Suppose there is a monkey on a pole constantly facing a man. The man walks around the pole. Such man did not go around the monkey.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 16 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Forfeiture = loss
Insulting = -1 conduct
Everything not mentioned cannot be considered automatically existing or nonexisting until proven
Around: in a circle or in circumference
BoP is shared, Con must prove that the man did go around the monkey in such situation. Good luck.
- You are rowing a boat on a river, sitting on a position of the boat. There are mountains on both sides of the river. In reference to the boat, you are not moving due to you sitting on the same position of the boat. In reference to the mountains, you are moving due to your rowing motions exert force which propels you. We usually consider mountains "not moving" because we consider in reference to the rest of the ground(the same tectonic plate). However, when in reference to a different continental plate or the sun, the mountain is moving because of continental drift and earth's rotation.
- Premise 1: Motion is indeed relative. That is correct, but defeats premise 2.
- Premise 2: The direction in which the monkey faces is irrelevant. The man moves relative to the monkey based on the monkey's physical position in space relative to the man, not the direction the monkey faces.
- A monkey is sitting on a pole.
- The monkey remains on the pole at all relevant times and does not leave.
- The man walks around the pole, upon which the monkey sits.
- The only thing that changed is the direction the monkey faced relative to the man; not the monkey's position relative to the pole, around which the man walked.
- The man has "go[ne] around" or "encircled" the money.
- Why? Because the direction the monkey faces is irrelevant:
- Place monkey, man and pole in your mind's eye on a 3-dimensional plane with an X, Y and Z axis (X, Y, Z).
- X and Y axes comprise the horizontal plane upon which the man walks; the ground.
- The horizontal plane is divided of four quadrants:
- Quadrant 1 of the horizontal plane comprises all positive values above zero for both X and Y axis: (X, Y, Z).
- Quadrant 2 of the horizontal plane comprises all negative X axis values (below zero) and all positive Y axis values (above zero): (-X, Y, Z).
- Quadrant 3 of the horizontal plane comprises all negative X values (below zero) and negative Y values (below zero) (-X, -Y, Z).
- Quadrant 4 of the horizontal plane comprises all positive X values (above zero) and negative Y values (below zero) (X, -Y, Z).
- The pole upon which the monkey sits lies at the coordinates: (0, 0, 0).
- Suppose the pole is 5 units high; placing the monkey at (0, 0, 5).
- Man is set to encircle the pole by walking around the pole at a constant radius r.
- The radius or r is the relative distance between man and monkey.
- For the sake of simplicity, suppose r is 5.
- Thus, man begins his journey around the pole at (5, 0, 0) on the horizontal plane. As man walks counter-clockwise around the pole, he enters Quadrant 1.
- Having walked exactly 90 degrees around the pole at the constant r of 5, man departs quadrant 1 and enters Quadrant 2; crossing the Y axis at (0, 5, 0) -- all the while, 5 units away from monkey and pole.
- Having walked an additional 90 degrees around the monkey and pole (and 180 degrees from his origin at the constant r of 5), man departs quadrant 2 after crossing the x axis at (-5, 0, 0) and enters Quadrant 3.
- Having walked a further 90 degrees around the monkey and pole (and 270 degrees from his origin at the constant r of 5), man departs Quadrant 3 after crossing the y axis at (0, -5, 0) and enters Quadrant 4.
- Having walked a further 90 degrees around the monkey and pole (and 360 degrees from his origin at the constant r of 5), man returns to his point of origin approaching Quadrant 1 at (5, 0, 0).
- During this journey, pole and monkey remained at the center of the horizontal plane (0, 0, 5).
- Therefore, in this exercise man encircled monkey and pole simultaneously.
- Whether the monkey faced the man is of no consequence. Walking around or encircling does not require the monkey to face in one direction. After all, the man would still have encircled the pole if he faced the pole at all times or without regard to what direction he faced.
- Motion is relative
- Absolute motion is not possible
- The man and the monkey is moving in a way in which relatively they are not moving at all
- The man's motion is in reference to the monkey, not the pole and not the floor(according to the resolution and description)
Such man did not go around the monkey.
- The monkey is currently at (0,0,0), fixed to the plane so that its front always faces (0,∞,0) and its back towards(0,-∞,0).
- The man starts at 5 units away from the monkey. The monkey is facing him. In reference to the monkey, the man is at (0,5,0).
- The man walks some distance counterclockwise in reference to the pole, the monkey is still facing him. In reference to the monkey, the man is at (0,5,0).
- The man walks some more distance counterclockwise in reference to the pole, the monkey is still facing him. In reference to the monkey, the man is at (0,5,0).
- The man walks all around the circle, 360 degrees around the pole. No matter where he is, he is always 5 units away from the monkey with the monkey facing him. No matter where he is, he is always at (0,5,0).
- By misinterpretation of physics. Coal used a coordinate system fixed to the floor, and not fixed to the monkey. The entire barebone of Coal's argument is based on that the the man's movements are in reference to the floor, and not the monkey. The monkey is also being viewed as a mass point, which isn't a useful concept for a rotating object like this monkey.
