Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Sort:
Avatar of noodles2112

post #3463 Elroch -

If you shoot a cannon ball straight up where will it land ?

Avatar of noodles2112

Optimissed - clouds can weigh in the 100's of tons / millions of pounds - is not heavy enough for "gravity" to detect !?

Avatar of Elroch
noodles2112 wrote:

post #3463 Elroch -

If you shoot a cannon ball straight up where will it land ?

That's too simple - and I am sure we both know. The question for you is WHEN will it land.

It starts at a height H above the ground with an upward speed V, and the clock starts from zero when it starts moving.

[You need to be able to solve very simple problems like this before you move on to ones like yours about clouds. Until then, consult someone who can already do such easy problems].

Avatar of Wise-cat
noodles2112 a écrit :

Optimissed - clouds can weigh in the 100's of tons / millions of pounds - is not heavy enough for "gravity" to detect !?

clouds are mist,

just a lot of mist

Avatar of Halal_Master
Hmm i think im having stroke reading allat
Avatar of noodles2112

Elroch - I suppose one could create a scenario on the chalkboard as well as in "reality" e.g. weight of cannon ball , gunpowder amount, size of cannon etc. & the ball will pretty much land in the same amount of time & the same location - is that not correct?

Optimissed - so millions of pounds of mist defies "gravity" ?

Avatar of Wise-cat
noodles2112 a écrit :

Elroch - I suppose one could create a scenario on the chalkboard as well as in "reality" e.g. weight of cannon ball , gunpowder amount, size of cannon etc. & the ball will pretty much land in the same amount of time & the same location - is that not correct?

Optimissed - so millions of pounds of mist defies "gravity" ?

cause its not on a single place, cloud are tridimensionnal and more than a meter cube

Avatar of noodles2112

Wise-cat - not sure what you are saying -

"tridimensional clouds more than a meter cubed" - defy "gravity" ?

Avatar of Wise-cat

you know that hot air is lighter than cold air ?

also what do you want, prove that gravity is an invension ? that clouds aren't clouds ?

Avatar of Elroch
noodles2112 wrote:

Elroch - I suppose one could create a scenario on the chalkboard as well as in "reality" e.g. weight of cannon ball , gunpowder amount, size of cannon etc. & the ball will pretty much land in the same amount of time & the same location - is that not correct?

Optimissed - so millions of pounds of mist defies "gravity" ?

It's about what will REALLY happen in the real world if a cannonball is fired vertically upwards (your suggestion) at velocity V from a height H. At exactly what time will it hit the ground. (The more normal version where the cannon is not vertical is not much more difficult).

This is a question about the well understand phenomenon of gravity, which is not explained by "density" and "bouyancy" as you have claimed. To help you, as long as the cannonball is massive enough so air resistance is not significant, its precise mass and density have no effect on the answer.

That's what (elementary) science does, whether it is on a chalkboard or in the exercise books of competent 13 year olds (not sure of the exact age, but this is middle school stuff), who can get this right.

When a competent kid can get what would happen in the real world right and you can't, that means he understands the science better than you.

Avatar of OneThousandEightHundred18

I'd also like to ask noodles this question - if you throw a ball "straight up" while riding on a train moving at 100k/h, does the ball fall back into your hands? No calculations required for this one. His question about the cannonball being shot straight up seems to imply that the earth isn't moving because the cannonball falls "straight down". I guess the train moving at 100k/h also isn't moving.

Avatar of SheevsServant
Movement is relavent
Avatar of SheevsServant
The whole galaxy is moving but we don’t always put that into what we see as moving in our daily lives
Avatar of Elroch

I think you mean "movement is relative", a crucial insight. All velocities are of the form "the velocity of A relative to B", which we can call v_AB. Crucial are

v_AB + v_BC = v_AC

and

v_BA = -v_AB

tying all relative velocities together

This concept was only established in the 17th century and can be challenge to intuition, as we live in a world where mostly we think about absolute motion relative to the ground.

To give an indication of its inherent difficulty, Aristotle, a guy whose works reveal exceptional intelligence in other fields (notably logic and biology), got this quite wrong in ancient times, leading to guesses about physics that were wrong and refuted by experiments that he failed to do.

Avatar of SheevsServant
👍
Avatar of SheevsServant
I low-key dont know how to spell
Avatar of noodles2112

Is Gravity a Theory or a Law?

I frequently get emails wanting to know whether gravity is a law or a theory. That question brings up so many more questions that I thought it would be fun to explore.

To try this, you will need:

- an object to drop.

OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, unless you picked a helium balloon. In that case, gravity causes it to float upwards, by pulling downwards with more force on the air around the balloon). The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?

Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us:

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

So if we know the mass of two objects, and the distance between the center of mass of the two objects, we can calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, a theory is an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded because of new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

Avatar of Elroch

Right. So can you work .out when the cannonball hits the ground now?

If not you need to learn about the Theory of Gravity. Let me remind you of the meaning of "scientific theory":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated, broad explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been repeatedly tested and verified through the scientific method. 

Avatar of noodles2112

I suppose so -

I can take a bowling ball - drop it from a certain height - and it will hit the ground at the same time every time - anyone can replicate the experiment as many times as they like & achieve the same results - can attribute it to "gravity" via the "scientific method" -

Similarly , can do the same with shooting a cannon ball from a cannon etc. !

Avatar of Optimissed
noodles2112 wrote:

Optimissed - clouds can weigh in the 100's of tons / millions of pounds - is not heavy enough for "gravity" to detect !?

Gravity probably detects the things the clouds float around in just the same.

Sorry, missed your comment, Noodles.