安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
And why is that?
Yes, we are talking about a scenario where the helicopter is not taking off from the carrier, but just hovering above to begin with. So, no transfer of momentum has taken place. The atmosphere doesn't have the same velocity since the particles of air need not move in the same direction. If we are increasing the scale, air currents for example.
doesn't mean that simply due to him being enclosed inside, he doesn't need to do any work at all to maintain velocity and spatial relativity in relation to the station.
Then the example is useless. Did you or did you not argue that a bird will have to actively fly forward in an aircraft at constant velocity to avoid moving backwards? A transfer of momentum has of course taken place in the example with the bird.
The aircraft is enclosed, it's atmosphere is enclosed. The only air currents you will have in there are due to ventialition.
Congratulation, he is part of the inertial system. That is what people mean by "reference frame".
Ok, so essentially your argument boils down to this:
If we have a moving sphere, constant velocity. And then we kind of magically materialize an object in that sphere, an object that does not have the same velocity and might be stationary in relation to a third point, this object will not travel with the same velocity and vector as the sphere.
Yes, of course. But that is just moving the goal post. We were talking about a real bird in a real airplane that took off with the bird on board. And your argument is that the bird has to actively fly.
So all this super hypothetical "and they still have to do it by their own power unless something pushes/pulls them along" is completely unrelated to the discussion that set all of this off. Of course there is a relation there.
If the bird took off from the plane and there was no friction or gravity or any force acting upon it, then it wouldn't have to fly forward. Otherwise it would have to.
I don't think you understand what you quoted. I am saying that he will have to do work to keep up.
My argument has always been the same. You are tying two similar but different points into one. But, the bird will still have to fly as in reality you can't maintain a constant velocity without constant supply of energy.
There are always forces acting upon everything, no matter where it is. And no, the astronaut doesn't need to have the same velocity. And none of this goes against the laws of motion.
The astronaut does need to have the same velocity otherwise he will eventually be outside the station and moving away from it. It can change slightly i.e. moving around inside the station but it will be quickly matched again.
Also forces act on everything but only unbalanced forces stop or slow an object in motion.
Ok the, let's recapitulate, astronaut onboard ISS has to actively work, swim forward so to say, in order to not end up in the rear.
I'm geting off this crazy train right here.
No, the astronaut has to expend energy or do work inorder to maintain velocity. There are no perpetual motion machines afterall.
Perhaps you need to pay attention rather than simply attending a physics class.
It is easy to say someone is wrong. But I have yet to see anyone actually proving me wrong. Nothing I have said contradicts the laws of physics. Infact they are supported by said laws.
There is no way you would ever listen so there is no point in trying.
No, you simply do not understand what you are trying to discuss and are unable to comprehend what I have said.
Take it up with NASA. The fact that you are wrong is not my problem.
NASA is not disagreeing with me, you are.
You are the one who believes that 2 objects need to have the same velocity for one to enter another.
If 2 objects were travelling with the same velocity, they will never intersect. That is basic logic, which you failed at and you think I am the one in wrong here.