Talk:Naïve physics

message: Well meaning but confused science teachers tell their students that the centrifugal force is a fictional force, as if it were some kind of psychological effect. This is not true. The centrifugal force is an inertial force, meaning that it is a frame-dependent force that arises from the body's own inertia. It's true that the centrifugal force is not fundamental like gravity, but neither is friction or rope tension. Centrifugal force is every bit as real as other forces in the frame that it appears. A machine such as a spring scale can measure the centrifugal force independent of any human psychology. The centrifugal force can also be derived mathematically without any gimmicks or approximations by transforming Newton's law into a spinning reference frame. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrifugal Force does not belong on this list 

message: It is surprising that "tool-making" ability is not listed.  And just when thought that it was only humans, monkeys, etc; the crow bent a wire for food; making any modern-day attempt to define folk physics bunk.  Just as referenced by the example of a flat earth.
Is this the same as intuitive physics?  I think that Stephen Pinker prefers that term in his popularisations of evolutionary psychology.  Analogous are intuitive engineering, intuitive biology, intuitive economics -- Alan Peakall 17:29 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:The article stub as-is certainly gives that impression. I have encountered the term in a different setting, though, in a late-70s or so artificial intelligence article by Patrick Hayes called the Naïve Physics Manifesto.
:Here is a link:
:http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/publications/masters/node28.html
:I also think that folk something-or-other is a synonym for intuitive something-or-other, as in folk psychology, a term often used in cognitive science. -- Are Sørli 18:01, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  surprise 

message: "A dropped object falls straight down.[citation needed]"  Citation needed?  CITATION NEEDED?!?  WHY in the world would a citation be needed here?  And who or what should we cite?  It is silly things like this that make Wikipedia unrespected in academia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.201.141.146 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused about that one, too. Is someone looking for proof that people think this, or proof that it isn't true? As none of these other list items have been tagged, I'm just going to remove that one.
Zadeez 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed?!? 

message: I'm a bit confused as to why "Two events are simultaneous or they are not. " is listed here. Isn't this an example of the tautology "A or NOT A" and therefore inherently true? Sgt. Muffles 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simultaneity is not well defined once things are moving at the speed of light. Or something... it can depend on your frame of reference, and something seen as simultaneous by someone at point A might not be seen as simultaneous  by someone at point B, yet neither party is right or wrong. --Kirkjerk 18:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tautologies run into trouble when the predicates involved are not well-defined, or when boundaries are fuzzy, or when they blend fictional and non-fictional domains, and on and on. Simultaneity is not well-defined in special relativity. There has to be a reference to an inertial frame (no matter what speed you're moving at).
Which means it's not the person who thinks something is either simultaneous or not who is wrong, it's the person who thinks simultaniety means anything on its own, making it more of a naive semantics than a naive physics. ˜˜˜  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.153.63 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two events are simultaneous or they are not." 

message: Errr... this is true, unless you're ignoring air resistance and terminal velocity and all that good stuff! --Kirkjerk 18:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that one is the other way round (the first thing you get taught in highschool physics is that the coin and the feather fall at the same speed, even though it's blatantly untrue...).  I suppose that's more "just-enough-knowledge-to-be-dangerous physics" rather than "naive physics" though. FiggyBee 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A coin will hit the ground before a feather when both are dropped at the same time from the same height." 

message: "The ideas of absolute motion and absolute simultaneity survived until 1905"
Err - absolute motion was disposed of by Newton, way before 1905.
210.193.179.135 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  absolute 

message: Maybe this has been suggested before but I think this article should be moved to Naive Physics or Naive physics.
The reason being that the i with the diaresis (ï) is easier to find on your keyboard, it's easier to spell, and I think that it is has become more common, and that many.grammarians now.consider (by whom?) it to be more proper (clarifaction needed).
I suspect that these pages already redirect here, although I haven't checked, because the other reason is that it would look.better in a hyperlink. Right now links to this page read something like:
Na%C3%AFve_physics
@nd @fter the ©hange, it would look like this:
Naive_physics 
Given the importance of this topic, given recent research in this field (how long?), particularly due to recent advances in machine learning and developmental psychology,
I think it would be easier to read,
and might make more people link to this page. (personal opinion, may contain original research)
This is discussed in the body of the article on Evian spelled backwards.
Mechachleopteryx (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the page.