It's not rocket science

[kwackers]

None of this stops Earth's mechanics being identical to a waltzer and it doesn't stop waltzers having speed changes at the rim of the chair just as Earth would at its surface.

Walzer? It's all just centripetal force.

You've two rotating discs, a large (major) disc and attached to that a smaller (minor) one.
If you plot a vector of the centripetal force acting on the large one at the point the small one is attached then add to that the vector for the force of the small one as it rotates you can see the final force acting on the object (you).
The velocity is only relevant because it increases the rate of rotation and hence the centripetal forces.
If you then measure that force and compare it to the magnitude of your calculated vector for any point in time then they'll match.
(FWIW, the resultant force is simply the addition of two sine waves, frequency given by the rotation of the two discs and amplitude by their rotational velocity.)

Ignoring relativity you can apply the same to the earth. You've the centripetal force of the earth rotating around the sun (major) and the centripetal force caused by the rotation of the earth (minor).
The problem is these are teeny tiny and make no worthwhile change to the force applied by gravity.

Secondary school maths at best.

[[XAP]Bob]

I don't care about the train at the moment, I'm talking about a stationary, practising, hammer thrower.

He is stationary in that he is on an axis but rotating around?

Yes - there is no lateral motion of the hammer/athlete pairing

A centrifugal force is pushing the hammer outwards. Nothing is accelerating if he is moving at a constant speed. Thing is he is fixed on a point, he himself isn't being made to orbit anything.

OK - I should be clear - I am plotting everything in the frame of reference of a spectator.

As for "accelerating" nothing is, when he lets go of the hammer, it decelerates. The only acceleration is when he starts from a stopped start and swings it initially.

That is clearly incorrect - unless you don't think that the earth's surface is rotating....

There is a continuous, unbalanced, force on the mass of the hammer, and an unbalanced force on a mass causes... an acceleration.

[Manc33]

OK - I should be clear - I am plotting everything in the frame of reference of a spectator.

Leaving the hammer and focusing on the guy swinging it can't apply because when in the Earth model, he would be the sun @ 0 MPH.

Worse than that still is to leave the whole thing and take an outside view. No outsider could judge it because they aren't standing on the surface of the hammer on a train/Earth.

The sun doesn't have any bearing on the velocity changes at Earth's surface (I am saying aren't there and need to be).

There is a continuous, unbalanced, force on the mass of the hammer, and an unbalanced force on a mass causes... an acceleration.

Where?

It is all being held tight until the hammer is let go of, then it can only decelerate.

[Postboxer]

An acceleration is a change in velocity, velocity is speed and direction, the hammer's speed is constant but it's direction is continuously changing, therefore it is always accelerating, as there is a force in the wire always pulling it.

[[XAP]Bob]

OK - I should be clear - I am plotting everything in the frame of reference of a spectator.

Leaving the hammer and focusing on the guy swinging it can't apply because when in the Earth model, he would be the sun @ 0 MPH.

Worse than that still is to leave the whole thing and take an outside view. No outsider could judge it because they aren't standing on the surface of the hammer on a train/Earth.

The sun doesn't have any bearing on the velocity changes at Earth's surface (I am saying aren't there and need to be).

There is a continuous, unbalanced, force on the mass of the hammer, and an unbalanced force on a mass causes... an acceleration.

Where?

It is all being held tight until the hammer is let go of, then it can only decelerate.

From an outside observer the hammer is moving left, then right.
Clearly if that doesn't involve an acceleration then neither does the earth's surface accelerate when viewed from outside...

The unbalanced force, when forces are resolved by a spectator, is the tension on the hammer wire.

[Manc33]

Nothing is or should be getting observed off the surface of the planet, or off the surface of the hammer. It doesn't matter, thats not where the observation needs to be taken from. That isn't even where the observer is!

This is like debating with a team of lawyers.

You'll just throw in some red herring and change it all from what it was, you did the same thing insisting drag should be removed from an experiment where drag is a control.

Others people use this same tactic, answering the speed change question with forces when it is about speed and time only.

I have repeatedly said you can change gravity, add to it, remove it, make it negative (if you bolt the object down that is) and ALL OF THIS has been ignored every time I have said it!

That isn't science, ignoring what you don't like the sound of, that is "editing to suit".

You can't observe what I am talking about if you leave the surface of the planet so why are you continually trying to?

Because then you can't observe it properly, what a surprise that ends up being the outcome.

