The Motor Boat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Motor Daddy, this is off-topic. The boat, pool, ship, harbour, embankment, and Earth in this problem are all spinning round the Sun and Galaxy. The motion through space is irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss absolute motion, open another thread. It might be best to make it in Pseudoscience, unless you word it very carefully.
Special relativity is also off-topic for this thread. The speed of the boat and the water are low, so we are using Galileo's relativity. If you want to discuss special relativity, make another thread.

So the motion of the embankment is irrelevant but the motion of the cruise ship is relevant? That's ridiculous. I suppose we are not allowed to do light tests either? Next will you say no rulers or clocks are allowed?

If SR isn't allowed in this thread then you have no problem with the fact that I sent a light signal across the pool and it took more than 50/299,792,458 of a second to reach the other side of the pool, so the pool is actually more than 50 meters, so you were wrong, Pete, the pool isn't 50 meters long, it's more than 50 meters.



In one hour, the boat moves through 8km of water.
In one hour, the water moves V km past the embankment.
So in one hour, the boat moves 8-V km past the embankment upstream.

Is it allowed to test how much time it takes for the boat to travel 8km along the bank in each direction of travel, upstream and downstream? Why would you not want as much data as possible?
 
Motor Daddy,

When I asked you to assume the harbour was at rest in your absolute frame, you were able to make the same calculations that Pete made. Please consider that Pete didn't need the absolute frame to make those calculations, but you did. Pete was able to consider the harbour as a unique reference frame. That demonstrates that it is advantageous to understand reference frames, rather than rebelling against them, as you prefer to do.
 
Motor Daddy,

When I asked you to assume the harbour was at rest in your absolute frame, you were able to make the same calculations that Pete made. Please consider that Pete didn't need the absolute frame to make those calculations, but you did. Pete was able to consider the harbour as a unique reference frame. That demonstrates that it is advantageous to understand reference frames, rather than rebelling against them, as you prefer to do.

Pete doesn't know the motion of the harbor because he hasn't measured it, he simply pretends that the harbor has a zero velocity and makes his calculations from there, which ultimately means that if the harbor (in reality) has a velocity greater than zero, then Pete's numbers are wrong. Period!
 
Pete doesn't know the motion of the harbor because he hasn't measured it, he simply pretends that the harbor has a zero velocity and makes his calculations from there, which ultimately means that if the harbor (in reality) has a velocity greater than zero, then Pete's numbers are wrong. Period!

Pete's numbers represent what would be measured in the harbor frame, using rulers and clocks which are co-moving with the harbor. He does not have to pretend the harbor has a zero velocity "in space" -- actually that is what you had to do in order to replicate his calculations.
 
Where does RoS and length contraction and time dilation come into play with the little boat?

The amount is negligible. It's implied in the problem, since the speeds given are nowhere near light speed. This is what we mean by calling it a problem in Galilean relativity - it's just concerned with the change in coordinates from one reference from to another, not with the spacetime warp that accompanies all motion.

But that doesn't mean we can't arrive at an answer. It's just silly because the amounts are negligible.

To see what I mean by negligible, you need only understand that in the spacetime warp question, also known as the Lorentz transformation, there is a ratio v/c, where v is any of the speeds in the problem and c is the speed of light.

The speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s.

What's the speed of the objects in question in m/s? Here I'll refer back to the way the problem stood in the OP:

Convert km/hr to m/s
3.27 km/hr = 3,270 m / 3,600 s = 0.9083 m/s (velocity of the water relative to the shore)
8 km/hr = 8,000 m / 3,600 s = 2.222 m/s (velocity of the boat relative to the water)
11.27 km/hr = 11,270 m / 3,600 s = 3.131 m/s (velocity of the boat relative to the shore as both boat and water approach shore)

Already we have an exceedingly negligible speeds but let's go further to calculate v/c:

0.9083 / 300,000,000 = 0.000000003120 m/s
2.222 / 300,000,000 = 0.000000007407 m/s
3.131 / 300,000,000 = 0.00000001044 m/s

I skipped the preferred scientific notation to emphasize scale. By the way, that last number is 1.044 nano-meters (billionths of a meter) per second. That's about 3 water molecules per second difference from saying 11.27 km/hr. And we haven't finished the calculation yet.

