ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: JackBlack on May 18, 2021, 03:22:37 PM

Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.

There's no contradicting myself.

Ignoring the contradiction wont magically make it go away.
If it is equal and opposite it is balanced.
You trying to blatantly misrepresent what that means to pretend the reaciton happens to the same object as the action, just some time later, will not magically remove that contradiction.

If  I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.

No, you don't.
If you want to push it to accelerate it relative to Earth, then you need to use something to resist, because you are no longer simply pushing it, instead you are pushing the car and Earth.

If you would like a simple example, jump on a car.
You are pushing the car, but because it is so much more massive (and it is also on Earth so when you push it down you also push Earth down which is even more massive), its inertia makes it accelerate quite little. But the reactionary force acting on the much smaller mass of you results in you accelerating far more.

We have been over this plenty of times, with you unable to justify that blatant lie of yours at all.
Instead you just repeatedly dodge.
Your delusional garbage makes no sense at all.
All that is required to see that is to consider a hypothetical situation in which you are holding a ball with nothing around you to use as resistance, and you extend your arm.
Do you think your arm just phases through the ball because you don't have anything to use as resistance?

Yet again, you fail to understand basic mechanics.
So with that it isn't surprising that you can't answer the trivial question which show your model is BS.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?

An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces

WHY?
Stop jsut repeating the same baseless assertions and justify it.
There is no connection at all between those 2.

The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.

You already stated that lie and had it refuted.
The second and third law are fundamentally different.

Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.

The only reason you want this is because your delusional garbage cannot explain the rest.
The rest which you reject so much, shows quite clearly that you are wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:13:35 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 18, 2021, 03:22:37 PM

Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.

There's no contradicting myself.

Ignoring the contradiction wont magically make it go away.
If it is equal and opposite it is balanced.
You trying to blatantly misrepresent what that means to pretend the reaciton happens to the same object as the action, just some time later, will not magically remove that contradiction.

It does.
Action then reaction in equal and opposite terms.
What you put in you get out. As simple as that.

Let me make this clear.
A resistant leverage to allow a energy force with encounter a resistance to that force over the period of time that force gives back the equal energy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2021, 02:32:53 AM

Let me make this clear.
A resistant leverage to allow a energy force with encounter a resistance to that force over the period of time that force gives back the equal energy.

No, that is not clear.

Then I can't help you.

Action then reaction in equal and opposite terms.

No, action and reaction occur at once.
You push an object, the object pushes back on you.
Action-reaction.

Again, you fail basic mechanics.
Just like your fail to answer trivial questions which expose your BS as BS, and which you want to pretend don't exist.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2021, 02:32:53 AM

Action then reaction in equal and opposite terms.

No, action and reaction occur at once.
You push an object, the object pushes back on you.
Action-reaction.

You push the object first and then get the reaction from your applied force, in equal measures.

You push the object first and then get the reaction from your applied force, in equal measures.

No, you push the object and at the same time, it pushes back.
It doesn't wait until later to push you back.

No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.

You have a very childish way of talking. I point out a problem in what you say, and you consistently seem to turn it around with a playground "I know you are, but what am I?"
When I say you have not answered the question, it is because you have not. Instead of telling me to just reread the post that I found unsatisfactory, and that I explained my objections to, either engage or stop. I am not ignoring an explanation, I am pointing out your explanation is founded upon insistence and not evidence.

You say that vibration/heat can be directly identified with the pressure and action/reaction pairs of particles and thus heat only exists because of action/interaction pairs. The two are one and the same. (If this is not what you are saying, then by all means clarify as opposed to repeating what appears to be insisting upon this).
This proposal is simply impossible. Take a solitary particle - is every such particle at absolute zero simply because it interacts with nothing? Equally, you talked about the difference in situations where heat is externally being added, as opposed to an object simply resting - okay then, imagine an object being heated, the random motions of molecules at this addition of an external force, only for that heating element to be taken away and the object allowed to reach a consistent non-zero temperature. How does order emerge from this chaos, how does the random movement of molecules even out in such a way that molecules pair off neatly and predictably?

Your explanation fails to allow heat to exist as a property of any lone particle, and still fails to address how such order can consistently and regularly arise.
Either the response you gave is wrong, or woefully incomplete, and simply insisting that I reread it is not going to address either problem.

