-
I have been here a couple of months ago, but because of sudden illness i was pre- occupied with different things. I have not looked into past subjects anymore and don't really want to dig them up now....
What always puzzles me is that i do not understand how the current cosmoligical model could possibly work.
If you scale down our supposed globe earth into a 30cm globe in diameter then.....
The sun is 33m in diameter and 3.8 km away
Pluto due to it's eliptical orbit 110-170 km away from the sun as a tiny golfball.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star 1.000.000 km away
The Andromeda galaxy 650.000.000.000 km away
The planets found by the trappist telescope 40.000.000 km away
All numbers are calculated with an earth with a 30cm diameter as reference.
How could gravity of any force hold everything in place with great precision with such enormous vastness of empty space/ vacuum ?
It is like imagining that we can blow a balloon without exploding to the size of our Earth.
Not even mentioning the speed of spiral arm gallaxies that defies this possibility even more.
What is the current plausible explaination for this ?
Btw a lightyear = 9500.000.000.000 km
Can we really observe quadrillions of miles looking towards the boundaries of space ?
It seems so convenient, because there is absolutely no way to varify anything, not even in the scaled down cosmos, which still has absurd distances that would make you wonder about the "real" cosmos/ distances.
-
Who says the entire universe is held in place by gravity? Also, are you scared of big numbers?
-
Who says the entire universe is held in place by gravity? Also, are you scared of big numbers?
Ah great, you seem to know more than i do.
And yes i am scared of big numbers that gravity cannot account for.
So.........????
-
The scale of the universe is amazing...and...? So what? You mean that in your opinion you don't believe that gravity could hold the solar system together? What math, scientific evidence, or logical explanation do you have beyond your opinion? Given that astronomers, mathematicians, and engineers have delivered robots to distant planets, I think that they know what they're doing. Do you know how they found Neptune? The calculations of Uranus's orbit showed an abberation--something was off. So a couple of mathematicians started playing with the numbers and realized that there must be another planet tugging on Uranus. A little more math told them where to look. They gave their data to astronomers who found Neptune almost immediately.
-
You haven't done your homework on Neptune either.
From Cosmos without (attractive) Gravitation:
The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus. Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance (Principia, Book III, Proposition V, Corr. V).
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Remember, you cannot use the ripples in spacetime bedtime story.
How does a graviton emitted by the Sun attract a graviton released by the inner core of Pluto?
-
Gravity recedes with distance, but it is proportional to mass. And the masses we talk about here are enormeous. The milky way has a mass of approx. 10^41kg.
The objects are not "held in place" by gravity, everything moves. Our planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits the galaxy and so on. Our galaxy and andromeda are attracting each other and will collide in the future. There is nothing "held in place"
The rotational speed is indeed puzzling, the dominant theory right now is the existence of dark matter because it also explains many other observed phenomena, but the last word on that has not been spoken yet.
-
Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance (Principia, Book III, Proposition V, Corr. V).
:D How strange! :D
Maybe Newton did ;D Electronics 101 Magnetic field inverse cube law derivation (https://xrayvisions.quora.com/Electronics-101-Magnetic-field-inverse-cube-law-derivation) ;D
and found out that the field strength of a magnetic dipole does indeed fall off as the inverse cube!
Maybe you should attend Electronics 101 too.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
No, you show me any reason why you might even suggest that "TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER".
Any more would also suggest that "TWO PHOTONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER".
I suspect that even if gravitons are proven that two gravitons will still not attract each other any more than two photons attract each other.
Their, a nice ambiguous answer!
-
Gravity is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to separation distance squared.
So forget your pissy little model of an Earth you can hold in your hand that weighs a few kg. In REALITY the Earth has a mass of
6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilograms.
The Sun weighs that much, times a third of a million. You can write out the number.
The distance they are apart is 150 million km. That's still a massive number, but it's only six zeroes. Nine if you use meters.
I don't care if you can't understand or don't believe in gravity. But if you think it can't exist because the numbers are too insignificant for there to be any force involved, there's something wrong with you.
-
rabinoz, leave physics to those to really know it.
You really haven't studied HOW the inverse cube law was derived, have you?
IT IT ONLY VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON THE DIPOLE MODEL.
But, using the correct model, the MAGNETIC MONOPOLE model, we only have an inverse square law.
Magnetic fields obey an inverse square law.
Only dipoles could produce an inverse cube law.
You obtained your answer from the quora website, and hurried back here, thinking you hit the jackpot, not knowing a thing about the intricacies of the debate between the applicability of the inverse square law vs. the inverse cube law when it comes to monopoles and dipoles.
I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.
He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.
I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."
"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.
"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."
I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.
This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.
(from Earth in Upheaval)
An extraordinary work which takes an in-depth look at how MAGNETISM was left out of the gravitational theories which were put forward as basic hypotheses in the 17th and 18th centuries.
No one can explain, even within the forged/faked history of these centuries, why the force of magnetism was not immediately put in a central place as the main force of universal gravitation.
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/ricker9.pdf
Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.