Here I'll go ahead and switch back to scientific notation and give you the results. You won't be able to solve this without at least 34 digits of precision - that's how negligible the difference is, and the reason we drop it in almost all cases like this. Here, I'm using a 34 digit calculator:

sqrt(1-((3270/3600)/3E8)) =0.999999998486 (1)
sqrt(1-((8000/3600)/3E8)) = 0.999999996296 (2)
sqrt(1-((11270/3600)/3E8)) = 0.999999994782 (3)

(1) gives you the length contraction for the moving water, relative to the shore. It amounts to about 5 water molecules per meter of the water, as a meter would be measured in the water's reference frame.
(2) gives you the length contraction for the boat moving at 8 km/hr, relative to the shore. It amounts to a whopping 12 molecules .
(3) gives you the length contraction for the boat approaching the shore, moving at 8 km/hr relative to the water, as the water approached the shore at 3.27 km/hr. This gives you a jumbo reduction in length of 17 molecules.

Same goes for redshift in speed. And the reciprocal is true for time dilation ( "1 divided by" the results above [1/sqrt(...etc]):

(1) yields about 1.5 ns per second of clock time, by which time dilates on the water's surface, relative to the shore, as it moves toward the shore.
(2) yields about 3.7 ns per second of clock time, by which time dilates on the boat, relative to the moving water (or to the shore in still water) as the moves at 8 km/hr relative to the water
(3) yields about 5.2 ns per second of clock time, by which time dilates on the boat, relative to the shore - as both the boat and the water move toward the shore along a straight line, with the boat moving at 8 km/hr relative to the water and the water moves at 3.27 km/hr relative to the shore.

Notice (1) + (2) = (3) in both length contraction and time dilation. All the more reason we say that the velocity of A with respect to B plus the velocity of B with respect to C equals the velocity of A with respect to C, and it applies equally to length contraction and time dilation.

(I used the numbers from the original problem, with just the first amendment - eliminating the 5 km/hr speed upstream, and imposing a 5 km distance in each leg. I didn't pay attention to the numbers used in the toy boat example, but you can work this out now if you like. It will give you exceedingly small numbers, given the fact that the toy boat can't move as fast as a motor boat.)

Take a stab at it. Make sure you use a calculator with enough digits. Go for it, man, the whole cast of readers is anxiously waiting for MotorDaddy to have a breakthrough.
 
Pete doesn't know the motion of the harbor because he hasn't measured it, he simply pretends that the harbor has a zero velocity and makes his calculations from there
Yes, that's correct. Just like we pretend that the ground is not moving when we measure our walking speed, and that the road is not moving when we measure the speed of your car along the highway.
It's the simple and natural thing to do.
Looking deeper, it just means that we're working in the rest frame of the ground. If you want to argue that this is invalid, then try taking that up with the next cop who books you for speeding, or open another thread.

You seem to be able to pretend that the pool is at rest:
Motor Daddy said:
In the pool the little boat moves 50 meters in 22.5 seconds, which is 2.22 m/s, which is 8,000 meters per hour, or 8 km/hr.
So I expect you the be equally able to pretend that the embankment is at rest.
The boat moves at 8 km/hr through the pool. How fast does it move along the embankment?

OK? If you are unable to pretend that the ground/harbour/embankment is at rest, then you're not going to make any further progress in this thread, but feel free to open another thread to explain why.
 
Nobody inhabits Motor Daddy's universe except him.
This reminds me of an Asimov short where the protagonist encounters a cosmic "wish granter". He wishes to be the most important thing in the universe.

The wish granter, being a troll, transports him to a place where there is nothing. In this universe, he is therefore the most important thing.
 
Yes, that's correct. Just like we pretend that the ground is not moving when we measure our walking speed, and that the road is not moving when we measure the speed of your car along the highway.
It's the simple and natural thing to do.