Quote from: Shifter on May 19, 2021, 12:30:20 AM

Well, your reality anyway.

It isn't my reality.
You wanting to just spout shit like that to try and stir up trouble won't magically make me the delusional one. Grow up.

And what goes up, must come down amirite? I see your well on your way there. You've lost the plot old man

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2021, 10:53:54 AM

The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.

An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces, so the law is non existent and there is absolutely no description of something that is non existent....unless it is passed off as fantasy.

What's wrong with a fantasy that helps you to understand reality better?  Have you no imagination?

Quote from: markjo

The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)

The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.

No, it doesn't.  The second law describes a force. 

Quote from: markjo

The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.

Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The rest is just dressing it up for the same answer.

No.  You need the first two laws in order to get to the third.

Quote from: markjo

Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.

A complete basic understanding of motion is action and equal and opposite, reaction.
That's all there is to it.
One law.

How can you have equal and opposite forces if you don't define what force means first?

Quote from: markjo

Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.

How can the second and third laws cover an environment that cannot exist?

They don't.  The second and third laws cover the forces and resistance that you keep going on about.  It's the first law that covers the impossible environment that I told you not to worry about.

Let's try it one more time.
First law: here's what an object does with no external forces applied (an impossible situation, but don't worry about it)
Second law: here's what what I mean when I say "force"
Third law: here's how an object reacts when you apply a force

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2021, 03:37:38 AM

You push the object first and then get the reaction from your applied force, in equal measures.

No, you push the object and at the same time, it pushes back.
It doesn't wait until later to push you back.

You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:04:03 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2021, 10:53:54 AM

The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.

An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces, so the law is non existent and there is absolutely no description of something that is non existent....unless it is passed off as fantasy.

What's wrong with a fantasy that helps you to understand reality better?  Have you no imagination?

You can't have a fantasy that helps you to understand reality.
You can have a fantasy to help you understand a fantasy story, not a reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:04:03 PM

Quote from: markjo

The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)

The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.

No, it doesn't.  The second law describes a force.

F= mass * acceleration.
Force upon a mass to accelerate that mass is action and equal and opposite reaction. The third law.
There's only one law and that law is simple.

The third law simply becomes one law, only. No need for the 2nd. And especially no need for the first.

One law.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:04:03 PM

Quote from: markjo

The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.

Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The rest is just dressing it up for the same answer.

No.  You need the first two laws in order to get to the third.

No you don't. Not in the least.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:04:03 PM

Quote from: markjo

Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.

A complete basic understanding of motion is action and equal and opposite, reaction.
That's all there is to it.
One law.

How can you have equal and opposite forces if you don't define what force means first?

Force is action against an equal and opposite, reaction.
Or would you prefer energy equals action against an equal and opposite, reaction?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:04:03 PM

Quote from: markjo

Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.

How can the second and third laws cover an environment that cannot exist?

They don't.  The second and third laws cover the forces and resistance that you keep going on about.  It's the first law that covers the impossible environment that I told you not to worry about.

Ok we can throw the pretence of a first law into the bin.

Let's try it one more time.
First law: here's what an object does with no external forces applied (an impossible situation, but don't worry about it)

Then don't use it.

Second law: here's what what I mean when I say "force"

Just force? It means nothing as just a force and certainly doesn't follow f=m*a because that states a force is needed to accelerate a mass, equal to it in the opposite direction, which comes back to the third law.

One law suffices,.

Third law: here's how an object reacts when you apply a force

Action and equal and opposite, reaction.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 17, 2021, 02:32:48 PM

No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.

You say that vibration/heat can be directly identified with the pressure and action/reaction pairs of particles and thus heat only exists because of action/interaction pairs. The two are one and the same. (If this is not what you are saying, then by all means clarify as opposed to repeating what appears to be insisting upon this).

