Why do you two keep referring this rubbish back to me, I don't do philosophy. Your thought experiment is a philosophical one to me.
USES: ..
In thought experiments we gain new information by rearranging or reorganizing already known empirical data in a new way and drawing new (a priori) inferences from them or by looking at these data from a different and unusual perspective.
IN SCIENCE:
Scientists tend to use thought experiments in the form of imaginary, "proxy" experiments which they conduct prior to a real, "physical" experiment (Ernst Mach always argued that these gedankenexperiments were "a necessary precondition for physical experiment"). In these cases, the result of the "proxy" experiment will often be so clear that there will be no need to conduct a physical experiment at all.
You ignore all the prior physics and data.
Your experiment doesn't take the form of Einsteins which leaves all normal physics working ... you violate just about everything (even Paul could see the basic problem). It's completely meaningless to me, it's like putting GOD in a science thought experiment. I have tried to explain why but if you don't get it by now, then sorry but I can't be anymore clear.
You two want to argue that it's a science thought experiment, well fine ... I give in its a science thought experiment. I can see the logic it's sort of got some layman science in it, so you got me I agree, just don't ask me to care about it.
Sorry I understand you guys now .. you never said it and it never happened
At t=3 it arrives at the pink spot; at which point, time is reversed.
It crosses the blue and green spots at t=2 and t=1, respectively.
What happens to v and p, both are vectors, so at t=2 and t=1, in reversed time, the ball is travelling towards the balk cushion, but the vectors point away from it?
Feel free to discuss it together but leave me out, I have had my fill of invent-a-physics this week and my care-o-meter is on empty.