If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.
They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation.
Or are you suggesting that gravitons DO NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
Because then the Earth is flat.
-
HUYGENS LETTER TO LEIBNIZ, 1690:
”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."
Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism.
Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.
Newton’s use of magnetism as a template for gravitational attraction presented him with a dilemma. Both concepts were occult forces, but magnetism was explained within the Cartesian system using vortices of circulating magnetic particles. In the case of gravity, Newton was able to prove mathematically that vortices of a subtle gravitational aether did not yield the known laws of planetary motion discovered by Kepler. His appeal to magnetism therefore needed to be muted and suppressed. We saw previously how this led to a paradox regarding Newton’s views on magnetism. The Courtesans had successfully banished the idea of attraction from magnetism, and Newton was faced with the problem of reviving it for gravity. This he did, but only as a law of universal attraction that was presented mathematically using geometry.
Magnetism featured prominently in the Newtonian system although Newton’s style tended to downplay its significance. Newton dynamics was based upon three laws of motion. The third law was a source of considerable controversy, and this forced Newton to point to his explanation in which he states that the third law is proved experimentally by experiments using a magnet and an iron body floating on wood in a tub of water. Newton says that the magnet and iron come to rest in the water after coming together, proves the correctness of his third law.
WHY DID NEWTON LEAVE OUT MAGNETISM AS THE SOURCE OF HIS IDEAS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES?
Clearly, one possible answer was to appeal to magnetism as a well established example of an occult force that was a real force of nature which obeyed mechanical laws of nature. This is what Newton intended, but the use of magnetism in this way was a trap, and Newton understood this fact. The prevailing interpretation of magnetism was Descartes theory of magnetic particles flowing in a vortices through and around the magnet. Thus magnetism had a mechanical explanation in the Cartesian system. Newton could not very well use it as an example of a force similar to gravity, because he deigned that gravity was caused by Cartesian vortices of subtle matter. This created problems particularly since, Newton had no really good alternative to the Cartesian theory to put forward in its place. Hence, Newton was reticent about pointing to magnetism as a centrally acting force without a visible explanation of force resulting from direct contact.
The Nature of Gravitational Attraction
Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.
-
Only dipoles could produce an inverse cube law.
That reference I gave was not Quora.com, but an Electronics 101 course to show that Newton was correct.
;D ;D And what sort of magnets do you think Newton had? ;D ;D
I am sure he had no monopoles because you hadn't turned up to dream them into existence.
But I knew little electrically things like that decades before the internet existed thank you, Mr SmartyPants!
And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles! ;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?
Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
-
If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.
They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation.
Or are you suggesting that gravitons DO NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
Because then the Earth is flat.
You claim
"If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.
They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation."
Where did you dredge that from? Please show your reference for that claim.
Yes, I am "suggesting that gravitons" even if proven would "NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER".
So would it be true to say of you
"If photons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive electrostatic forces."
essentially the same thing!
Actually, photons do "attract each other", but so slightly that it is not worth considering.
This goes against that great Sandokhanian Theory of Everything but what I am suggesting is
that just as real photons are not the mediators of electrostatic attraction
then gravitons would not (if proven) be the mediators of gravitational attraction.
Photons are a measure of the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation and
gravitons would a measure of the smallest unit of gravitational radiation, or "gravity waves".
But neither of these explain static electrostatic, magnetic or gravitational attraction.
Then you claim "Because then the Earth is flat"! Funny that you have not map that has the correct distances!
No need to tell me I am wrong and an idiot. I know that and the opinion is reciprocated.
PS You might guess that I am not a great believer in the Sandokhanian Theory of Everything.
But then, apart from a few FEers who haven't a clue, nobody except you believes it anyway.
so I have plenty of company!
-
Because gravity works equally on all mass while magnetism works more on some substances, less on others, and not at all on others. No fancy "graviton science" required!
We don't have to be able to explain it to know that it exists. Either gravity exists, or some other force that behaves exactly like gravity exists (which we'll just call "gravity" for now). "Gravity" is "the force that causes that unique collection of observations of attraction between masses that is proportional to mass (per the constant G) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance."
Also, please stop inserting massive quotes from your (stoner) textbooks without quotation marks. It is sometimes difficult to separate your ranting from their raving. And please also not that we are not susceptible to the "I read it somewhere, so it's true" fallacy. Just because you can find some stoner from the University of Upper Trans Congolia who wrote that the Crystal Pyramids of Atlantis beamed him a message in a dream that there is no such thing as gravity does not mean that we're going to chuck 2500 years of accumulated math and science.
-
Both of you have failed to explain how attractive gravity works.
The most crucial part of the RE scenario involves this very explanation: HOW DO TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
If gravitation is attractive, how does it work?
We don't have to be able to explain it to know that it exists.
Photons are a measure of the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation and
gravitons would a measure of the smallest unit of gravitational radiation, or "gravity waves".
But neither of these explain static electrostatic, magnetic or gravitational attraction.