I'm not sure this is the case in conventional chemistry, that the two are one in the same:

Kinetic Energy and Temperature
Another way of thinking about temperature is that it is related to the energy of the particles in the sample: the faster the particles are moving, the higher the temperature. It may well take different amounts of energy to get particles moving at the same average kinetic energy. For a simple monoatomic gas, like helium or neon, the only motion that the atoms can do is to move from one place to another in a straight line until they bump into something else, such as another atom or molecule.86 This kind of motion is called translational motion and is directly linked to the kinetic energy of the atom or molecule through the relationship KE = 1/2 m v(bar)2 = 3/2 kT where v(bar) is the average velocity of all of the molecules in the population87, m is the mass, k is a constant, known as the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature. That is, the average kinetic energy of a gas is directly related to the temperature. In any given gaseous sample of moving atoms there are many collisions per unit time but these collisions do not alter the total energy of the system (it is conserved).88 What these collision can, and often do, alter is the relative kinetic energies of the two (or more) colliding atoms: if one slows down, the other will speed up (remember, we are now talking only about monoatomic species; things get more complicated with more complex molecules).

Any single atom or molecule has kinetic energy, but not a temperature. This is an important distinction. Populations of molecules have a temperature related to their average velocity but the concept of temperature is not relevant to individual molecules, they have kinetic energy but not a temperature. This is a important idea, temperature as a characteristic of a system not its individual components. While a system has a unique temperature, the individual molecules that make up the system can have quite different kinetic energies. Because of collisions between molecules, an individual molecule’s kinetic energy can be changing rapidly, even though the temperature of the system is constant. When it comes to chemical reactions, it is individual kinetic energies that will be critical.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_CLUE_(Cooper_and_Klymkowsky)/5%3A_Systems_Thinking/5.1%3A_Temperature/Kinetic_Energy_and_Temperature

Quote from: snomial on May 19, 2021, 05:09:53 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 17, 2021, 02:32:48 PM

No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.

You say that vibration/heat can be directly identified with the pressure and action/reaction pairs of particles and thus heat only exists because of action/interaction pairs. The two are one and the same. (If this is not what you are saying, then by all means clarify as opposed to repeating what appears to be insisting upon this).

I'm not sure this is the case in conventional chemistry, that the two are one in the same:

Kinetic Energy and Temperature
Another way of thinking about temperature is that it is related to the energy of the particles in the sample: the faster the particles are moving, the higher the temperature. It may well take different amounts of energy to get particles moving at the same average kinetic energy. For a simple monoatomic gas, like helium or neon, the only motion that the atoms can do is to move from one place to another in a straight line until they bump into something else, such as another atom or molecule.86 This kind of motion is called translational motion and is directly linked to the kinetic energy of the atom or molecule through the relationship KE = 1/2 m v(bar)2 = 3/2 kT where v(bar) is the average velocity of all of the molecules in the population87, m is the mass, k is a constant, known as the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature. That is, the average kinetic energy of a gas is directly related to the temperature. In any given gaseous sample of moving atoms there are many collisions per unit time but these collisions do not alter the total energy of the system (it is conserved).88 What these collision can, and often do, alter is the relative kinetic energies of the two (or more) colliding atoms: if one slows down, the other will speed up (remember, we are now talking only about monoatomic species; things get more complicated with more complex molecules).

Any single atom or molecule has kinetic energy, but not a temperature. This is an important distinction. Populations of molecules have a temperature related to their average velocity but the concept of temperature is not relevant to individual molecules, they have kinetic energy but not a temperature. This is a important idea, temperature as a characteristic of a system not its individual components. While a system has a unique temperature, the individual molecules that make up the system can have quite different kinetic energies. Because of collisions between molecules, an individual molecule’s kinetic energy can be changing rapidly, even though the temperature of the system is constant. When it comes to chemical reactions, it is individual kinetic energies that will be critical.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_CLUE_(Cooper_and_Klymkowsky)/5%3A_Systems_Thinking/5.1%3A_Temperature/Kinetic_Energy_and_Temperature

This is certainly a better decription, and I will leave aside that it does not answer how molecules become paired as that does not seem to be what it is attempting to address.
It does however run into the problem of convenience. It defines what it must in order for it to work. A lone molecule cannot have temperature, because otherwise the definition of temperature fails - it is less a description of physics, and more one of semantics.

It does however run into the problem of convenience. It defines what it must in order for it to work. A lone molecule cannot have temperature, because otherwise the definition of temperature fails - it is less a description of physics, and more one of semantics.

It appears you are conjuring your own definition of "what it must for it to work" without backing it up with anything other than your "must".