If I say "drop something in water" you'll say "no it has to be dropped in a vacuum".

No it doesn't!

You're just using that to get away from what happens when objects do get dropped in water, which in terms of scientific inquiry is an absurd tactic. You're clearly throwing in whatever you can to deflect it all away into some other totally unrelated issue, like hammer throwing.

I have just pointed out three or four instances of you doing the same thing over and over and it is a common thing in these discussions.

[kwackers]

Nothing is or should be getting observed off the surface of the planet, or off the surface of the hammer. It doesn't matter, thats not where the observation needs to be taken from. That isn't even where the observer is!

The observer is everything. Until you understand that you'll always be wrong.

This is like debating with a team of lawyers.

Or people who simply have a better understanding of science.

You'll just throw in some red herring and change it all from what it was, you did the same thing insisting drag should be removed from an experiment where drag is a control.

Drag is a variable not a control. The only time you do something involving drag is when you want to measure drag. If you're not measuring drag you eliminate it.
If you can't eliminate variables then you'll find it hard to measure the things you want to.

Others people use this same tactic, answering the speed change question with forces when it is about speed and time only.

Because other people understand it. You don't.
You can complain until you're blue in the face. Physics doesn't give a monkeys about what you think.
You don't like it because it breaks your world view.

You can't observe what I am talking about if you leave the surface of the planet so why are you continually trying to?

Yawn.
If the earth is doing 68,000 mph you're not stood on it. I'm sat at my chair and I'm not moving.

I have just pointed out three or four instances of you doing the same thing over and over and it is a common thing in these discussions.

Shocking isn't it?
People repeating the truth over and over. What are you expecting exactly? For everyone to suddenly agree that a version of physics generated and perpetuated by folk who most obviously don't understand secondary school maths and physics will suddenly become right?

Truth is manc you either haven't read any of the replies other than to look for keywords that you can attach your nonsense to or you're simply too daft or too far down the wrong path to make sense of them.

I refer you to post one of this thread. Start there and read it over and over.
We can't change our minds, physics won't let us.

What you do is up to you.

[Manc33]

The observer is everything. Until you understand that you'll always be wrong.

If the "observer is everything" then why would you think it is normal to completely remove their observation by taking an unrelated observation, where it now removes the ability to observe the speed changes from the perspective of the observer?

Outside observers aren't the ones sat on the surface of an Earth or a hammer to observe anything happening there because they aren't there.

This is why it is like discussing this stuff with lawyers, you just said yourself the observer is everything.

Try sticking to it then?

Why are you negating the observer and choosing your own observation instead?

The surface of the land is whats being observed to move from the perspective of someone or something stuck to it.

If you can feasibly explain to me why you're not using a silly lawyer tactic I would love to hear it because you are totally contradicting yourself to suggest the observer can be ignored, I bet it can... because all you're trying to do is avoid the speed changes at the surface.

You're more interested in someone observing this that is unable to and you're telling me thats the right way to go about it.

It is the right way to go about it if you're trying to ignore my questions about whats taking place on the surface. Not off the surface, that is meaningless to this... it has to be on the surface.

Or people who simply have a better understanding of science.

You have your own version that was drummed into you just as it was drummed into me and everyone else. Does that mean none of it should ever be scrutinised or double checked? I thought science was all about doing that?

It is brainwashing where for about 1% of it, science is only claimed to be getting done and isn't being. It is all "This is my opinion therefore it is a fact" like Neptune wobbling means a force sticks us to the Earth. Maybe it can if you really want to believe it but what proves it apart from "wanting" it to be that way? Nothing.

Drag is a variable not a control.

Drag is only a variable due to density therefore density is the variable where drag is a constant and barely exists, because it is two densities meeting up and clashing together, this "drag" you mention then, is simply a by-product of two densities clashing. Drag doesn't actually exist.

If it does please show me some "drag" collected in a glass jar?

You're just making it up... I am not saying you're not getting all of this stuff from official science books and have no doubt you are but that doesn't mean they are right.

The only time you do something involving drag is when you want to measure drag. If you're not measuring drag you eliminate it.

If you're measuring "drag" you're measuring density, assuming the objects are both spheres and the same size.

So you've just invented a word "drag" as far as I can tell. There isn't any "drag" as a thing of its own, it is a by-product, an after effect of two different densities meeting up.

I had no idea that because everyone believes in gravity they bolt on all this other stuff (like drag) like it makes sense.

