And for the record, 'centrifugal force' is not a 'true' force as someone correctly posted; it is simply an angular manifestation of inertia.
Super Secret Settled Science of Sailing?
- Thread starter Will Gilmore
- Start date
You're being pedantic (which is OK!). Here's how you can tell:
- Some of the readers know this already and may or may not actually understand the physics behind the difference.
- The others don't care. They've been told this before and ignored it.
- The math works out the same whether it is real or contrived. This is common in models.
Last edited:
Yes, pedantic semantics. Some are not satisfied with lay definitions most people recognize and understand, so you have to throw them an intellectual bone (and that's OK, too, particularly if it helps someone learn something new or think about something in a different and useful way!).
On a side note, pilots take stalls very seriously because they kill people. Thoroughly understanding them saves lives. In sailing, it's not quite so critical, but it can win races and perhaps even increase safety by preventing things like broaching or unexpectedly rounding up into another boat. It's not unimportant to understand lift and stalls if you sail.
Last edited:
Pedantic semantics get frantic but can be fantastic for gigantic ego boosting intellectual gymnastics.
The who point of this and other threads like this one is to help think about something in a different and useful way. In my Cognitive Development and Learning class, the thinking process has been broken out to eight different cognitive categories, sequential thinking, analytical thinking, and so on. The last and considered to be one of the highest orders of the thinking process is 'metaphorical thinking'. This method encourages the thinker to more easily transfer understanding between disciplines. Because you understand the dynamics sound of wave theory, understanding the dynamics of wake limited "hull speed" is easier and vice versa. One can even apply this understanding to the flow of ideas (memes) across a near continuum of thinkers.
-Will (Dragonfly)
Einstein developed the famous E=mC^2 formula using metaphorical thinking!
He took the classic College Classes from the Germans, who dominated and documented discoveries.
1) Physics ( energy was Conserved)
2) Chemistry (mass was Conserved)
In Einstein's college days, those sciences were separate and equal studies and no crossover possible.
Einstein [as a patent clerk] pondered that was absurd that those Science can not be separated.
He would have said "No way José", but probably said, "To be Frank, it must be Planck !"
Thus thinking Metaphorically, he created the cross over science...
Physical Chemistry.
Jim...
Oooh. This is like one those $0.25 Saturday afternoon spaghetti westerns movies. They always ended in a “cliff hanger” scene then we went out side to play.
I'm going to try and guess what you disagree with Jon.
I can see objections to this statement. It was thrown together as a quick example of what I meant and not intended to be a definitive statement of fact in itself. Unfortunately, if it doesn't work as a standalone statement, it weakens my point, so I'm prepared to defend it to the point that it does illustrate my point.
If this isn't what you disagree with then could it be
- Will (Dragonfly)
Is this the statement you disagree with? I mean, besides the horrible typos.
I can see objections to this statement. It was thrown together as a quick example of what I meant and not intended to be a definitive statement of fact in itself. Unfortunately, if it doesn't work as a standalone statement, it weakens my point, so I'm prepared to defend it to the point that it does illustrate my point.
If this isn't what you disagree with then could it be
?
- Will (Dragonfly)
Chapter 2: Secrets of the Mirage
I use to commute 45 minutes to school every class morning for my Bachelor's program. The roads up here are not very populated so I watched a lot of empty road that glistened with this wet looking mirages you often can see on the crest of a hump in the road or out on a long stretch of straight road when it is very bright out.
I finally realized that I could see the mirror reflection of the car ahead of me or a hill or trees past the road. Even though the mirage wavered and undulated in the road ahead of me, one Winter morning I decided that heated air rising off the blacktop couldn't be the explanation. The day hadn't had time to heat the road and the Sun was too low to shine with any effective radiance on the surface. I was looking at a mirrored reflection not a refraction of light through varying densities of air. The undulations where do to my movement along the road so the surface angles were always changing relative to me. The farther away surfaces became more reflective because of the acute angle to my eye. Light was better focused because it "skipped" across the tops of the bumps and variations in the surface at a better angle for reflection than more direct light which would scatter and loose concentrated focus.
I brought this idea to my physics professor and he said, "No! It's from air above the surface. Pavement is non-reflective." That was settled science to him. My weather processor was interested in the thought and threw a number of possible answers out to explain the mirage on Winter morning pavement.