So you're saying it's the simple and natural thing to do to pretend the water is not moving (no current) when measuring the boat's speed in the water, just like you pretend the ground isn't moving when you measure your walking speed. Got it. So the water is pretended to be at rest when you measure the boat's speed, which is the same as saying the boat's speed is measured relative to the embankment, because the embankment is also at rest, as we know. But you have a problem with measuring off 8km on the embankment and timing the boat to find the time in each direction. Why is it that you have a problem with someone wanting to measure the boat's speed according to the embankment, which we know is at rest like the water is pretended to be when we measure the boat's speed in the water??
 
So you're saying it's the simple and natural thing to do to pretend the water is not moving (no current) when measuring the boat's speed in the water
Well, that is a simple and natural thing to do, but no the only one. Treating the water as at rest gives speed relative to the water, which is the speed measured by a chip log, pit log, or other marine speedometer.

The other simple and natural thing to do is to pretend the Earth is at rest, which gives speed relative to the ground, which relates to how long it takes to go between landmarks a known distance apart, is the speed given by your GPS, and is the speed that tells us how long the boat in the opening post takes to go 5km up the river.

But you have a problem with measuring off 8km on the embankment and timing the boat to find the time in each direction.
What, you mean in practice? I already suggested atually doing the experiment. But, I doubt I could find an 8km stretch of straight smooth current.
Or do you mean in theory? Then no, there's no problem at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression.
Speed of the current is V.
Boat speed relative to the embankment is 8 + V (downstream), and 8 - V (upstream).
Time = distance/speed

Why is it that you have a problem with someone wanting to measure the boat's speed according to the embankment
I don't... measuring speed relative to the embankment is the whole idea.
That's why I keep asking you how far the little boat moved relative to the embankment in 22.5 seconds, remember?
 
Well, that is a simple and natural thing to do, but no the only one. Treating the water as at rest gives speed relative to the water, which is the speed measured by a chip log, pit log, or other marine speedometer.

The other simple and natural thing to do is to pretend the Earth is at rest, which gives speed relative to the ground, which relates to how long it takes to go between landmarks a known distance apart, is the speed given by your GPS, and is the speed that tells us how long the boat in the opening post takes to go 5km up the river.


What, you mean in practice? I already suggested atually doing the experiment. But, I doubt I could find an 8km stretch of straight smooth current.
Or do you mean in theory? Then no, there's no problem at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression.
Speed of the current is V.
Boat speed relative to the embankment is 8 + V (downstream), and 8 - V (upstream).
Time = distance/speed


I don't... measuring speed relative to the embankment is the whole idea.
That's why I keep asking you how far the little boat moved relative to the embankment in 22.5 seconds, remember?

Quite so, and furthermore one can derive (following for example Billy T's workings towards the start of this thread) a perfectly good general formula for the time, t, for a return trip of outward distance d along the bank, as a function of the speed of the boat in still water, s, and the speed of the current, c, :-

t = 2ds/(s+c)(s-c),

PURELY from the dynamics of the problem. This applies equally whether you go upstream first or downstream first, so long as you return to your starting point.

You can see from this formula that in still water (i.e. c=0), this reduces to t = 2d/s, just as you would expect, while if the current is as fast as the boat (i.e. c=s), t -> ∞, because the boat makes no progress against the current, again just as you would expect.

And THAT IS IT. Nothing else is needed. The boat can be large, small, powered by sail, oars, diesel or fermented turkey giblets, it makes no difference.

Addendum: And if, as in the present case, you know everything except c, you rearrange the formula and get:-

c = √(s² - 2ds/t), plug in the values and there's your answer.
 
Speed of the current is V.
Boat speed relative to the embankment is 8 + V (downstream), and 8 - V (upstream).
Time = distance/speed

I mark off 8 km on the embankment. The boat starts at the starting line on the embankment and travels upstream in the water until it reaches the 8km mark on the embankment. How much time does the stop watch read?

I repeat the procedure going down stream back to the starting line on the embankment. How much time does the stop watch read?
 
