Talk:1366: Train - Revision history

141.101.76.11: Edit of comment

2023-08-09T06:34:33Z

Edit of comment

141.101.76.164: Comment

2023-08-09T06:30:38Z

Comment

Beanie at 11:24, 1 July 2021

2021-07-01T11:24:05Z

Noobgeek: inviting objections to a thoro rewrite

2014-05-23T19:58:52Z

inviting objections to a thoro rewrite

Noobgeek: resp to resp

2014-05-16T15:07:15Z

resp to resp

Dgbrt at 21:39, 15 May 2014

2014-05-15T21:39:34Z

Noobgeek: format edit

2014-05-15T17:41:24Z

format edit

Noobgeek: arguing the explanation needs a rewrite

2014-05-15T16:59:58Z

arguing the explanation needs a rewrite

173.245.55.66 at 17:53, 12 May 2014

2014-05-12T17:53:58Z

Gleyshon: Physics objection, absolute rotation!

2014-05-11T22:19:26Z

Physics objection, absolute rotation!

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 9 August 2023
Line 42:		Line 42:
	hey cool, i live in oxford <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)		hey cool, i live in oxford <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

−	Having read this proposed explanation and those of other comics, it seems that a lot of them (including this one) appear to omit explaining their humour, which is very often derived from their completely absurd propositions. Other commenters have alluded to this too. Lay people don't understand physics to this depth, or physics may appear boring to them due to their ignorance of it. But it doesn't follow that Randall, being an expert in physics, is either boring or doesn't have a sense of humour. Shouldn't these comic strip explanations attempt to explain the ''absurdity'' of their proposals first as opposed to the physics of them? That way, we get to know Randall's wit a little better and can better appreciate his past and future work. This comic strip, to me, represents a very novel take on the classic ''Tail wagging the Dog'' scenario and I came to this wiki hoping to get a bit more insight into Randall's interest in these kind of scenarios. I have been disappointed, but I hope that might change. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.164\|141.101.76.164]] 06:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)	+	Having read this proposed explanation and those of other comics, it seems that a lot of them (including this one) appear to omit explaining their humour, which is very often derived from their completely absurd propositions. Other commenters have alluded to this too. Lay people don't understand physics to this depth, or physics may appear boring to them due to their ignorance of it. But it doesn't follow that Randall, being an expert in physics, is either boring or doesn't have a sense of humour. Shouldn't these comic strip explanations attempt to explain the ''absurdity'' of their proposals first as opposed to the physics of them? That way, we get to know Randall's wit a little better and can better appreciate his past and future work. This comic strip, to me, represents a very novel take on the classic ''Tail wagging the Dog'' scenario and I came to this wiki hoping to get a bit more insight into Randall's interest in these kind of scenarios. I have been disappointed this time, but I hope that might change. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.164\|141.101.76.164]] 06:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:30, 9 August 2023
Line 41:		Line 41:

	hey cool, i live in oxford <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)		hey cool, i live in oxford <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	Having read this proposed explanation and those of other comics, it seems that a lot of them (including this one) appear to omit explaining their humour, which is very often derived from their completely absurd propositions. Other commenters have alluded to this too. Lay people don't understand physics to this depth, or physics may appear boring to them due to their ignorance of it. But it doesn't follow that Randall, being an expert in physics, is either boring or doesn't have a sense of humour. Shouldn't these comic strip explanations attempt to explain the ''absurdity'' of their proposals first as opposed to the physics of them? That way, we get to know Randall's wit a little better and can better appreciate his past and future work. This comic strip, to me, represents a very novel take on the classic ''Tail wagging the Dog'' scenario and I came to this wiki hoping to get a bit more insight into Randall's interest in these kind of scenarios. I have been disappointed, but I hope that might change. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.164\|141.101.76.164]] 06:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 1 July 2021
Line 39:		Line 39:

