Wacky news that makes you go "wtf?"

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

Well it was so obvious I didn't bother to answer. But since you don't seem to know I will let you off the hook. The rock will win.

Very well, let's try another slight variation on the scheme, as you seem still to believe that heavy things fall faster than light ones.

This time, we'll fit the inside of the boxes with a light, a camera and a transmitter mechanism so that one of our assistants can see what happens inside the box as it falls. Before letting go of the boxes, it is "plainly obvious" that the contents lie on the bottom surface, right?

On your model we expect the box, being heavier, will fall faster than its contents. Therefore, as the box falls, the camera should show the contents moving upwards towards the top surface. (This is just an appearance, mind you, because it is also plainly obvious that in reality the box is falling faster than the contents.) In addition, the feather should reach the top of its box earlier than the rock reaches its own.

Do you expect the results of this experiment to validate your plainly obvious explanation for the behaviour of falling bodies?


Paul
BTW, I've made no attempt to remove the air from the path in which the various objects are falling, so have not made any use of your obfuscated suggestion.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

Anyhow, since when has science impressed beautiful lady observers? She would run away from all the geeky science nerds doing boring tests with boring boxes.

You may be surprised to discover that some beautiful ladies are themselves geeky science nerds. If you don't already know, find out who is named as co-inventor on the patent for spread-spectrum radio communication. Another example: who first published examples of computer software?

Paul

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

... as you seem still to believe that heavy things fall faster than light ones.

I never stated or implied that. If you find fault in my previous statement please show where I was wrong.

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

You may be surprised to discover that some beautiful ladies are themselves geeky science nerds.

But that does not prove that she would be bothered to give even the time of day to nerdy male idiots scientists throwing boxes off high towers.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

The rock will win. The box with the rock will have a higher density...

Originally Posted by retina

I never stated or implied that. If you find fault in my previous statement please show where I was wrong.

That looks like a claim to me.


Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

But that does not prove that she would be bothered to give even the time of day to nerdy male idiots scientists throwing boxes off high towers.

Perhaps the set of beautiful ladies to be found in the vicinity of the LToP does not include an individual who would find nerdy male scientists attractive. I'll concede that point willingly.

However, there is excellent observational evidence to suggest that some beautiful ladies do find such people attractive. Once more: who first published examples of computer software?

Paul

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

That looks like a claim to me.

Oh dear, are you mistaking density for heaviness? Have we found a chink in Xilman's armour?

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

Once more: who first published examples of computer software?

That one I have no idea. I thought it was a rhetorical Q, and presumably it was a female. But I couldn't even guess an answer and I am too lazy to google anything right now.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

Oh dear, are you mistaking density for heaviness? Have we found a chink in Xilman's armour?

Not at all. You had previously accepted that the rock was heavier than the feather. As the boxes are identical, that would imply that box+rock is heavier than the box+feather.

Paul
Perhaps we are now getting closer to resolving the meaning and/or misunderstanding of "plainly obvious".

[xilman]

Hmm, perhaps this sub-thread ought to move to the Science and Technology forum now that it's grown so large.

Indeed, a thread on the scientific method and/or the philosophy of science could be valuable in its own right.

Paul

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

Perhaps we are now getting closer to resolving the meaning and/or misunderstanding of "plainly obvious".

Perhaps, but for the original article that sparked all this, I still think it was plainly obvious. Just ask anybody (male or female) over about 13 years old and see if they can honestly claim that they have never noticed it. I would guess anyone that isn't blind, or being deliberately obtuse, will already know this. [American accent]I don't need no stinkin' study to tell me that, buddy.[/American accent]

Anyhow, I liked the idea of a video camera to observe the contents of the boxes while descending. And even better if there was 1kg of feathers and 1kg of rocks just to make all the other factors equal.