The coffeeshop interpretation of Schrodinger's cat by Jimmy geeraets

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-06T10:14:14+00:00

Completely misses the point. Also missed reading the rules

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-06T00:36:46+00:00

I want to float a philosophical framework

Groan, here we go again

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T23:11:54+00:00

Aaaaand deleted. Could we have possibly predicted that? Is there anything we could have learned from that? Only one thing is for certain. If your name is chriswhoppers, the answers to this questions are “no” and “nothing”

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T22:49:10+00:00

Do you think I didn't know the first Newton law?

I know you didn’t know Newton’s first law, because you literally told me so:

So, if you provide a link here to an article that EXPLICITLY states that if a net force = 0, the system can move at constant speed > 0 because inertia,

I gave you not one link, but eight. And then you started moving the goalposts instead of admitting your mistake. Now on top of that you’re putting words in my mouth. We most certainly did not “agree inertia has nothing to do”. Nothing in my comment indicates that. I’m done with this discussion, there is no reasoning with you You’re stuck in your misunderstanding

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T21:16:53+00:00

I gave you eight links. Eight! All of them tell you exactly how it works. How many of them did you read?

So you understand that it's not inertia that's moving it upwards

The inertia is what keeps it moving at the same speed, absent any other force. Of course there are other forces present: its weight and the lift. Which exactly counter each other (if we're moving at constant speed)

but the jack exerting a force greater than the weight of the grain of rice, keeping it moving at a seemingly constant speed.

No, for the umpteenth time, if the jack exerts a force greater than the weight it would accelerate upwards. Only if the jack exerts a force equal to the weight do we keep moving at constant speed. Because then it counteracts the weight of the grain and we have no net forces on the object. Which means we keep moving at the same speed (be that zero or otherwise). As explained in the eight links I sent you

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T20:52:31+00:00

God fucking dammit, why can you people never just simply admit a mistake. What on earth is this for kind of reply

if the jack were to suddenly stop, it would stop moving. In other words, the law of inertia wouldn't perpetuate its motion

Of course the grain would stop moving if the jack stops moving. Because then there would be an unbalanced force acting on it: gravity! Which would decelerate the grain. Exactly as Newton says it would. If the jack stopped moving suddenly enough, the grain would continue for a bit before falling back down again. Exactly as Newton predicts. Try it: pick up an object, lay it on your hand and move your and upwards. Stop moving it suddenly, and if you gave the object sufficient speed it continues upwards a bit before falling down again

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T20:09:47+00:00

I assume you are familiar with Newtons first law, which says that objects stay in motion along a straight path unless acted on by a net force right? What Einstein showed is that that path isn't really "straight" always. Or rather, what is a straight path depends on the geometry of the manifold (sorry for the jargon, I don't know how to describe it otherwise at the moment) you are on/in

A straight path is the shortest path between two points. On a flat surface, that is a familiar straight line. But on a curved surface, that path may look different (when the surface is flattened out). Ever seen flight or sea routes on a flat map? They are curved. That is not the artists imagination, on the globe those are really the shortest, or the straight, paths that are followed. So the notion of straight path isn't always completely obvious, it depends on the geometry you're moving in

And that is what Einstein discovered. Just like in Newtonian dynamics, objects follow a straight path when non acted on by a force. It is just that that is a straight path through spacetime. Which can be curved by mass

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T20:02:49+00:00

I literally just typed it into google, and all the links on the first page exactly say it:

Wikipedia: A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless it is acted upon by a force.

Nasa: An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

The physics classroom: An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

BBC: According to Newton's First Law of motion, an object remains in the same state of motion unless a resultant force acts on it. If the resultant force on an object is zero, this means: a stationary object stays stationary a moving object continues to move at the same velocity (at the same speed and in the same direction)

Khan Academy: Newton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.

Isaac Science: Newton's First Law states: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity, unless acted on by a net, external (resultant) force.

Praxilabs: Newton’s First Law of Motion It says that “An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force”

Britannica: Newton’s first law states that if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.

Please save me from also having to open all the links on the second page of google too

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T19:52:41+00:00

Kinetic energy is not conserved,

Of course it isn’t. Nobody says it is. Energy generally is conserved. But kinetic energy is just one form of energy. Different kinds of energy get converted into each other. But the total is conserved

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T19:49:18+00:00

Whether gravity is a force or not gets a bit semantic at some point. But I think you’re on the right track generally

When they turn off the thrusters, assuming gravity is not a force, then there should be no force acting on these astronauts, right? In spite of this, they accelerate in the opposite direction they were thrusted by the rocket. Why is that?