	It's fun to play with the physics, but the explanation is just wrong re the comic expressing a valid perspective in physics, most directly for the reason supplied by the title text: Multiple trains and elevators are moving relative to each other, so their mode of operation can't be to stay still and shift the earth. (The point of the title text might be to make the false-physics joke extra clear.) I'm going to rewrite the explanation if no one else does -- but this will be my first big edit, so before i do, to be a polite noob, i'm requesting objections. [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)		It's fun to play with the physics, but the explanation is just wrong re the comic expressing a valid perspective in physics, most directly for the reason supplied by the title text: Multiple trains and elevators are moving relative to each other, so their mode of operation can't be to stay still and shift the earth. (The point of the title text might be to make the false-physics joke extra clear.) I'm going to rewrite the explanation if no one else does -- but this will be my first big edit, so before i do, to be a polite noob, i'm requesting objections. [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	hey cool, i live in oxford <span style="text-shadow:0 0 6px black">[[User:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#dddddd">Beanie</span>]]</span> <sup><span style="text-shadow:0 0 3px #000000">[[User talk:Beanie\|<span style="font-size:8pt;color:#dddddd">talk</span>]]</span></sup> 11:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 23 May 2014
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:Just get into the train without any knowledge about the size or mass of the Earth, and you just see the surface beyond you is moving. I will try to enhance the explain on this matter. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)		:Just get into the train without any knowledge about the size or mass of the Earth, and you just see the surface beyond you is moving. I will try to enhance the explain on this matter. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	::Hi there! You're right that you can often exclude information and be left with various "relativities". But (to give only one argument) the comic explicitly describes the entire planet being grabbed and rotated to a new orientation. Mountains and all :^) [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 15:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)		::Hi there! You're right that you can often exclude information and be left with various "relativities". But (to give only one argument) the comic explicitly describes the entire planet being grabbed and rotated to a new orientation. Mountains and all :^) [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 15:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	It's fun to play with the physics, but the explanation is just wrong re the comic expressing a valid perspective in physics, most directly for the reason supplied by the title text: Multiple trains and elevators are moving relative to each other, so their mode of operation can't be to stay still and shift the earth. (The point of the title text might be to make the false-physics joke extra clear.) I'm going to rewrite the explanation if no one else does -- but this will be my first big edit, so before i do, to be a polite noob, i'm requesting objections. [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 16 May 2014
Line 36:		Line 36:
	:*On Earth surface you just see that the train is moving.		:*On Earth surface you just see that the train is moving.
	:Just get into the train without any knowledge about the size or mass of the Earth, and you just see the surface beyond you is moving. I will try to enhance the explain on this matter. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)		:Just get into the train without any knowledge about the size or mass of the Earth, and you just see the surface beyond you is moving. I will try to enhance the explain on this matter. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
		+	::Hi there! You're right that you can often exclude information and be left with various "relativities". But (to give only one argument) the comic explicitly describes the entire planet being grabbed and rotated to a new orientation. Mountains and all :^) [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 15:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 15 May 2014
Line 32:		Line 32:

	I am only a layperson, but as i read it the explanation confuses coordinate systems for the description of motion with physical explanation. The reasons why the train cannot be seen as accelerating the earth/universe are so numerous (even ignoring the other objects moving in different ways) it's just for subjective fun that i'll point out a few: The rest mass of the earth is not relative, so neither is the force needed to accelerate it -- force which the train cannot create by a factor of kajillions (roughly ;^). And if it did, the area would turn into plasma. Sticking to the comic, there isn't enough friction/rigidity/etc for the wheels/rails to "grab the earth". (Notice these are local observations unaffected by any relativity.) If somehow the earth could be accelerated in this manner, the rest of the universe wouldn't go along with it. And if it did, astronomical objects wouldn't change apparent position until their light reached us. Finally, rotation of massive bodies creates {{w\|Frame-dragging}} (the twisting of spacetime) which is locally observable. So: the point of the comic isn't that the view presented is counter-intuitively valid (with awkward math); rather the comic is funny because of how badly this view fails. But i don't think i'm the person to rewrite the explanation... [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 16:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)		I am only a layperson, but as i read it the explanation confuses coordinate systems for the description of motion with physical explanation. The reasons why the train cannot be seen as accelerating the earth/universe are so numerous (even ignoring the other objects moving in different ways) it's just for subjective fun that i'll point out a few: The rest mass of the earth is not relative, so neither is the force needed to accelerate it -- force which the train cannot create by a factor of kajillions (roughly ;^). And if it did, the area would turn into plasma. Sticking to the comic, there isn't enough friction/rigidity/etc for the wheels/rails to "grab the earth". (Notice these are local observations unaffected by any relativity.) If somehow the earth could be accelerated in this manner, the rest of the universe wouldn't go along with it. And if it did, astronomical objects wouldn't change apparent position until their light reached us. Finally, rotation of massive bodies creates {{w\|Frame-dragging}} (the twisting of spacetime) which is locally observable. So: the point of the comic isn't that the view presented is counter-intuitively valid (with awkward math); rather the comic is funny because of how badly this view fails. But i don't think i'm the person to rewrite the explanation... [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 16:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
		+	:That physics are easy to understand:
		+	:*At the train you just see the Earth is moving.
		+	:*On Earth surface you just see that the train is moving.
		+	:Just get into the train without any knowledge about the size or mass of the Earth, and you just see the surface beyond you is moving. I will try to enhance the explain on this matter. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 15 May 2014
Line 31:		Line 31:
	A train rotating the Earth is NOT physically equivalent to a train traversing the Earth. It would be true for a flat Earth, but rotation is absolute, see Newton's bucket argument. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument] --[[User:Gleyshon\|Gleyshon]]		A train rotating the Earth is NOT physically equivalent to a train traversing the Earth. It would be true for a flat Earth, but rotation is absolute, see Newton's bucket argument. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument] --[[User:Gleyshon\|Gleyshon]]