If you think its right because it says so in a science book and you don't need or require empirical evidence, thats your problem. I really don't know how else to say it but surely you cannot agree that not having proof for something is acceptable? For example Neptune wobbling around certainly isn't proving gravity sticks things to Earth but people take this as being "the answer" to it.

Right... but it needs to be based on reality. You can't just say "I think therefore it is". You're back to a religion if you're doing that.

If you can't eliminate variables then you'll find it hard to measure the things you want to.

The only variable in the water experiment with plastic and metal balls of equal size is the densities of the two balls. There isn't any other variable, unless you of course start including magic forces which is what drag sounds like. It doesn't exist without density dictating that it does.

Because other people understand it. You don't.

No they don't they are provably fobbing me off by including forces.

If I say increase gravity, remove it, make it negative... then no, you certainly don't have a point because I have said many times if the speeds remain the same and the Earth remains the same size, you don't have a case, you CAN increase gravity, reduce it and so on.

You're throwing in gravity because it is your savior but it doesn't mean much if I say reduce it or increase it all you want, it is hilarious actually that I do say this over and over and over and over and over again and you just don't care.

If gravity can be changed how can it be the reason something moves at one speed at one time and another speed at another time?

Don't you even get what I am saying?

Something moves at X speed at X time then another different speed at a different time.

Gravity has no bearing on this, it can't have if I say "Change it then, do what you want with it but you can't change the speeds and you can't change the size of anything".

Then you are just throwing gravity in hoping it makes the question go away, nope, it just makes it worse that you're still not answering it or, not admitting to not being able to answer it.

You can complain until you're blue in the face. Physics doesn't give a monkeys about what you think.
You don't like it because it breaks your world view.

Read what I just said about how you can do whatever you want with gravity and it not mattering one iota to the surface speeds.

You're the one with the "world view" in that case and yes, you are. A heliocentric world view that never needed proving to you for you to believe it, I was the same until recently.

People are improving science by doing this by the way. They are demanding answers where in the past it was an assumed fact.

Yawn. If the earth is doing 68,000 mph you're not stood on it. I'm sat at my chair and I'm not moving.

"If the earth is doing 68,000 mph you're not stood on it."

I have no idea what this means. It is nonsense.

Shocking isn't it? People repeating the truth over and over. What are you expecting exactly? For everyone to suddenly agree that a version of physics generated and perpetuated by folk who most obviously don't understand secondary school maths and physics will suddenly become right?

Not when they are simply using the physics we all know and love already, no.

You assume things like gravity are proven when they aren't and worse yet, actually base physics on it.

You can probably base physics possibly on the acceleration of a falling object and I am not claiming you can't, it might even come out as a constant under the right circumstances (dropping objects in your beloved "vacuum" all the time to skew it that way) but you cannot then just add gravity onto that and start waving it around like it means anything.

You literally answer almost every single thing with gravity when there's nothing to actually prove it exists.

Truth is manc you either haven't read any of the replies other than to look for keywords that you can attach your nonsense to or you're simply too daft or too far down the wrong path to make sense of them.

I refer you to post one of this thread. Start there and read it over and over.
We can't change our minds, physics won't let us.

What you do is up to you.

Durp!

That same physics won't let objects of different densities (that are spheres the same diameter) fall at the same speed in water - but you will edit all of that out of course. This is why you think you're doing science but aren't, if we were to be really stringent about it.

You can believe drag is a force of its own, gravity is there added to the accelerative rate caused by density, but then you're doing scientism, not science.

[kwackers]

<snip>

Manc I get it.

You and another bunch of clever folk on the internet (hereon in known as 'the idiots') have through a process of deduction proved:-
Ancient Greeks wrong.
Shown Isaac Newton to be an ignorant charlatan.
Shown millions of scientists, physics and maths teachers and other professionals to be involved in a gigantic scam.
Shown that the same don't actually understand one iota of what they spent their life studying.
Shown every major government to be in on the same.
Shown pilots both military and civil to be in on the same.
Shown anyone who has circumnavigated the globe to be in on the same.
Created a new and exciting branch of physics.
And maths.
And probably more importantly, single handedly created a universe of mind boggling complexity that mere mortals armed with a couple of basic equations couldn't possible hope to understand.

You've demonstrated light bends with magnets, moons are transparent, things randomly change direction without applying force, giant mountains hide the sun, lenses (including the ones in your eyes) distort reality - in fact there's almost no element of classical physics and maths you haven't demolished.