Then, what you are basically saying, is that you have no idea whatsoever as to what causes attractive gravitation.
Let us then make the full analogy between photons and gravitons, if that is what you want: the pressure of light phenomenon.
The pressure of light paradox is real.
"The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries."
Then, if you think that gravitons ARE NOT ATTRACTING EACH OTHER, they must cause AN ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON BOTH THE SATELLITES AND ON THE PLANETS THEMSELVES.
The constant pressure of the field of gravitons would constitute an additional force of pressure on top of the pressure of light emitted by the Sun.
Moreover, now you are saying that gravitation IS NOT ATTRACTIVE AT ALL, since both of you have stated that gravitons do not attract each other.
But, at the same time, you are certain of this:
"Gravity" is "the force that causes that unique collection of observations of attraction between masses that is proportional to mass (per the constant G) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance."
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THAT ATTRACTION WORKS.
BECAUSE NO ONE UP UNTIL NOW, FOR THE PAST 350 YEARS HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A CLEAR EXPLANATION.
HOW DO TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
You do want gravitation to be attractive right?
And you claim that such gravitation manifests itself in the form of gravitational waves whose quanta are gravitons.
I REPEAT: HOW DO TWO GRAVITONS, THEN, ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
-
The one graviton applies make up and perfume, gets her har and nails did and wears fancy clothes. The other graviton works out daily to get them sweet gains to impress gravitons he's attracted to.
I think it's fair to say that how gravity works is still very open to debate. Don't you love that science isn't even close to being done?
Basically this thread is about topics where we're still trying to figure out how it all works. If science tells you something about it, it's probably a best working theory, or essentially the best way we can currently explain things.
-
I urge each and every RE to write to the best universities: Princeton, Stanford, Cambridge, MIT, Max Planck Institute and ask a simple question.
HOW TO TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
Not only no proper response would be provided, but a bigger surprise would be at hand: no professor of physics HAS EVEN given it a thought as to how attractive gravitation might work.
The only possible model would be a vortex representation.
But two emissive vortices would not attract each other. Nor would two receptive vortices.
ONLY BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT A RECEPTIVE VORTEX AND AN EMISSIVE VORTEX TOGETHER, WOULD THEN A GRAVITON MODEL MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.
But that would mean that there ARE TWO TYPES OF GRAVITONS AT WORK: a graviton with a receptive vortex, and a graviton with an emissive vortex.
How would such a gravitational field COEXIST with a magnetic field, which consists of magnetic monopoles which also feature emissive/receptive vortices?
How would a leaf, a pencil, a brick KNOW how to emit the RIGHT AMOUNT of both kinds of gravitons, so as to fulfill the universal law of gravitational attraction?
Are such gravitons a one time emission, which occured some five billions years ago? Then that would constitute a gross violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Are they continuously being emitted? A proton/neutron is made up basically of subquarks. How would those subquarks emit gravitons each and every fraction of a second? Again, a defiance of the law of conservation of energy.
And then we would get into the most basic graviton paradox of them all: a three body model, a star/planet/satellite, using graviton fields, could not work at all, since again the law of conservation of energy would be defied each and every time the satellite hides in the shadow of the planet itself.
-
You claim that there is only one possible way to explain it, but how could you possibly be certain of this?
-
Because that is how it works in reality.
Here are your gravitons, laevorotatory/dextrorotatory vortices:
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)
-
In that same way, I urge you to ask all high profile FEers and ask them to explain how eclipses work on a flat earth
-
I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.
Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?
-
We are lucky! No sagnac gnac gnac this time!
-
"Graviton...vortices... blah blah" ...whatever.
None of what you are saying matters a bit.
More on that in a moment First, I want to thank you for acknowledging the existence of Neptune, Uranus, and the rest of the solar system. When you quoted someone saying that magnetism might be a better explanation than gravity for the motion of planets, you were clearly invoking a heliocentric, speherical Earth/planets model. At least we can agree on that!
Back to your point: I can learn many things about optics without knowing what happens at the photonic level. I don't even need a theory of (or even know about) electromagnetism. I can measure refraction in different materials at different angles and colors of light. I can experiment on and understand how different convex and concave shapes of polished glass produce different lending effects without knowing that light is made of photons and all the rest.
We know that there appears to be an attractive force that:
1) is predictably and reliably proportional to mass
2) affects all mass
3) is reduced precisely in proportion to the square of the distance
This is true. It works. It allows us to send probes whizzing past Jupiter and then slinging past out to Neptune (which you acknowledge as real--thank you).
Maybe there is no such thing as "gravity," but there is clearly something exactly like gravity.
-
I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.
Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?
Yes I want to get in a debate with you about your magical effect.
-
I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.
Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?
If a fairy or other fantasy being offered me three wishes I would use one on you. I would wish for you keyboard to only allow you to type things that were true......that would well shut you up.......remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
-
I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.
Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?