−	I am only a layperson, but as i read it the explanation confuses coordinate systems for the description of motion with physical explanation. The reasons why the train cannot be seen as accelerating the earth/universe are so numerous (even ignoring the other objects moving in different ways) it's just for subjective fun that i'll point out a few:	+	I am only a layperson, but as i read it the explanation confuses coordinate systems for the description of motion with physical explanation. The reasons why the train cannot be seen as accelerating the earth/universe are so numerous (even ignoring the other objects moving in different ways) it's just for subjective fun that i'll point out a few: The rest mass of the earth is not relative, so neither is the force needed to accelerate it -- force which the train cannot create by a factor of kajillions (roughly ;^). And if it did, the area would turn into plasma. Sticking to the comic, there isn't enough friction/rigidity/etc for the wheels/rails to "grab the earth". (Notice these are local observations unaffected by any relativity.) If somehow the earth could be accelerated in this manner, the rest of the universe wouldn't go along with it. And if it did, astronomical objects wouldn't change apparent position until their light reached us. Finally, rotation of massive bodies creates {{w\|Frame-dragging}} (the twisting of spacetime) which is locally observable. So: the point of the comic isn't that the view presented is counter-intuitively valid (with awkward math); rather the comic is funny because of how badly this view fails. But i don't think i'm the person to rewrite the explanation... [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 16:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
−	The rest mass of the earth is not relative, so neither is the force needed to accelerate it -- force which the train cannot create by a factor of kajillions (roughly ;^). And if it did, the area would turn into plasma. Sticking to the comic, there isn't enough friction/rigidity/etc for the wheels/rails to "grab the earth". (Notice these are local observations unaffected by any relativity.) If somehow the earth could be accelerated in this manner, the rest of the universe wouldn't go along with it. And if it did, astronomical objects wouldn't change apparent position until their light reached us. Finally, rotation of massive bodies creates {{w\|Frame-dragging}} (the twisting of spacetime) which is locally observable.
−	So: the point of the comic isn't that the view presented is counter-intuitively valid (with awkward math); rather the comic is funny because of how badly this view fails. But i don't think i'm the person to rewrite the explanation... [[User:Noobgeek\|Noobgeek]] ([[User talk:Noobgeek\|talk]]) 16:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 The last paragraph is not correct, the Earth would also experience an acceleration (albeit a small one).--[[User:Sturmonium|Sturmonium]] ([[User talk:Sturmonium|talk]]) 13:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 This line:
@@ Line 32: / Line 30: @@
 A train rotating the Earth is NOT physically equivalent to a train traversing the Earth. It would be true for a flat Earth, but rotation is absolute, see Newton's bucket argument. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument] --[[User:Gleyshon|Gleyshon]]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 It sounds like the dark matter engine in Futurama:http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_matter_engine {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.77}}
+:That's just what I was thinking! --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.66|173.245.55.66]] 17:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 I think the last paragraph, considering the situation from the point of view of multiple trains, is not relevant. The whole concept of what makes this idea funny and interesting is that you MUST view the situation from the point of view of a single train (or elevator). --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 13:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 : Second-last paragraph - my comment was written at the same time as another paragraph was added. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 13:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 11 May 2014
Line 30:		Line 30:

	I don't have a citation, but some traditional Polynesian navigation works using this view. Their "maps" are made of a grid of bush materials where intersections are stars or islands (possibly with a pebble tied on to represent the island). They consider the map and the earth to be connected, and you don't move along the map - the map moves. So you don't go to another island, you bring it to you. At night you move the stars to the right place, and during the day you paddle the sea and land so they are in the right place and direction.--[[User:DivePeak\|DivePeak]] ([[User talk:DivePeak\|talk]]) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)		I don't have a citation, but some traditional Polynesian navigation works using this view. Their "maps" are made of a grid of bush materials where intersections are stars or islands (possibly with a pebble tied on to represent the island). They consider the map and the earth to be connected, and you don't move along the map - the map moves. So you don't go to another island, you bring it to you. At night you move the stars to the right place, and during the day you paddle the sea and land so they are in the right place and direction.--[[User:DivePeak\|DivePeak]] ([[User talk:DivePeak\|talk]]) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	A train rotating the Earth is NOT physically equivalent to a train traversing the Earth. It would be true for a flat Earth, but rotation is absolute, see Newton's bucket argument. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument] --[[User:Gleyshon\|Gleyshon]]