Well done sir!
I suggest you run off and write a book, fame and fortune awaits (and probably a 'care in the community' position too).

Good luck.

[reohn2]

Kwackers,oooh you're a one you are(slightly camp voice accepted).
Just when we were about to get to a break through in this new branch of human understanding,you've scared him off..... ....or perhaps not

[Postboxer]

The reason for the hammer analogy and why we keep bringing up gravity is because the hammer moves in a circle, like you do stood on the earth. The force accelerating the hammer in a circle is the tension in the wire, acting towards the centre of the circle, the force accelerating you is gravity, acting towards the centre of the earth. The hammer accelerates towards the centre, you accelerate towards the centre, the oceans are accelerating towards the centre, downwards. The force on the hammer is constant magnitude always acting towards the centre of the circle it travels in, the same for you stood on the earth.

To an outside observer the hammer appears to be travelling different speeds, the diagram of the earth orbiting the sun you have posted a few times shows that the surface of the earth appears to be travelling at different speeds. In both instances the forces causing the accelerations are constant and to the middle of the circles, therefore there is no way you would feel the speed change, all you can feel is the constant force towards the centre of the circle, and in your case, the force of your feet on the ground acting upwards, nothing changes and there is no lateral speed change to feel, only the force causing you to change direction.

Drag has nothing to do with the density of the object, only the relative motion, which could be horizontal.

[[XAP]Bob]

The observer is everything. Until you understand that you'll always be wrong.

If the "observer is everything" then why would you think it is normal to completely remove their observation by taking an unrelated observation, where it now removes the ability to observe the speed changes from the perspective of the observer?

All I am doing is using a simple case, which is easy to visualise to build up the picture of what is going on. It's quite a common process when you are trying to understand something - start small and build up.

The hammer is a simple, describable, system in a state of steady acceleration as observed by a spectator.
I'll ask again - because it's actually quite important to understanding the universe - in which direction does the hammer 'ball' accelerate.

Outside observers aren't the ones sat on the surface of an Earth or a hammer to observe anything happening there because they aren't there.

Yet you post a picture from a perspective 'outside the earth'...
We have the ability to visualise all sorts of observations - but here is the key. Observations from different locations/frames of reference don't necessarily agree with each other, even if we limit ourselves to inertial frames..
They will measure time differently, and distance (particularly in the direction of travel) will also be different (not noticeable until you get to a significant proportion of the speed of light between the frames)

This is why it is like discussing this stuff with lawyers, you just said yourself the observer is everything.
Try sticking to it then?
Why are you negating the observer and choosing your own observation instead?

Because the choice of observation platform is important. You are choosing to apply the observation from one frame of reference (the earth's surface is accelerating) and saying 'but I can't feel that in this frame of reference' where there is no acceleration, but there is a centrifugal force - albeit a VERY VERY tiny one.

The surface of the land is whats being observed to move from the perspective of someone or something stuck to it.

If you can feasibly explain to me why you're not using a silly lawyer tactic I would love to hear it because you are totally contradicting yourself to suggest the observer can be ignored, I bet it can... because all you're trying to do is avoid the speed changes at the surface.

You're more interested in someone observing this that is unable to and you're telling me thats the right way to go about it.

The speed changes at the surface are only present for an external observer, an observer on the surface doesn't see those, but they do find a small centrifugal force.

It is the right way to go about it if you're trying to ignore my questions about whats taking place on the surface. Not off the surface, that is meaningless to this... it has to be on the surface.

Then why post observations from off the planet, as you have done in this thread. We can, and do, detect the centrifugal force which has no physical meaning, except that it appears as a result of resolving the laws of motion in a rotating reference frame. We can explain this either as a static surface with a small centrifugal force applied, or as spinning ball with no phantom forces, since we can resolve in an inertial frame of reference (or at least one much closer to truly inertial)

Or people who simply have a better understanding of science.

You have your own version that was drummed into you just as it was drummed into me and everyone else. Does that mean none of it should ever be scrutinised or double checked? I thought science was all about doing that?

This has been checked, and double checked, and triple checked. There comes a point Manc, where you have to concede that the working model for the world works because it is correct.
You don't even have a model, because you can't put one together - and neither can any other flat earther. There is a really good reason for this.

It is brainwashing where for about 1% of it, science is only claimed to be getting done and isn't being. It is all "This is my opinion therefore it is a fact" like Neptune wobbling means a force sticks us to the Earth. Maybe it can if you really want to believe it but what proves it apart from "wanting" it to be that way? Nothing.