If a fairy or other fantasy being offered me three wishes I would use one on you. I would wish for you keyboard to only allow you to type things that were true......that would well shut you up.......remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
He should only be allowed to use his computer if he can completely explain computer science (especially as it relates to quantum mechanics). According to him, no one can use a science that they don't completely understand. That's why golfers are required to take a course in mechanics. I may look like they're keeping score on their little scorecard, but they're actually doing physics calculations for mass velocity acceleration gravity etc.
-
I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.
Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?
Debate on what ? :D That "effect" is faint guess at best.... or you conducted some new onservations ?
-
I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.
Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?
You have provided your hypotheses, nothing more.
If you really have the "Ultimate Theory of Everything" as you pretend, I fail to see why you restrict yourself to a little backwater like "The Flat Earth Society".
You simply don't have the guts to take your hypotheses out into the wider world.
If your work really is, as you pretend, this "Ultimate Theory of Everything" you owe it to humanity as a whole to make every attempt to get it accepted.
But no, you would rather pretend that you are the expert winning all these debates over the few here and at TFES.org who are not physicists and do not pretend to have the depth of understanding the you pretend to have.
So, get off your backside and make some attempt at getting you wonderful hypotheses into the wider world.
But, you won't, you are gutless and would rather be the big king frog in this tiny pond!
What does it gain you or science as a whole for you to win a few debates here? That changes nothing and achieves nothing at all.
Though I guess it makes you feel that you are so superior to the rest of us here.
Well get out and and try to mix it in the real world and see what happens to your marvelous hypotheses!
Bye bye, have a nice day.
Signed: Someone who couldn't care less about your fantasy world.
PS The earth spins happily along, all these spacecraft go along their assigned trajectories without your fantasy, funny that!
-
How could gravity of any force hold everything in place with great precision with such enormous vastness of empty space/ vacuum ?
What makes you say it is great precision?
Your statements about Pluto indicate it isn't that precise. It is in an elliptical orbit.
If you look at the Earth, it's orbit isn't even an ellipse. The moon perturbs it so it is wavy, and it gets disturbed to some extent by other planets.
Geostationary satellites are another example, where constant station keeping is required to keep it in position with all the perturbations.
It is like imagining that we can blow a balloon without exploding to the size of our Earth.
No. It is nothing like that. A balloon is made of material with a certain tensile strength.
As you expand it, you stretch this material, reducing it's thickness and thus increasing the stress on the material.
Eventually the material gets too thin, with too much stress and breaks.
Sure you can say use a thicker balloon, but then it requires more force (pressure inside) to be able to expand the balloon and thus you get the same problem.
Space and gravity is nothing like that at all.
Gravity is merely distorting space time by bending it a bit, more akin to putting a weight on a trampoline or sheet.
Not even mentioning the speed of spiral arm gallaxies that defies this possibility even more.
How?
What is the current plausible explaination for this ?
Explanation for what? I see no problem so far?
Can we really observe quadrillions of miles looking towards the boundaries of space ?
Yes.
Light will continue to travel unless it falls into a black hole or is absorbed by something.
So unless something is in the way we can observe it, sometimes we need more sensitive instruments than our eyes, and/or really long exposure times.
It seems so convenient, because there is absolutely no way to verify anything, not even in the scaled down cosmos, which still has absurd distances that would make you wonder about the "real" cosmos/ distances.
No. You can verify things.
For example, you can verify various distances on Earth, and positions of things, and timings of things, and then verify that the sun rises due east and sets due west on the equinox, requiring it to be very far away.
If you allow up to a 1 degree margin of error at the equator, and then construct a right angle triangle to determine the position of the sun (with a distance of 10 000 km between the equator and the north pole for the FE model), you end up with the sun being over 500 000 km away (up to an infinite distance).
In order to match the FE model, you need an error of 45 degrees at the equator.
It gets completely impossible in the southern summer as the sun is in the wrong spot.
So yes, we can verify things, like the sun being very distant. We can then use that fact, along with the sun travelling over the equator during the equinox, to show Earth is round.
And then it is calculation after calculation using various things (and observations) to determine scales.
Yes, the universe is big, and we are tiny and insignificant. That doesn't make it false.
-
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune.
Sure, it might not be gravity. Instead it could be some other force which is proportional to mass and so on, just like gravity is, i.e. it is gravity.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Why would they need to?
Remember, you cannot use the ripples in spacetime bedtime story.
Why not?
-
IT IT ONLY VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON THE DIPOLE MODEL.
But, using the correct model, the MAGNETIC MONOPOLE model, we only have an inverse square law.
And by using that model we find that Neptune should blow itself apart.
Do you know a very big very important difference between electrostatics/magnetism and gravity?
With gravity "like charges" (i.e. masses) attract, with electrostatics/magnetism (i.e positive and negative charges, north and south poles), they repel.
What this means is in order to produce a solar system using electrostatics/magnetism, you would need the sun to be one charge and every other planet the opposite.
That means instead of having an attractive force between Neptune and Uranus, you would have a repulsive force which doesn't match what was observed.
Similarly, that would mean the entire planet either has one massive monopole, with no explanation at all, or has numerous monopoles of the same "charge" which would cause the planet to explode.