Flash back to a very bright Florida day on the bay in Clearwater when I looked out at the horizon and saw the islands floating in the sky just above the horizon and I realized that the more acute the angle, the more reflective becomes the surface. That day, the islands were reflecting of the water near them but the water closer to me wasn't reflecting anything discernable. It was really calm and the point where the reflective phenomenon stopped made a clear straight line that looked like the horizon.
The implications to the sailor are about finding the true horizon when taking a sight while navigating. The implications to the scientist is, how do you find the real edge of a sphere or curved object to measure its size and shape when you can't just put a pair of calipers on it?
-Will (Dragonfly)
I use to commute 45 minutes to school every class morning for my Bachelor's program. The roads up here are not very populated so I watched a lot of empty road that glistened with this wet looking mirages you often can see on the crest of a hump in the road or out on a long stretch of straight road when it is very bright out.
I finally realized that I could see the mirror reflection of the car ahead of me or a hill or trees past the road. Even though the mirage wavered and undulated in the road ahead of me, one Winter morning I decided that heated air rising off the blacktop couldn't be the explanation. The day hadn't had time to heat the road and the Sun was too low to shine with any effective radiance on the surface. I was looking at a mirrored reflection not a refraction of light through varying densities of air. The undulations where do to my movement along the road so the surface angles were always changing relative to me. The farther away surfaces became more reflective because of the acute angle to my eye. Light was better focused because it "skipped" across the tops of the bumps and variations in the surface at a better angle for reflection than more direct light which would scatter and loose concentrated focus.
I brought this idea to my physics professor and he said, "No! It's from air above the surface. Pavement is non-reflective." That was settled science to him. My weather processor was interested in the thought and threw a number of possible answers out to explain the mirage on Winter morning pavement.
Flash back to a very bright Florida day on the bay in Clearwater when I looked out at the horizon and saw the islands floating in the sky just above the horizon and I realized that the more acute the angle, the more reflective becomes the surface. That day, the islands were reflecting of the water near them but the water closer to me wasn't reflecting anything discernable. It was really calm and the point where the reflective phenomenon stopped made a clear straight line that looked like the horizon.
The implications to the sailor are about finding the true horizon when taking a sight while navigating. The implications to the scientist is, how do you find the real edge of a sphere or curved object to measure its size and shape when you can't just put a pair of calipers on it?
-Will (Dragonfly)
It is the same science as Summer. The reflective/refractive light is one of the main reasons for a "noon" sighting of the Sun for celestial navigation.
The cold weather phenomena is now the speculated reason for the sinking of the "Titanic".
The extreme cold and calm of that fateful night...
Brought forward a clear calm sea and masked view of the Iceberg, until it was too late.
Even the possible rescue ship "California" saw the Titanic's Morse Lamp "undulating", which prevented proper decoding. California's deck officer peered through his binoculars and counted 3, not 4, smoke stacks.
They estimated the distance of 15 miles instead of the 35 miles actual [which would have been over the horizon].
Conclusion: The Titanic must be many miles away. The California's radio operator was asleep and no rescue radio signal heard.
Jim...
Agreed. My well educated son always corrects me of this fact when I speak those two words. It’s kinda fun bugging him though
I don't know what it is about people who take those kinds of things so seriously, but the more upset my son gets when I continue to get something like that wrong, the more often I will bring it up. Science facts and grammar are the two hot buttons.It’s kinda fun bugging him though
I was in a conversation about the nature of the Universe with a retired chemist who also happened to be a devout atheist (there's an oxymoron, 'devout atheist'). I mentioned the 'algorithm of life', meaning the process of evolution and the singular phenomenon of intelligence. He said, "What algorithm? It's all just random chance." Then I talked about the questions around the origins of the Universe coming out of nothing, the beginning of everything, and he cut me off saying, "We already understand the origins of the universe. The science is settled on that."
That's a guy who is fun to poke at. His faith is so strong, the are no questions left for him.
- Will (Dragonfly)
I love you- will you marry me??? Just kidding! As a retired science teacher who just bought a sailboat I love to see the explanation of the applications of SCIENCE!
Well yes. Even evolutionary theory is changing. https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/how-a-humble-microbe-shook-the-evolutionary-tree/ and https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/how-about-new-theory-of-evolution-with-less-natural-selection
Science is always settled until it is not.
And exactly how do we know this?
I think he might have even more questions. Randomness is certainly a more promising theory than an omniscient being.
Earth is a strange place. After all, it is bipolar.