Motor Daddy

A train traveled down tracks that were measured and marked like a ruler. When the train contacted a specific mark on the tracks (starting line), a timer started. The train traveled down the tracks for a duration of time and the timer stopped. The distance the train traveled from the start of the timer to the stop of the timer was 200 meters. The timer indicated a total duration of the event of 10 seconds. The following distances and times were noted: 1 second-20 meter mark 2 seconds-40 meter mark 3 seconds-60 meter mark 4 seconds-80 meter mark 5 seconds-100 meter mark 6 seconds-120 meter mark 7 seconds-140 meter mark 8 seconds-160 meter mark 9 seconds-180 meter mark 10 seconds-200 meter mark After the entire train passed the 200 meter mark on the tracks the train slowed down, pulled into the train station, and stopped. During the event there was a guy standing on the back of the train facing the opposite direction of the train's travel. He decided to throw a ball off the back of the train, back towards the starting line. He released the ball at the 100 meter mark and the ball remained 100 meters away from the start line. Q: What is the ball's velocity relative to the train? (negating friction and gravity for the example)

I already proved it. SR is obsolete.

I wonder if you understand just how wrong SR is?

I'm done.

Five million years is a drop in the bucket. How long have they existed? They could have already done the back and forth routine a few million times, no?

It's weak, but the balls are the only thing in the universe, and they are close together (no?), so they should be together, yes? If the balls have motion relative to each other, what caused that motion? Did they once collide with each other?

Why are all the balls not together, like a nucleus, due to gravity?

I asked you the distance between the ball and the train after 1 second. You said 20 meters. 10 seconds-200 meters, 1 hour-72 KM. Fine, that's the distances if the train continues to travel 20 m/s, so the ball's velocity is 20 m/s using the train as a reference, as long as the train remains at a constant velocity of 20 m/s. The only way your math works and the ball's velocity remains 20 m/s relative to the train is if the train remains at 20 m/s, as the ball is not moving reference the tracks. If the train slows, stops, or does anything to change the distance and time after the ball is released, you have to change the ball's velocity, and therefore, you have to change the scenario of what you say the velocity of the ball was when thrown off the train relative to the train. We are not measuring the future. What is the ball's velocity when it's released (relative to the train), when the train is traveling 20 m/s? 20 m/s you say? So you are HOPING, PRAYING, EVEN WISHING that the train remains at 20 m/s to support your answer. If the train stops 1 second after release 20 meters from the ball laying on the track at the 100 meter mark, at that 1 second mark your answer will be correct. If the clock keeps ticking (as those pesky clocks keep doing), your answer has to change, and it's too late, as you told me the ball was released at 20 m/s relative to the train. The train is on the tracks, and the timer is ticking, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 4 seconds, and the train is not gaining distance from the ball. That puts you between a rock and a hard place, wouldn't you say? The ball's velocity does not depend on the trains motion. We are not measuring the future. When you tell me the ball had a zero velocity and the train had a 20 m/s, you are not basing your answer on the future, only the past. The trains future motion doesn't affect the ball's velocity when it is relative to the track, nor does the tracks, because the ball is on the tracks, and so is the starting line. The distance doesn't change, nor does the time when compared to the tracks, but your way depends on the trains velocity, and we are talking about the ball's velocity, not the train's. You have no idea what the train will do in the future after you release the ball relative to the train, so you have no idea what the ball's velocity is relative to the train, unless you guess or tell me what happened in the past, but that wouldn't include the train's motion, as the train has no motion in the past, just actual distance traveled and actual time elapsed.

Yes, very unreasonable, because you are basing the ball's velocity on the train's velocity (distance and time traveled) after the ball is released. The ball's velocity is not dependent on the trains velocity when it is laying on the 100 meter mark on the tracks.

Because you have the ability to see the future.

That's the last one, I promise. Cap'n Refsmmat, I am going to buy a power ball lottery ticket. Could you help me out, please? What are the winning numbers?

And 1 hour later?

20 m??? What is the distance between the ball and the train 10 seconds after release?

What is the distance between the ball and the train one second after release?

So when the ball is thrown off the back of the train, relative to the train at 20 m/s, what is the distance between the train and the ball 1 second later?

No, that is the point. Motion occurs, and we measure the distance and time. Do you know what happens BEFORE it happens? The distance and time were measured. 40 meters in 4 seconds. I asked you for the acceleration(s). The event was measured, and you know the results AFTER the event is completed, and not a moment sooner.

DH, Why would the person not believe he was traveling 20 m/s on the train, when he is told he is traveling at 20 m/s relative to the tracks. Why does he then disregard the information of 20 m/s, and say that his ball is not in motion? If he does acknowledge the ball is traveling away from the starting line at 20 m/s like he is, why does he insist on saying the ball is thrown 20 m/s in the direction towards the starting line? Surely he realizes the ball has to decelerate to 0 m/s from a 20 m/s initial velocity. He has information, and yet he refuses to use it.

It's not increasing or decreasing rotational velocity, correct?

Care to elaborate why 3,000 RPM is not accelerating, and yet there can be torque (force times distance) at that constant rotational velocity?

I'm trying to keep up with all of you, but it's too much for one person to handle all these responses.

No it's not. You had to get into the box at some point in time. You just didn't appear in space in a box, like some kind of "God" created you and put you there. I assume you are human, so you must have came from the Earth (which was rotating before you were born, correct? In order to NOT be on the Earth you had to accelerate away from the Earth, correct? Did you not calculate the acceleration away from the Earth? Did you not feel the acceleration?

True, as I stated before, I am nowhere close to a mathematician, never will be. I do have a strong understanding of distance and time, and also force times distance (torque) though. f=ma? What is the force if the acceleration is zero?

So you are the only one in this universe that can actually approach infinity?

Let me get this straight. You know you are in motion flying though space in a box, and yet you have no clue if you are in motion or not, and so, by default, you automatically assume you are stationary? I'm having a hard time grasping that concept.

If it's mathematically sound, could you tell me which object is static in this universe? Also, if an instant is possible, and an object travels 10 m/s, could you tell me which d/t the object has no motion or time?