So no, it is clearly not magnetism or electrostatics which is at work.
You need, as a bare minimum, a force in which like charges attract.
To make it further match reality, you need it to be proportional to the masses of the objects, but that then gives you gravity.
But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.
Because if they were, they would blow the planets apart.
No one can explain, even within the forged/faked history of these centuries, why the force of magnetism was not immediately put in a central place as the main force of universal gravitation.
I can, quite easily, because it doesn't match what is observed.
You need either dipoles, which follow a different rule, or it would blow the planets apart and cause the planets to repel one another.
Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.
Prove it.
If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.
They don't need to attract one another, they need to interact with either space time itself, or other things to cause the effects of gravity.
What you are doing is akin to say in order to communicate between 2 radio stations, the photons need to interact. They don't.
The photons sent by one need to interact with the other.
They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation.
No it isn't. It is the basis of your pathetic straw-man of gravity.
It isn't even part of the theory. So far gravitons remain entirely hypothetical.
Or are you suggesting that gravitons DO NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
Unknown.
Because then the Earth is flat.
No. That is massive logical leap without any semblance of reasoning.
-
That "effect" is faint guess at best....
REFERENCE #1
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf
(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)
The title of the paper is as follows:
A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003
"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."
The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.
REFERENCE #2
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf
The title of the article is as follows:
A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum
"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."
REFERENCE #3
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22
Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics
Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.
We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.
REFERENCE #4
The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm
REFERENCE #5
Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/
Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal
Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.
In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.
The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?
The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].
REFERENCE #6
Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance
Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045
Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.
REFERENCE #7
Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354
Published in the Physical Review Journal
Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!
This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.
Dr. Maurice Allais:
In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.
In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.
In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”
"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.
Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).
The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."
"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!
From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--
As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"
HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)
Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.
Prove it.
A sure thing.
Gravitons = magnetic monopoles = subquarks
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840 (magnetic monopoles: the Nipher experiments)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363
VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER
https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/
https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf
In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .
In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:
(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.
These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.
PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER
When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).
jack... you are forgetting about ETHER MAGNETISM.
A normal magnetic field is just the beginning in QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS.
The telluric currents/subquarks strings vibrate at a much higher rate than a normal magnetic field, that is why they are called scalar waves.
It is these telluric currents which do cause the phenomenon known as terrestrial gravity.
Your description includes a weak, superificial model based on magnetism; what you need is to learn about ETHER MAGNETISM.
They don't need to attract one another, they need to interact with either space time itself, or other things to cause the effects of gravity.
You can't use the ripples in spacetime bullshit.
I thought you learned your lesson by now.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)
What you are saying is that you CANNOT EXPLAIN how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
If you think that they are hypothetical, then please go ahead and offer an alternative explanation for attractive gravitation.
Your research into the field will reveal pretty quickly that NO ONE can explain attractive gravitation. It cannot be done.
Then, the Earth is flat: a force of pressure cannot explain how those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued to the exterior surface of a sphere. Only on a flat surface of the Earth, can pressure gravitation be explained.
-
But I knew little electrically things like that decades before the internet existed thank you, Mr SmartyPants!
Imagine being a child today. Electrons and Batman have the same relevance. :P
-
That "effect" is faint guess at best....
REFERENCE #1
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf
(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)
Sure, I agree that there have been unexplained observations.
Then, the Earth is flat: a force of pressure cannot explain how those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued to the exterior surface of a sphere. Only on a flat surface of the Earth, can pressure gravitation be explained.
But your fictitious flat earth simply cannot explain numerous simple and not so simple observations without resort to your magical aether that seems able to slow light and radar signals down to " :P walking speed :P".
So run away and don't come back till you get some real physicists etc to take some notice, of your "Magical Theory of Everything".
So, I repeat!
You have provided your unproven hypotheses, nothing more.
If you really have the "Ultimate Theory of Everything" as you pretend, I fail to see why you restrict yourself to a little backwater like "The Flat Earth Society".
You simply don't have the guts to take your hypotheses out into the wider world.
If your work really is, as you pretend, this "Ultimate Theory of Everything" you owe it to humanity as a whole to make every attempt to get it accepted.
But no, you would rather pretend that you are the expert winning all these debates over the few here and at TFES.org who are not physicists and do not pretend to have the depth of understanding the you pretend to have.
So, get off your backside and make some attempt at getting you wonderful hypotheses into the wider world.
But, you won't, you are gutless and would rather be the big king frog in this tiny pond!
What does it gain you or science as a whole for you to win a few debates here? That changes nothing and achieves nothing at all.
Though I guess it makes you feel that you are so superior to the rest of us here.
Well get out and and try to mix it in the real world and see what happens to your marvelous hypotheses!
Bye bye, have a nice day.
Signed: Someone who couldn't care less about your fantasy world.
PS The earth spins happily along, all these spacecraft go along their assigned trajectories without your fantasy, funny that!
-
That "effect" is faint guess at best....
REFERENCE #1
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
And of course, you have been completely refuted on one subject so you just jump to another, and start trying to derail the thread to avoid defeat.