Quote from: JackBlack on May 17, 2021, 02:32:48 PM

No, the problem is you ignoring that explanation as to why it is the case.
Again, go and read what I have said, and don't just dismiss it as not being the case, because you don't like it.

You have a very childish way of talking. I point out a problem in what you say

And there you go projecting yet again.
You cannot show an actual problem so you continually project your own inadequacies onto others.
It seems to be quite common.

Perhaps when you show you are actually willing to read what is said and try to honestly and rationally engage with it I might care more.

When I say you have not answered the question, it is because you have not.

Perhaps instead of just asserting that I haven't answered the question, because you don't like the answer, you should wait and see if your "objections" to your answer are actually adequate to make my answer not an answer, and that I won't just refute those objections.

either engage or stop.

Follow your own advice.

Take a solitary particle - is every such particle at absolute zero simply because it interacts with nothing?

It makes no sense at all to talk about the temperature of a solitary particle, which is literally a solitary particle rather than being made of multiple particles itself.
Just like it makes no sense to talk about the speed of a solitary particle with no reference to measure that speed.

And now you are going even further away from the problem allegedly was.
You weren't objecting to the idea of heat in general.
Instead you were trying to object to the laws of motion based upon a claim about heat being that heat is stored in objects as vibrations which you treated as completely random motion, where the heat magically makes it randomly move and randomly change direction.

This is why I say you aren't actually engaging.
Another reason is shown in this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2317643#msg2317643
You completely ignored the vast majority of my post and instead just falsely claimed that I was simply insisting it is working.
And you entirely ignored the objection to your claims about modelling.
You are just looking for whatever you can to try to pretend there is a problem.

How does order emerge from this chaos, how does the random movement of molecules even out in such a way that molecules pair off neatly and predictably?

There you go ignoring what I said yet again.
Unless you want to evoke quantum mechanics it is not random motion. It is chaotic.
There is a fundamental distinction between random and chaotic.
If you understood the distinction you would know that chaotic systems, if you had all the information perfectly (which quantum mechanics prohibits) you would be able to predict the evolution of the system over time. But very small changes to the initial conditions will result in significant changes to the result, making it quite difficult to actually predict the evolution of the system over time.
Nor did I ever indicate that the particles will just pair off so you then only have pairs of particles which just interact with the other part of the pair rather than the bulk. Instead I said each interaction will change the motion of a particle will involve a pair and result in a corresponding change to the other particle of the pair.
Even after considerable time the system will still be chaotic.

An example of this is Brownian motion.
The particles APPEARS to move randomly, but that is not just random, it is CHAOTIC.
The particle doesn't just randomly change direction. Instead it interacts with another particle. This interaction thus involves a pair of particles and a pair of forces.
This does not mean these 2 particles are magically paired up and inseparable and all further interactions of either of these particles will involve the other and only the other.

Again, this is why I say you are not engaging.
I pointed out the distinction between random and chaotic, and you ignored it. I never indicated that the particles will magically pair up and then remain as those pairs, yet you pretend I do.
You aren't engaging with what I have said.
You just strawman my position, pretending I said things I never did, and ignoring the key parts which show your claim is wrong.

Try to respond to what has actually been said, rather than your misrepresentations of it.

Either the response you gave is wrong, or woefully incomplete, and simply insisting that I reread it is not going to address either problem.

Or, your objections are entirely inadequate, misrepresenting reality and what I have said, or ignoring what I have said.

You actually reading what I have said and actually responding to that, rather than what you want me to have said, would address the problem.

Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.

You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.

And again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said it resists BEFORE. I said it resists AT THE SAME TIME.
Just like you can't have it resist before you push, it also can't resist after you push. That would be too late. You have already pushed, it can't then be resisted.

It needs to resists AT THE SAME TIME as you push.
Action and equal and opposite reaction, AT THE SAME TIME.
You push, and it pushes back, AT THE SAME TIME.

You can't have a fantasy that helps you to understand reality.

Only if you don't want to understand reality, although I wouldn't call them fantasy, you certainty do.
Idealised models of reality, which you dismiss as fantasy, aid in understanding reality.
You not liking that because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy will not change that.



You can have a fantasy to help you understand a fantasy story, not a reality.