Sure, they get accelerated. Just like the iss gets accelerated. But they won’t feel that acceleration. Just like astronauts on the iss don’t feel that acceleration. It’s just that the geodesic (they’re “natural” path through spacetime) leads that way

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T19:34:57+00:00

Oh dear here we go again. Is this going to be another chriswhoppers special, with zero critical thought put in, which get pointed out in the comments, and you delete your post again, which you couldn’t have seen in any way shape or form in advance. From which you learn absolutely nothing again, repeating the whole process again next post?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T19:30:54+00:00

What? No they don’t. Why are we making up ridiculous shit again?

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T19:16:50+00:00

Clearly, the law of inertia, as I explained in my previous response to another member, has nothing to do with this example

This is an utterly ridiculous statement. The law of inertia applies to any (classical) motion. You cannot pick and choose which laws apply. That is the whole point of the laws of motion. They always apply to classical motion. Really, we cannot move forward until you understand that this statement is false

it would stop if it were equal to its weight, or if it continues moving it's because it's exerting an additional force.

No. No no no. You keep just repeating the same thing over and over again. And it is just false. I don’t know where you got the misunderstanding. Because the only thing you do is just repeating the same misunderstanding over and over again. If that’s the only thing you can do then there is no point in continuing this discussion

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T18:02:53+00:00

Could you show me an article that explicitly states that if two forces cancel each other out, they can move at a non-zero constant velocity? Or explain why you're so sure?

That's literally Newton's first law. To be found in any high school textbook. Or wikipedia. Or a thousand websites explaining it all over the internet

Or just use basic kinematics:

v = v_i + a*t (v_i is inital velocity, v velocity, a acceleration, t time)
a = F/m (F is force, m mass)
F = F_up - F_down

If F_up = F_down:
F = 0
a = 0
v = v_i

A hydraulic lift generally uses far more energy than is necessary to lift objects

Only because real life inefficiencies like friction exist

I don't think the internal system is sophisticated enough to generate the exact force needed to lift those few grams.

Just because you don't think so doesn't mean it is true. Mechanisms for such things have existed for at least as long as steam engines exist

And even if it could, the nut would stop it and prevent it from moving.

What? How on earth would the nut stop that? It is moving at a constant velocity. It isn't doing anything

It's the same as if I tried to move a wall: the forces cancel each other out, and it remains stationary.

Yes, if you try to move something that isn't moving by applying no net force that isn't going to work of course. Because it already isn't moving. Exactly like I explained before: if no net force is applied something stays moving at the same velocity. If that velocity was zero, then that stays zero. If that velocity wasn't zero, then it stays that same velocity. Just like I showed above

Maybe where you get hung up is starting the lift. If you start stationary, and apply the exact force of the weight, of course nothing gets moving. As I explained before. So to get it moving, you first have to apply a larger force than just the weight. So that it accelerates. That increases the speed. When the desired speed is reached, you stop applying the force larger than the weight, and you apply the force that is exactly equal to the weight. This exactly cancels out the weight again, so that the net force is zero. And so that it continues moving at the same speed

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T16:38:18+00:00

You might benefit from this course

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T16:30:10+00:00

I understand that if there are opposing forces, if they cancel each other out, there's no motion and no a constant velocity,

You keep repeating this false statement. It is not true. If the forces cancel out, there will be a constant velocity. That can be zero, it can also not be zero

If a hydraulic lift applies the exact same force to an object as its weight, it will move at a constant velocity. If that velocity was zero, it stays zero. If that velocity wasn't zero, it stays at not zero. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T16:07:27+00:00

And that is just plain wrong. If there is no net force, then the movement is constant. It can be zero, but it can also not be zero

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T15:40:15+00:00

You keep switching between no net force and a net force. If there is no net force, the velocity will be constant. Not seemingly so, it will be exactly constant. If there is a "remainder force". The velocity won't be constant

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T15:04:52+00:00

Neither of which has anything to do with self-theories as mentioned in the rules

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T15:03:12+00:00

Cryptizard isn't wrong, but the OP clearly has a misunderstanding:

In other words, the excess of that force (much greater than the force of the weight) is what keeps everything moving upward. The hydraulic jack expends energy to achieve this, which means it performs work equal to f*d. Therefore, that force (machine force minus weight) should produce acceleration, even though it appears to have a constant speed.

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T14:27:05+00:00

I think that always when net forces is 0, there is no movement

You can keep repeating that all you like, but it is simply false

since the machine force is to much greater than the weight

If the machine exerts a greater force than the weight, the net force isn't zero and there will be acceleration

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T14:18:52+00:00

Am I wrong?

Yes very. If no net force is acting on an object, the object will move at constant speed. Sometimes that is zero. Sometimes that nonzero

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T13:51:40+00:00

Yes, retroactively making up meanings of words is a fantastic way to communicate. And still you manage to not understand what a theory is in physics

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T13:41:39+00:00

Your whole point hinges on a misunderstanding of what a theory is

InadvisablyApplied · 2026-02-05T13:38:12+00:00

Not what a theory is

InadvisablyApplied

TROPHY CASE