I have already dealt with your BS on the Allais effect.
Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.
Prove it.
A sure thing.
Gravitons = magnetic monopoles = subquarks
Asserting more baseless bullshit isn't proving it.
And no, I don't want you to link to another one of your threads with more bullshit in it.
So now, as well as proving that gravitons are electrically charged you also need to prove they are magnetic monopoles and that magnetic monopoles are sub quarks.
So instead of proving/providing evidence for one baseless claim, you have just made 2 more.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
All this does is indicate that electric fields produce forces as well.
Regardless, start with an explanation of it your self, don't just link to a massive wall of text.
I'm going to skip over the rest of your copied and pasted crap.
jack... you are forgetting about ETHER MAGNETISM.
As either doesn't exist, who gives a shit?
Your description includes a weak, superificial model based on magnetism; what you need is to learn about ETHER MAGNETISM.
Then how about instead of dismissing it you explain what is wrong with it. Tell me how magnetism allows like charges to attract.
They don't need to attract one another, they need to interact with either space time itself, or other things to cause the effects of gravity.
You can't use the ripples in spacetime bullshit.
Why not?
You are yet to explain why I can't, so I think I will stick to it.
What you are saying is that you CANNOT EXPLAIN how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere.
No. I can explain it. Gravity holds it there.
If you don't want to appeal to ripples in space time, then the gravitons from Earth interact with the water, resulting in an attractive force.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Again, why would they need to?
If you think that they are hypothetical, then please go ahead and offer an alternative explanation for attractive gravitation.
Curvature of space time.
Your research into the field will reveal pretty quickly that NO ONE can explain attractive gravitation. It cannot be done.
No one can provide an alternative which works any better (or even as good).
Then, the Earth is flat: a force of pressure cannot explain how those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued to the exterior surface of a sphere. Only on a flat surface of the Earth, can pressure gravitation be explained.
Nope.
The BS of pressure gravitation works equally well on a flat or spherical Earth. Pretty much not at all, and not matching experimental observations at all.
Now how about instead of just asserting/posting a mountain of crap, you try and explain what is wrong with my refutation of your magnetism BS.
Explain how like magnetic charges can attract one another.
-
Here is the previous installment of the Allais effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70078.msg1892779#msg1892779
You have NEVER been able to refute anything pertaining to the Allais effect.
Yet, here you are claiming that you did.
REFERENCE #3
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22
Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics
Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.
We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
So now, as well as proving that gravitons are electrically charged you also need to prove they are magnetic monopoles and that magnetic monopoles are sub quarks.
Magnetic monopoles = subquarks
I have proven this a long time ago:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813
I'm going to skip over the rest of your copied and pasted crap.
Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.
And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm
Tell me how magnetism allows like charges to attract.
You are not making yourself clear; perhaps you are still digesting the fact that you cannot explain the Allais effect.
I am going to give a chance to offer further explanations on your statement as it pertains to terrestrial gravity.
Curvature of space time.
I have very bad news for you jackblack.
There is no such thing as space time curvature.
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
No. I can explain it. Gravity holds it there.
If you don't want to appeal to ripples in space time, then the gravitons from Earth interact with the water, resulting in an attractive force.
Do you know that each and every one of the visitors are laughing at you now?
HOW DO GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH (IRON/NICKEL CORE) INTERACT WITH WATER (GRAVITONS RELEASED BY ANY BODY OF WATER)?
HOW DOES THIS RESULT IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE?
Can't you see that you are totally unable to offer an explanation? Just like the rest of the RE?
You are making use OF PURE MAGIC.
You are saying that it exists because it exists.
But it doesn't work like that.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW "GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH INTERACT WITH WATER RESULTING IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE."
pressure gravitation works equally well on a flat or spherical Earth.
But it doesn't.
On a spherical Earth the force required to keep the four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the surface of a sphere WOULD CRUSH TO THE GROUND ANY LIFEFORM, and of course ANY CLOUDS. Nothing could escape this colossal force.
On a flat earth, on the other hand, everything works out beautifully.
-
Wait! Flat Earth?! I thought we agreed that we live in a solar system. YOU provided evidence of Neptune and Uranus! Do you retract that? If so, then my evidence about how RE mathematicians and scientists found Neptune is unopposed. Make up your mind: either concede a solar system because you acknowledge planets (your evidence) or concede a solar system because the science behind it is how people found Neptune (my evidence).
-
I have been here a couple of months ago, but because of sudden illness i was pre- occupied with different things.
I hope your sudden illness has passed as quickly as it came up.
I have not looked into past subjects anymore and don't really want to dig them up now....
I understand.
When you are ready to engage in dialogue, just do some research and post up.
Focus on getting well for now. It sucks to be sick.
-
On a spherical Earth the force required to keep the four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the surface of a sphere WOULD CRUSH TO THE GROUND ANY LIFEFORM, and of course ANY CLOUDS. Nothing could escape this colossal force.
On a flat earth, on the other hand, everything works out beautifully.
