Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 800px-Ernst_Mach_01.jpg (168KB, 800x1109px) Image search:
[Google]
168KB, 800x1109px
>You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?
What did he mean by this?
>>
Based Mach
He means exactly what he says tho?
>>
>>8566244
Maybe I'm just retarded but I fail to see how the stars are relevant.
>Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling?
It is the spinning that creates the centrifugal force that "pulls" one's arms away, and the "whirling" appearance of the stars is just a byproduct of the rotating frame of reference. I just don't see why the relationship between the stars and the person spinning needs to be questioned?
Unless this is meant to be a thought experiment that pokes holes in the concept of causality, like Hume and other causality skeptics, but if that was the case I still don't understand the reasoning.
>>
>>8565979
IMO he tries to point out that correlating phenomenons can have a hidden third reason causing both.
>>
>>8566397
You're right, you ARE retarded.
>>
>>8566453
Please explain then. I came here to learn.
>>
>>8566397
>thinks centrifugal force exists
fucking american education
>>
>>8566397
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
>centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' or 'pseudo' force
>it does not exist when measurements are made in an inertial frame of reference.
>>
>>8569078
>>8569084
>>8569088
Eh, I was under the impression that the term centrifugal force could still be used to describe the associated phenomena, even though it's inaccurate. Like how, for simplicity's sake, (some) people still talk about gravity as if it's a pulling force between masses.
Anyway, forgive me. I don't post here often, and my knowledge of physics waxes and wanes.
My question still remains. What is Mach trying to imply about the stars and their role/relationship with the APPARANT centrifugal force? I have a feeling its something so simply I'm overlooking it completely.
>>
>>8569613
i think it has some interesting connections to relativity. how there's no absolute position in the universe, so one cannot know if they are moving or something else is moving.
lets construct a new scenario. you sit somewhere in universe and the stars suddenly start spinning all around you. should your arms move away from your body? should they just stay still? does that mean one CAN tell whether you are moving or the stars are moving? im not sure.
>>
>>8566397
>Hume
>causality skeptic
Hume wasn't a skeptic of causality, he was a skeptic of human interpretation.
>>
>>8565979
Everything in the universe is relative. A certain Einstein elaborated on this.
>>
>>8569078
>makes distinctions between "real" and "fake" based on coordinate system
You are what's wrong with this thread.
>>8570452
It means you can tell you are rotating with respect to an observer who does not measure this force.
It is unlikely the universe is rotating.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/what-if-the-universe-is-rotating-as-a-whole
>>
>>8569613
>centrifugal force
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdCgTF839xM
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2