4 ms·

I thought we still weren't quite sure why bicycles don't topple over or why ice skating is possible: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/21ice.html http:

by jordigh 11y ago

I thought we still weren't quite sure why bicycles don't topple over or why ice skating is possible: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/21ice.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/21ice.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics#Other_hypotheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamic... Also, have we figured out gravity? That's a pretty every day thing that I thought we didn't understand yet. Has observing gravity waves given us an answer there?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
macspoofing 11y ago
You're correct, but you missed the author's point. He didn't say we understand everything, or that there is nothing of-value left to discover in the domain of 'everyday life'. What he meant was that anything we do discover in this domain, won't impact our current understanding of fundamental physics.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  I think the author is wrong. For example, 150 years ago, radio waves were unknown, but they are all around us, they are fundamental, and when they were discovered, they changed our daily lives. Another example, imagine a bushman, and asking him if he understands everything. He might say, "Yeah, that's a kangaroo, that's a bush, that's dirt....everything practical, I understand. There are things about God I don't understand, but they are far away." By defining things that you don't understand as 'not important' then you understand everything important by definition. Another example, this quote from Albert Michelson in 1894, "it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice" In other words, it is likely that people have always thought these sorts of things, and so far have always been wrong.
  - pka 11y ago
    You are missing the point. The author acknowledges that there may be particles that we haven't yet discovered, but even if there were, we can prove that they wouldn't impact everyday live. In other words, "we know what we don't know".
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      In other words, "we know what we don't know". I gave a true historical analogy of how that could not be the case, I gave a hypothetical example of how that could not be the case, and I gave a quote of someone thinking physics was basically solved right before a massive change in our basic understanding of physics. It's easy to imagine that there is something analogous to radio waves, that are all around us, but we are unable to detect them with current technology (dark matter might be one possibility).
      - pka 11y ago
        This seems to be a lost cause, but I'll try one last time. The point is that even if there were some yet undiscovered particles or forces, they wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the world around us. This we can say with certainty. Even if it turns out that our current understanding of QM or GR are just approximations of the real laws of physics, again, this won't matter, much as GR doesn't matter at the speed of a moving car and thus you wouldn't take time dilation into account when you calculate the time you need to get from point A to point B.
        ktRolster 10y ago
        even if there were some yet undiscovered particles or forces, they wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the world around us. This we can say with certainty. Would you also assert that radio waves have no effect whatsoever on the world around us?
        pka 10y ago
        No?
natmaster 11y ago
As far as bikes go, they're designed to stay upright by automatically turning the front wheel when it is tipped in any direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tamana 10y ago
  The video says that we don't know exactly how that happens, though, and various similar experiments give diverse results

by jordigh 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

macspoofing 11y ago

You're correct, but you missed the author's point. He didn't say we understand everything, or that there is nothing of-value left to discover in the domain of 'everyday life'. What he meant was that anything we do discover in this domain, won't impact our current understanding of fundamental physics.

ktRolster 11y ago
I think the author is wrong. For example, 150 years ago, radio waves were unknown, but they are all around us, they are fundamental, and when they were discovered, they changed our daily lives. Another example, imagine a bushman, and asking him if he understands everything. He might say, "Yeah, that's a kangaroo, that's a bush, that's dirt....everything practical, I understand. There are things about God I don't understand, but they are far away." By defining things that you don't understand as 'not important' then you understand everything important by definition. Another example, this quote from Albert Michelson in 1894, "it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice" In other words, it is likely that people have always thought these sorts of things, and so far have always been wrong.
- pka 11y ago
  You are missing the point. The author acknowledges that there may be particles that we haven't yet discovered, but even if there were, we can prove that they wouldn't impact everyday live. In other words, "we know what we don't know".
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    In other words, "we know what we don't know". I gave a true historical analogy of how that could not be the case, I gave a hypothetical example of how that could not be the case, and I gave a quote of someone thinking physics was basically solved right before a massive change in our basic understanding of physics. It's easy to imagine that there is something analogous to radio waves, that are all around us, but we are unable to detect them with current technology (dark matter might be one possibility).
    - pka 11y ago
      This seems to be a lost cause, but I'll try one last time. The point is that even if there were some yet undiscovered particles or forces, they wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the world around us. This we can say with certainty. Even if it turns out that our current understanding of QM or GR are just approximations of the real laws of physics, again, this won't matter, much as GR doesn't matter at the speed of a moving car and thus you wouldn't take time dilation into account when you calculate the time you need to get from point A to point B.
      - ktRolster 10y ago
        even if there were some yet undiscovered particles or forces, they wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the world around us. This we can say with certainty. Would you also assert that radio waves have no effect whatsoever on the world around us?
        pka 10y ago
        No?

natmaster 11y ago

As far as bikes go, they're designed to stay upright by automatically turning the front wheel when it is tipped in any direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tamana 10y ago
The video says that we don't know exactly how that happens, though, and various similar experiments give diverse results