Ah - this chestnut again.
Manc - it's tired. We aren't brainwashed - you have been if you believe any of this flat earth rubbish.
The experimental evidence for gravitation is beyond reasonable doubt. You have failed to explain any of the results in a way that would convince a 5 year old.

Drag is a variable not a control.

Drag is only a variable due to density therefore density is the variable where drag is a constant and barely exists, because it is two densities meeting up and clashing together, this "drag" you mention then, is simply a by-product of two densities clashing. Drag doesn't actually exist.

If it does please show me some "drag" collected in a glass jar?

I'll do that when you collect some sound in a glass jar. Or some light in a glass jar.
Maybe some justice, or fear. Some knowledge or truth. Or a sample of 'dome'.

Drag exists, even between things of the same density. If you create a vortex of air it loses energy to the air around it by .. drag.

You're just making it up... I am not saying you're not getting all of this stuff from official science books and have no doubt you are but that doesn't mean they are right.

The only time you do something involving drag is when you want to measure drag. If you're not measuring drag you eliminate it.

If you're measuring "drag" you're measuring density, assuming the objects are both spheres and the same size.

I have already demonstrated that this is not the case, by putting the experiment on it's side. The drag force on each ball is related purely to the flow velocity.
The effect of that force differs between the balls, but the force is related to flow velocity, not material.

So you've just invented a word "drag" as far as I can tell. There isn't any "drag" as a thing of its own, it is a by-product, an after effect of two different densities meeting up.
I had no idea that because everyone believes in gravity they bolt on all this other stuff (like drag) like it makes sense.

If there is no drag then I look forward to seeing you break 100mph on a bike, since all you need to do is apply a little power for a long while, Without any drag you'll get there...

If you think its right because it says so in a science book and you don't need or require empirical evidence, thats your problem. I really don't know how else to say it but surely you cannot agree that not having proof for something is acceptable? For example Neptune wobbling around certainly isn't proving gravity sticks things to Earth but people take this as being "the answer" to it.

But *you* think you're right because you've heard it on a youtube video. You haven't done any experiments, and you don't intend to.

The evidence is stacked heavily on the side of gravity being real in this discussion. It'll take a significant experiment to break that conclusion and you aren't even close to providing one...

Right... but it needs to be based on reality. You can't just say "I think therefore it is". You're back to a religion if you're doing that.

Yes - except, that's not how religions work - but that's another topic...

If you can't eliminate variables then you'll find it hard to measure the things you want to.

The only variable in the water experiment with plastic and metal balls of equal size is the densities of the two balls. There isn't any other variable, unless you of course start including magic forces which is what drag sounds like. It doesn't exist without density dictating that it does.

The only thing magic is your explanation. It doesn't make sense - it doesn't work.
There is no down in your world, so quite how the 'densities' know which way to line up is still a mystery. There is also no reason for anything to move in a vacuum, and no reason for them to move at the same rate.
Drag is a very easily measured force. It is proportional to speed^2, and the proportionality factor is based on geometry, as well as surface texture/viscosity.

Because other people understand it. You don't.

No they don't they are provably fobbing me off by including forces.
If I say increase gravity, remove it, make it negative... then no, you certainly don't have a point because I have said many times if the speeds remain the same and the Earth remains the same size, you don't have a case, you CAN increase gravity, reduce it and so on.

Sorry, I'm at a loss here. How can I reduce gravity - if I can work that out then I never need to work again.

You're throwing in gravity because it is your savior but it doesn't mean much if I say reduce it or increase it all you want, it is hilarious actually that I do say this over and over and over and over and over again and you just don't care.
If gravity can be changed how can it be the reason something moves at one speed at one time and another speed at another time?
Don't you even get what I am saying?

Nope - please use some actual examples, because I haven't the foggiest what you are on.

Something moves at X speed at X time then another different speed at a different time.

Then it has accelerated between those times, and has had a force acting on it for at least some of that time.

Gravity has no bearing on this, it can't have if I say "Change it then, do what you want with it but you can't change the speeds and you can't change the size of anything".
Then you are just throwing gravity in hoping it makes the question go away, nope, it just makes it worse that you're still not answering it or, not admitting to not being able to answer it.

There was no question to answer or otherwise.
Gravity might be involved as the force that caused the acceleration that resulted in the different speed (although velocity is the preferred unit at this point)

[quote[

You can complain until you're blue in the face. Physics doesn't give a monkeys about what you think.
You don't like it because it breaks your world view.