- By misinterpretation of the English Language. The topic statement suggests that the monkey is the object in question, judging whether if the man has moved around it. The monkey is the reference point, not any point above the floor, the floor itself nor the pole. Just the monkey.
For most of our work so far, we've treated objects as idealized mass points. When describing rotational motion, we must treat objects as mass distributions. An object must have extent in space in order for it to make sense to speak of rotation of the object.
- In this model, the motion of the man is in reference to the monkey, so the 3D coordinate should be fixed to the monkey instead of the floor.
- The monkey is the point of reference according to the topic statement, not the floor, not the pole, and not a fire truck outside my house.
- In this model, if the man is 5 units from the monkey, no matter where the man is, the monkey will always be facing it, making the man always at (0,5,0), and staying in a single point in relation to an object is not going around an object.
- Thus, according to physics, the man did not go around the monkey.
- Con treated a monkey as a mass point with no size, this is wrong.
- The monkey is only capable of rotational motion, and according to physics textbooks, things only capable of rotational motion should not be treated as mass points. The direction of any one point compared to its center matters in a rotational object like this monkey.
- Direction matters in this model.
- The monkey is always in a direction facing the man, which suggests that the man is always in front of the monkey, and not going around it.
- Overall, Con has illustrated a poor understanding of physics which leads him to use the completely wrong model, thus not proving what he is directed to prove. I have proven that the man, according to physics, did not go around the monkey. Vote Pro.
Overall, Con has illustrated a poor understanding of physics . . .
- PRO has confused perception for relative motion: PRO has confused the monkey's perception of the man's movement, with the man's movement relative to the monkey.
- According to PRO's sources, it turns out that the laws of physics do not depend on the subjective perception of monkeys.
- PRO's source uses the words "relative motion," but it seems he doesn't understand the difference between an objective frame of reference and subjective perception.
- PRO, in R1, provided an example of relative motion in which a person in a boat moves relative to mountains by boating up a river, but not in relation to the boat.
- Notably, nothing about that hypothetical depended on the man's subjective perception of movement; but his relative position, in relation to a boat and mountains.
- Here, I have explained that this debate is about the man's movement relative to the monkey at a the fixed point in space in which the monkey is located. It is undisputed that the monkey's physical position did not change. So, the man cannot have walked around the pole upon which the monkey sits without also walking around the monkey.
- It might be helpful to explain this in terms of the moon orbiting (read: encircling) the earth. Even though we perceive the moon as never rotating, the moon is still rotating.
- Due to a phenomena called tidal locking, we can never see the dark side of the moon from earth. The result is that the same face or side of the moon always faces the earth. The moon does encircle the earth, but it rotates at the same speed that it rotates around the Earth which is why the same face is always visible and the dark side of the moon is never visible.
- The moon completes one full rotation on its axis in the time it takes to orbit the Earth. That means the same side is always facing the earth, even though the moon rotates.
- And there is no question whatsoever that the moon orbits the earth, even though the same side always faces the earth.
- PRO has confused types of motion: The monkey's rotary motion doesn't mean that the man isn't encircling it.
- The monkey's rotatory motion (i.e., spinning on the z-axis in my explanation above) doesn't mean that the man isn't engaged in circular motion (encircling the monkey a full 360 degrees by movement about/upon a horizontal plane comprising an X and Y axis, at the constant distance/radius), relative to the monkey. See generally, how the moon orbits the earth yet spins on an axis at the same time.
- Rotatory motion is spinning on an axis, like the moon or earth spinning on their axes.
- Rotatory motion is different from circular motion, so it's not the same thin.
- Circular motion, is the motion of an object on a circular path, like a car on a track or the moon revolving around the earth.
- This debate is about the man, engaged in circular motion relative to the monkey and pole; the monkey's rotatory motion makes no difference to that circular path whatsoever. So, direction doesn't matter.
- All that the monkey did was spin on an axis (the z axis) while the man was engaged in circular motion around the monkey, like the moon revolving around the earth.
- The fact that the monkey happened to face in a certain direction relative to the man does not mean that the man didn't encircle the monkey and pole upon which the monkey is sitting.
- So, such a man who walks around the pole upon which the monkey sits very much walks around the monkey. And the monkey is never "the judge of whether the man walked around it or not," as PRO amusingly claimed.
- In the explanation I provided above, the man is absolutely not "always in the same position in relation to the monkey" as PRO incorrectly claims, for the same reason the moon is absolutely not in the same position in relation to the earth, as it completes its orbit. Notably as well, the fact that the earth happens to spin on an axis doesn't change the fact that the moon still very much orbits the earth.
- So all of that means the following:
- PRO doesn't understand the concept of relative motion;
- PRO incorrectly assumed that the monkey's rotatory motion meant the man wasn't engaged in circular motion; and
- PRO assumed the monkey's subjective perception of the man somehow determined the man's encircling the monkey.
- CON obviously wins, unless you believe the moon doesn't revolve around the earth.