F= mass * acceleration.
Force upon a mass to accelerate that mass is action and equal and opposite reaction. The third law.

No, 2 separate laws.
One law is relating the force, mass and acceleration on a SINGLE object.
The next is stating the relationship between forces acting on TWO objects.

They are 2 laws.
You hating the second law because it shows your model is garbage will not magically make it not a law.

Like I said, if you want to combine them, combine the first and second, as with the second, if F=0, a=0, which then covers the first. The second law is an extension of the first.

It means nothing as just a force and certainly doesn't follow f=m*a because that states a force is needed to accelerate a mass, equal to it in the opposite direction, which comes back to the third law.

No, it doesn't.
It states if you apply a force to an object, it will accelerate the object IN THE SAME DIRECTION, at a rate inversely proportional to its mass.
It says nothing about an equal and opposite force.

As he already explained, the three laws serve 3 purposes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2021, 07:52:02 AM

You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.

And again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said it resists BEFORE. I said it resists AT THE SAME TIME.
Just like you can't have it resist before you push, it also can't resist after you push. That would be too late. You have already pushed, it can't then be resisted.

You can't push without resistance. It's all one and the same thing.
To create a force you need energy. To use energy to create  force you need leverage. Something to push off of.
To push off of something you need a resistance to allow it.
All of it gains an equal and opposite reaction.


None of it has any bearing on constant velocity because constant velocity can never be a thing. Inertia describes absolutely nothing.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 19, 2021, 03:16:42 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2021, 07:52:02 AM

You can't have an object resist your push until you push. Action then equal and opposite reaction.

And again you misrepresent what I said.
I never said it resists BEFORE. I said it resists AT THE SAME TIME.
Just like you can't have it resist before you push, it also can't resist after you push. That would be too late. You have already pushed, it can't then be resisted.

You can't push without resistance.

Do you mean a different object to push against, which had nothing at all to do with the section you quoted? Or do you mean the resistance of that object to your push?
If the latter, that is what I have said, and what you seem to reject.
That means you push and it resists that push, pushing back AT THE SAME TIME!

If you meant the former, then yet again you have shown your complete inability to rationally defend your claims with you needing to jump to another topic yet again.
And just like before, that former claim is still BS. The only "resistance" you need to be able to push another object, is your own inertia.
Again, jumping on a car or a trampoline or any number of other things easily demonstrates this.

Inertia describes absolutely nothing.

Again, you not liking inertia because it exposes your claims as BS doesn't make it nothing.
Just like you wanting to pretend the second law is just the third, because the second relies upon mass and accurately describes reality, further showing your claims are pure BS, does not magically make them the same law.

Just like you continually ignoring trivial questions which so clearly expose your lies, doesn't magically mean those questions don't exist, nor does it mean your model doesn't have any problems.
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?

It makes no sense at all to talk about the temperature of a solitary particle, which is literally a solitary particle rather than being made of multiple particles itself.
Just like it makes no sense to talk about the speed of a solitary particle with no reference to measure that speed.

And now you are going even further away from the problem allegedly was.
You weren't objecting to the idea of heat in general.
Instead you were trying to object to the laws of motion based upon a claim about heat being that heat is stored in objects as vibrations which you treated as completely random motion, where the heat magically makes it randomly move and randomly change direction.

If you cannot see the connection, then you are not looking at the same problem that I bring up. Rather than assume I am not engaging, assume I am and see how what I say connects. You are very quick to throw out insults and accusations, and very slow to react to a problem.
I was and have always been objecting to the mainstream model of heat. My very first statement on this topic was "This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart." Followed soon after by "Nothing causes it to vibrate, this is a lie perpetuated by mainstream physicists, as this demonstrates... The claim is that heat manifests as vibration." My objection is to the concept that heat manifests as vibration - this is demonstrated both by how Newton's law fails, and how it cannot allow for single particles to possess a temperature, along with other areas.
Further, the single particle thought experiment is relevant as it exposes a flaw in the claims you make - namely, the focus on how action/interaction is the basis of heat. Now, if you were engaging scientifically as opposed to looking for excuses to throw out insults, your response to that should have been "Why is this Snomial person interested in questioning that? Why is that relevant?"
Had you done that, you should soon arrive at the conclusion - when the action/interaction model of heat is out the window, so too is your explanation for how and why molecules pair off conveniently. Thus, once again, it is demonstrated that you do not have the neat and easy 'all motion cancels itself out' response that you have been relying upon because heat is separate to that.

