7:00 AM Rei has responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1075 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 148 of 188 (145494)
09-28-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 9:00 AM


Re: dead horse
You are beating a dead horse, give it up already.

You never answered my original question. It said nothing about scientists. Sorry about the horse.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 9:00 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 149 of 188 (145559)
09-29-2004 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 10:13 AM


Re: Nonresponse
riVeRraT writes:

quote:
And why would I not have a better understanding of pyhsics than a scientist who maybe didn't do well in physics?

Because you cannot get that far and not be good at it. I'm not saying that you need to have formal training in order to be good, but you cannot advance that far without being good. It is something that you need to work at every day and that's what formal training provides you.

quote:
Wouldn't you agree that some people can see whats going on better than others?

Yes, but who is more likely to be better at it: Someone who has spent the past eight years working on a subject every day, being taught from others who have spent the past few decades working on the subject every day? Or someone with only a passing interest who doesn't deal with the subject very often?

quote:
The reason why you guys are getting confused with what I said is that you think common sense and education are the same, its not.

No, that's our argument to you. You are the one claiming that common sense is equivalent to education and it isn't. You are the one claiming you can "common sense" your way through a problem that PhDs spend their lives working on.

quote:
Ones common sense can be greater than anothers regardless of education.

Of course.

But all the common sense in the world won't help you without an education to teach you how to use it.

quote:
That doesn't make me right or wrong. I came up with a common sense theory, and looked to prove it through those who are educated.

So why is it you won't listen to them when they tell you it is nonsense?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 10:13 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by riVeRraT, posted 09-29-2004 7:08 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 150 of 188 (145560)
09-29-2004 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
09-28-2004 7:18 PM


Re: Nonresponse
riVeRraT writes:

quote:
In a global flood, things would be much different, and the water may not have anywhere to go.

Then why isn't the earth still flooded? After all, the entire earth was flooded and there was nowhere for the water to go.

So where did it go?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 09-28-2004 7:18 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 09-29-2004 7:08 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019