You ideas are utter balderdash, go and try posting on some physics forum and see what reception you get!
One of the neat things about Newtonian Gravitation is that the force is proportional to mass,
So 1.39 x 1018 tonnes of seawater is attracted with a force of - wait for it - 1.39 x 1018 tonnes weight,
an 80 kg person is attracted with a force of 80 kg weight and
a 2 mg ant is attracted with a force of 2 mg weight - see exactly right!
See, what a brilliant idea!
Exactly the right force to keep them all in place, it's a wonder a person with you massive intellect didn't think of it!
It took old Isaac and Robert a while to figure out all the details, but this attractive gravity works a treat.
It even holds artificial and natural satellites and planets in place - see, it's pretty good at its job - you should look into it sometime!
And flat earthers have to postulate all of things from various sorts of aether all the way through dark energy to "we haven't a clue!"
Then finally, you claim that "everything works out beautifully . . . . . . . on a flat earth",
that is if you ignore the numerous simple observations that do not fit on any flat earth at all.
Even the known measurements of the real earth will not fit on a flat earth.
But, of course, Flat Earthers claim that all these geodetic surveyors from old Al-Biruni to the present day must have been :D Freemasons :D! I really can't imagine a good Muslim like smart old Al-Biruni being a Freemasons.
But what would I know?
-
Here is the previous installment of the Allais effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70078.msg1892779#msg1892779
You have NEVER been able to refute anything pertaining to the Allais effect.
And what was the very first thing you quoted me on in that post?
Me refuting it using your reference.
Good job.
If you wish to discuss the Allais effect, do it elsewhere. It has nothing to do with this topic.
So skipping over the Allais effect BS.
So now, as well as proving that gravitons are electrically charged you also need to prove they are magnetic monopoles and that magnetic monopoles are sub quarks.
Magnetic monopoles = subquarks
I have proven this a long time ago:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813
I see you didn't even bother to focus on the main point.
There is no mention of gravitons in there at all.
It has links to evidence on magnetic monopoles, then a bunch of baseless claims about sub quarks.
So no, you haven't proven it a long time ago, yet here you are, claiming you have.
I'm going to skip over the rest of your copied and pasted crap.
Again, skipping over it.
Explain it yourself or I don't care, as just copying and pasting shows you don't understand it.
Tell me how magnetism allows like charges to attract.
You are not making yourself clear; perhaps you are still digesting the fact that you cannot explain the Allais effect.
No. I am making myself quite clear.
Both electrostatic interactions and magnetism work under the principle that like charges repel and opposite charges attract.
A south pole (or south "charge") is attracted to a north pole, a positive charge to a negative charge.
2 north poles or 2 south poles or 2 positive charges or 2 negative charges repel each other.
That means your hypothetical planets couldn't be held together by that. If you tried that, the repulsive charges would cause it to be blown apart.
It also means that you can't have the link between Neptune and Uranus. If both are attracted to the sun then they must be an opposite "charge" to the sun and thus the same charge as each other, which means they would repel each other, not attract.
As such, unless you can explain how magnetism or electrostatic interactions can produce a force of attraction between 2 like particles, it doesn't stand a chance at replacing gravity.
I don't need to explain the Allais effect as you are yet to prove it is a real thing.
I assume you just keep bringing it up to try and avoid admitting you made a massive mistake by claiming electrostatics or magnetism can replace gravity?
Curvature of space time.
I have very bad news for you jackblack.
There is no such thing as space time curvature.
That isn't news. That is just your baseless, bullshit claim.
And again, skipping your copy pasted crap and appeals to authority.
No. I can explain it. Gravity holds it there.
If you don't want to appeal to ripples in space time, then the gravitons from Earth interact with the water, resulting in an attractive force.
Do you know that each and every one of the visitors are laughing at you now?
HOW DO GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH (IRON/NICKEL CORE) INTERACT WITH WATER (GRAVITONS RELEASED BY ANY BODY OF WATER)?
HOW DOES THIS RESULT IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE?
That wouldn't result in an attractive force, just like photons from 2 transceivers wouldn't send a signal.
You need the gravitation to interact with the object.
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
Everyone here with a brain that is using it will be laughing at you. Not me.
Can't you see that you are totally unable to offer an explanation? Just like the rest of the RE?
Nope. Can't you see that I did offer an explanation, while you are continually strawmanning it and are completely unable to provide an explanation for your BS claims?
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW "GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH INTERACT WITH WATER RESULTING IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE."
First, how about you explain how photons interact with electrons?
pressure gravitation works equally well on a flat or spherical Earth.
But it doesn't.
Nope. It does.
On a spherical Earth the force required to keep the four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the surface of a sphere WOULD CRUSH TO THE GROUND ANY LIFEFORM, and of course ANY CLOUDS. Nothing could escape this colossal force.
Except the oceans are pretty much the same on alleged flat Earth and the real round one.
As such, the pressure required would be the same. As such either life forms would be crushed on both or neither.
Do you know the great thing about pressure?
It is a force per unit area.