This is why I say you aren't actually engaging.
Another reason is shown in this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2317643#msg2317643
You completely ignored the vast majority of my post and instead just falsely claimed that I was simply insisting it is working.
And you entirely ignored the objection to your claims about modelling.
You are just looking for whatever you can to try to pretend there is a problem.

No. I responded in such a way because your reply did not give an answer. I asked why such motion always gets cancelled out: you said 'because it MUST.' Word for word, "If all you have are internal forces, then a force acting on any part of the object will be cancelled out be an equal in magnitude and opposite in direction force on another part of the object. Those 2 forces MUST add to 0." Which is a completely useless statement when that very line of reasoning is what I am objecting to. You are saying that my conclusion is wrong because my conclusion is wrong, not because you are bringing any new reasoning or implication to the table. I am saying that internal forces, particularly at the edges of an object, could easily see that object's net force reach an imbalance because of simple logical implication - you are saying this is wrong, but you aren't making any response to the objections I've made. You're saying it sums to zero, I'm saying it won't, but the problem is that you are just saying.

Yes, I ignored your line of reasoning about modelling, because it wasn't relevant to the discussion on the way heat functions, it was an offhand remark I made in my previous post about how a lot of mechanics, such as Newton, functions far better with individual particles. In this very post you make the claim that I changed the topic as an accusation, and yet here you complain that I did not change the topic. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or do you have an actual purpose to your posts?

Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.

(And before you accuse me of cutting out your 'it's CHAOTIC' response, it is more of the same 'this is how it MUST work' fallacy, and this particular question will prove a good example of how it falls apart, thus I am being more efficient and focusing on it here)
Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen atoms, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither atom is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Why is the vibration of the first atom strictly and exclusively going to be horizontal, with zero vertical component whatsoever? The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position - unless your claim is that it suddenly speeds up to get in the way, which I doubt, what is it that limits the velocities of each atom so?

Do not respond simply that it 'MUST' happen, I am asking why.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 19, 2021, 02:58:57 PM

Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.

Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen molecules, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither molecule is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.

Interested in seeing where this is all going.  But why did you change his basic example of one molecule of oxygen consisting of two covalently bound atoms to two independent oxygen molecules?

Is this a typo, or did you just not read carefully or something?

Seems hard to get anywhere if you are talking about two very different basic examples, no?

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 02:40:49 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 19, 2021, 02:58:57 PM

Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.

Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen molecules, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither molecule is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.

Interested in seeing where this is all going.  But why did you change his basic example of one molecule of oxygen consisting of two covalently bound atoms to two independent oxygen molecules?

Is this a typo, or did you just not read carefully or something?

Seems hard to get anywhere if you are talking about two very different basic examples, no?

A typo, certainly, my brain thought both 'two atoms' and 'one molecule' simultaneously and apparently I split the difference. Will correct, thanks.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 03:13:34 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 02:40:49 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 19, 2021, 02:58:57 PM

Like I said, start out with the basics.
Start with 2 atoms, like an oxygen molecule.
Understand why that vibrates, and then try building up from there.

Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen molecules, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither molecule is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.

Interested in seeing where this is all going.  But why did you change his basic example of one molecule of oxygen consisting of two covalently bound atoms to two independent oxygen molecules?

Is this a typo, or did you just not read carefully or something?

Seems hard to get anywhere if you are talking about two very different basic examples, no?

A typo, certainly, my brain thought both 'two atoms' and 'one molecule' simultaneously and apparently I split the difference. Will correct, thanks.

Great, thanks for clarifying. 

I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated?  Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?

Great, thanks for clarifying. 

I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated?  Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?

Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 03:56:33 AM

Great, thanks for clarifying. 

I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated?  Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?

Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.

I have to say Im a little confused here.  I dont disagree with the above, but Im having a hard time seeing how it fits into your example.  Dont you state in your description of the simple problem -

The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position

Isn't this in direct contradiction to -

Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other

Or am I missing something here?  Happy for any clarification or restatement if needed. 