Read what I just said about how you can do whatever you want with gravity and it not mattering one iota to the surface speeds.[/quote]
Yeah - it didn't make any sense further up the post, and it still doesn't. I can't change gravity.

You're the one with the "world view" in that case and yes, you are. A heliocentric world view that never needed proving to you for you to believe it, I was the same until recently.
People are improving science by doing this by the way. They are demanding answers where in the past it was an assumed fact.

Everyone has a world view. Your's is, apparently, that the world is flat and enclosed under a dome. No idea what's outside the dome, but there are some magical orbs somewhere under it, something ti something ti mumble bumble.

Yawn. If the earth is doing 68,000 mph you're not stood on it. I'm sat at my chair and I'm not moving.

"If the earth is doing 68,000 mph you're not stood on it."
I have no idea what this means. It is nonsense.

It means that if the earth is doing 68,000mph relative to you as an observer then you aren't standing on it. It's really quite simple.
If you stand still relative to the solar system then you will see that velocity, but you can't see it *and* be on the surface.

Shocking isn't it? People repeating the truth over and over. What are you expecting exactly? For everyone to suddenly agree that a version of physics generated and perpetuated by folk who most obviously don't understand secondary school maths and physics will suddenly become right?

Not when they are simply using the physics we all know and love already, no.
You assume things like gravity are proven when they aren't and worse yet, actually base physics on it.

That's because they have been proven over centuries. You still haven't suggested an alternative definition of down - nor an experiment that would disprove gravity. Therefore the theory holds - since there is a complete absence of any evidence against it.

You can probably base physics possibly on the acceleration of a falling object and I am not claiming you can't, it might even come out as a constant under the right circumstances (dropping objects in your beloved "vacuum" all the time to skew it that way) but you cannot then just add gravity onto that and start waving it around like it means anything.
You literally answer almost every single thing with gravity when there's nothing to actually prove it exists.

Whereas you answer everything with "I don't believe you" and wave that around as if it proof of anything at all...
The experimental evidence is there, I've suggested a few easy experiments for you to do, but you haven't done them...

That same physics won't let objects of different densities (that are spheres the same diameter) fall at the same speed in water - but you will edit all of that out of course. This is why you think you're doing science but aren't, if we were to be really stringent about it.

You can believe drag is a force of its own, gravity is there added to the accelerative rate caused by density, but then you're doing scientism, not science.

No - he is doing science. He is analysing the forces involved in the accelerating ball, and there are two.
The drag force is a right pig, because it is velocity dependant, and it therefore changes the velocity a moment later.. It's worse than that because the force is purely related to geometry and the laws of motion show us that the same force applied to two objects massing a different amount will produce different accelerations.

This isn't rocket science, it's not even GCSE level mechanics.


Can we please answer the question about the hammer.

From the point of view of a spectator in which direction is the hammer accelerating?

[Vorpal]

This is why you think you're doing science but aren't, if we were to be really stringent about it.

What is science?
Observing things about the world.
Developing theories.
Testing those theories.
Possibly drawing some conclusions from the results.

Even if everyone in the universe except Manc33 is completely wrong, that doesn't mean it's not science.

[kwackers]

What is science?
Observing things about the world.
Developing theories.
Testing those theories.
Possibly drawing some conclusions from the results.

Even if everyone in the universe except Manc33 is completely wrong, that doesn't mean it's not science.

I don't have a problem with what manc set out to do but the trouble is he misses out the testing bit.

He's a stuck record.

Manc: "they can't explain it"
Everyone else: "yes they can, this is how it works"
Manc: "that's rubbish".

<sometime later>

Manc: "they can't explain it"
etc etc

A lot of what manc doesn't believe can easily be figured out with a few thought experiments. He doesn't do them.
Einstein postulated relativity based on thought experiments.
Planck, Heisenberg and others came up with quantum theory similarly.
Manc can't even figure out a hammer on a train...

We should discuss quantum theory instead of blathering on about primary school physics that was fully solved several hundred years ago.
I've never been happy with the Copenhagen "shut up and calculate" interpretation.
If there's something genuinely interesting about physics and reality it's in there somewhere...

[[XAP]Bob]

Manc can't even figure out a hammer on a train...

Leave the train out of it. Let's focus on the hammer in a stadium first - because he can't get that either at the moment.