I mark off 8 km on the embankment. The boat starts at the starting line on the embankment and travels upstream in the water until it reaches the 8km mark on the embankment. How much time does the stop watch read?

I repeat the procedure going down stream back to the starting line on the embankment. How much time does the stop watch read?
Is the speed of the current still 3.27 km/hr?
Downstream: 42.6 minutes
Upstream: 101.4 minutes

$$v_{w} = \mbox{Boat speed relative to the water} \\
v_{c} = \mbox{water speed relative to the ground} \\
d = \mbox{distance along the ground} \\
t_{up} = \mbox{time to go that distance upstream} \\
t_{down} = \mbox{time to go that distance downstream} \\
\\
t_{up} = \frac{d}{v_{w}-v_{c}} \\
t_{down} = \frac{d}{v_{w}+v_{c}}$$
 
Is the speed of the current still 3.27 km/hr?
Downstream: 42.6 minutes
Upstream: 101.4 minutes

$$v_{w} = \mbox{Boat speed relative to the water} \\
v_{c} = \mbox{water speed relative to the ground} \\
d = \mbox{distance along the ground} \\
t_{up} = \mbox{time to go that distance upstream} \\
t_{down} = \mbox{time to go that distance downstream} \\
\\
t_{up} = \frac{d}{v_{w}-v_{c}} \\
t_{down} = \frac{d}{v_{w}+v_{c}}$$

You say the Boat speed relative to the water. The water is assumed to move at 3.27km/hr relative to the embankment. How do you know the Boat speed relative to the water when you only know the water speed compared to the embankment? In other words, you know the motion of the water compared to the embankment, and the distance along the ground on the embankment (as measured by a ruler), that's it! You can't figure out the boat speed compared to the embankment by knowing the water speed compared to the embankment.
 
You say the Boat speed relative to the water. The water is assumed to move at 3.27km/hr relative to the embankment. How do you know the Boat speed relative to the water when you only know the water speed compared to the embankment? In other words, you know the motion of the water compared to the embankment, and the distance along the ground on the embankment (as measured by a ruler), that's it! You can't figure out the boat speed compared to the embankment by knowing the water speed compared to the embankment.

You can put the boat in still water, and measure its speed. :wallbang:
 
You can put the boat in still water, and measure its speed. :wallbang:

So I mark off 8km on the embankment. One side of the embankment has still water and the other side of the embankment has 3.27km/hr water. I start at the start line and time the boat in still water. It takes 1 Hour for the boat to reach the finish line. I perform the test in the opposite direction, back to the start line. It takes 1 hour for the boat to reach the start line. The speed of the boat was 8km/hr. The boat traveled 8km along the embankment in 1 hour in each direction of travel. Speed in each direction of travel was 8km/hr, with an average two way speed of 8km/hr.

Now we start the boat at the start line of the current water and measure the time it takes for the boat to reach the finish line, and perform the test in the opposite direction back to the start line.

How much time does it take the boat to travel 8km upstream in 3.27 km/hr water to the finish line on the embankment, and how much time does it take for the boat to return back to the start line on the embankment?
 
So I mark off 8km on the embankment. One side of the embankment has still water and the other side of the embankment has 3.27km/hr water. I start at the start line and time the boat in still water. It takes 1 Hour for the boat to reach the finish line. I perform the test in the opposite direction, back to the start line. It takes 1 hour for the boat to reach the start line. The speed of the boat was 8km/hr. The boat traveled 8km along the embankment in 1 hour in each direction of travel. Speed in each direction of travel was 8km/hr, with an average two way speed of 8km/hr.

Now we start the boat at the start line of the current water and measure the time it takes for the boat to reach the finish line, and perform the test in the opposite direction back to the start line.

How much time does it take the boat to travel 8km upstream in 3.27 km/hr water to the finish line on the embankment, and how much time does it take for the boat to return back to the start line on the embankment?

Pete already answered that in post 175.
Downstream: 42.6 minutes
Upstream: 101.4 minutes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top