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 04:20:33 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 03:56:33 AM

Great, thanks for clarifying. 

I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated?  Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?

Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.

I have to say Im a little confused here.  I dont disagree with the above, but Im having a hard time seeing how it fits into your example.  Dont you state in your description of the simple problem -

Quote from: snomial

The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position

Isn't this in direct contradiction to -

Quote from: snomial

Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other

Or am I missing something here?  Happy for any clarification or restatement if needed.

'React' was meant in the quite literal sense of 'know' - in context, the only response the second atom can have to any movement of the former is whatever velocity is imparts through the bond. There is nothing it can do to prevent or cancel the movement of the first. It cannot react in the way the mainstream model requires for it to be at rest - it would be dragged, if this model is the case.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 04:43:25 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 04:20:33 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 03:56:33 AM

Great, thanks for clarifying. 

I'll let Jack speak for himself on this, but in the case you now describe, Im wondering if there is a covalent bond between the two atoms? Such that if one moves relative to the other and alters the bond length, a net force between the two is generated?  Isn't that the whole premise of molecular vibration, that the bonds between atoms allow for harmonic oscillation?

Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.

I have to say Im a little confused here.  I dont disagree with the above, but Im having a hard time seeing how it fits into your example.  Dont you state in your description of the simple problem -

Quote from: snomial

The adjacent atom cannot react to any vertical movement from the other as it is in a horizontal position

Isn't this in direct contradiction to -

Quote from: snomial

Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other

Or am I missing something here?  Happy for any clarification or restatement if needed.

'React' was meant in the quite literal sense of 'know' - in context, the only response the second atom can have to any movement of the former is whatever velocity is imparts through the bond. There is nothing it can do to prevent or cancel the movement of the first. It cannot react in the way the mainstream model requires for it to be at rest - it would be dragged, if this model is the case.

Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure I really understand what you mean by the second atom can not "know" vertical movement from the other.

Maybe define how one atom can "know" movement from another atom to help clarify?

Im also not sure which mainstream model you are talking about here that you believe is wrong in this context?  I might have missed this in previous discussion, apologies if so, but can you specify again? 

Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure I really understand what you mean by the second atom can not "know" vertical movement from the other.

Maybe define how one atom can "know" movement from another atom to help clarify?

Im also not sure which mainstream model you are talking about here that you believe is wrong in this context?  I might have missed this in previous discussion, apologies if so, but can you specify again?

It's not a technical term, just a general way to refer to any way the second atom can respond to the actions of the first. The only apparent method is to simply react to any force caused by it, which it would not be able to cancel unless it was already moving in a specific way.

The objection I primarily have here is to the notion of heat being stored as kinetic energy, ie the constant motion of particles. This is demonstrated here by how the law chafes with the idea of any object ever being at rest.

Different objects have different reactions to heat.

Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 06:04:38 AM

Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure I really understand what you mean by the second atom can not "know" vertical movement from the other.

Maybe define how one atom can "know" movement from another atom to help clarify?

Im also not sure which mainstream model you are talking about here that you believe is wrong in this context?  I might have missed this in previous discussion, apologies if so, but can you specify again?

It's not a technical term, just a general way to refer to any way the second atom can respond to the actions of the first. The only apparent method is to simply react to any force caused by it, which it would not be able to cancel unless it was already moving in a specific way.

But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one?  Isn't this a general way the second atom would  respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response? 

The objection I primarily have here is to the notion of heat being stored as kinetic energy, ie the constant motion of particles. This is demonstrated here by how the law chafes with the idea of any object ever being at rest.

Interesting, I hear you.  Kinetic energy always weirds me out a bit.  You always think of energy having to be something absolute, but then kinetic energy goes and changes with your frame of reference! 

The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference! 

The objection I primarily have here is to the notion of heat being stored as kinetic energy, ie the constant motion of particles. This is demonstrated here by how the law chafes with the idea of any object ever being at rest.

Perhaps it would help to clarify the term "at rest" as it would apply to different states of matter. 

Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other, so it's pretty easy to think of a stationary solid mass as being at rest.

In fluids (liquids and gasses), however, the molecules are free to move around to varying extents.  The question becomes, can a contained fluid really be considered at rest if the molecules are still moving around?  That answer would depend on the nature of the problem that you're trying to solve.