That means the force acting on the large water surface will be much greater than the force acting on a person.
Of course, due to how it works, pressure gravity would at best be able to hold things down, not make them fall.
On a flat earth, on the other hand, everything works out beautifully.
Then how about you explain just how you determined that?
Tell us what pressure is required for a round Earth and what pressure is required for a flat Earth, and how you figured that out.
If you can't, then it is clear you are just making shit up.
-
Gravitons = Magnetic Monopoles
Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.
And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm
Magnetic Monopoles = Subquarks
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101
Each and every known element in the periodic table discovered, described decades before their actual discovery: a 100% proof of the existence of the subquark atomic model.
Now, read the following:
MAGNETIC MONOPOLES AND MAXWELL'S ORIG. SET OF EQS.
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (pg 66-73)
A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that subquarks = magnetic monopoles.
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html
An in-depth look at the most recent discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which DO PROVE the correctness of the subquark ether model.
Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:
DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.
That means your hypothetical planets couldn't be held together by that. If you tried that, the repulsive charges would cause it to be blown apart.
It also means that you can't have the link between Neptune and Uranus. If both are attracted to the sun then they must be an opposite "charge" to the sun and thus the same charge as each other, which means they would repel each other, not attract.
Why are you dreaming so much jackblack?
When and where did I ever propose such a lousy model to account for the orbits of the planets?
In the correct FE model we have TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, exactly the ones described by Newton.
1. Terrestrial gravity - a force of pressure exerted by the telluric currents
2. Planetary/stellar gravity - a rotational force which keeps the planets orbiting above the first dome
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
Isn't this wonderful? You ask a RE how attractive gravity works and you get something like: BY PURE MAGIC.
All we know is that it happens.
You haven't got a clue as to how attractive gravity works. Which means your RE spherical theory requires A LOT OF UNWARRANTED FAITH to believe in.
First, how about you explain how photons interact with electrons?
Each electron is composed of nine preons (subquarks with fractional charge, recently discovered).
Each subquark with a negative vortex (receptive vortex) is made up of some 14 billion bosons (=photons). In the correct ether model of the atom, the carrier of light is the boson (currently described as the photon).
Except the oceans are pretty much the same on alleged flat Earth and the real round one.
As such, the pressure required would be the same. As such either life forms would be crushed on both or neither.
Do you understand where you are and what is being discussed here?
I hope you do.
ON A SPHERICAL EARTH, FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER WOULD STAY GLUED TO THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THAT SPHERE.
If you want pressure gravity to account for this, then that pressure will exert a force on each cloud, living lifeform, tree, everything under the sun.
The force required to keep the water in place would crush anything else to the very ground.
However, on a flat surface of the earth, there is no need to worry about this scenario, as the water is held beautifully, without the need of any pressure, at the flat surface.
Tides are caused by the pressure exerted by telluric waves/subquark strings.
Desperation time strikes deep for you jackblack, as you are unable to provide a clear explanation for attractive gravity:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
-
Sagnac?
-
Someone tell him(or quote this post) to stop ignoring me if he isn't scared of a debate.
-
Someone tell him(or quote this post) to stop ignoring me if he isn't scared of a debate.
-
What you're completely ignoring is the tryptophyllic counter-anti-tripsolene effect first proposed by Dr. Ilya Ivanitria in 1949. Without talking that into account, you can't account for the way bifartulated nonsensocons interact with topomerons. How do you explain the observations of Dr. Ivanitria when she proved the proportional relationship between bifartulated nonsensicons and negative topomerons!? I bet you don't even know what that is!!
(It's totally within the rules of this site to make up random bullshit, right? Seems fair if others do it.)
-
Wait! Flat Earth?! I thought we agreed that we live in a solar system. YOU provided evidence of Neptune and Uranus! Do you retract that? If so, then my evidence about how RE mathematicians and scientists found Neptune is unopposed. Make up your mind: either concede a solar system because you acknowledge planets (your evidence) or concede a solar system because the science behind it is how people found Neptune (my evidence).
LOL
Does anyone read sandokhan wall of gibberish? Totally ignoring everyone and copying and pasting nonsense. ::)
-
What you're completely ignoring is the tryptophyllic counter-anti-tripsolene effect first proposed by Dr. Ilya Ivanitria in 1949. Without talking that into account, you can't account for the way bifartulated nonsensocons interact with topomerons. How do you explain the observations of Dr. Ivanitria when she proved the proportional relationship between bifartulated nonsensicons and negative topomerons!? I bet you don't even know what that is!!
(It's totally within the rules of this site to make up random bullshit, right? Seems fair if others do it.)
Aha. It appears you have not done your homework.
While the terms have been refined over the years, the implementation of technology that takes advantage of such anomalous phenomena first proposed in 1949 is successfully underway.
(http://)
-
What you're completely ignoring is the tryptophyllic counter-anti-tripsolene effect first proposed by Dr. Ilya Ivanitria in 1949. Without talking that into account, you can't account for the way bifartulated nonsensocons interact with topomerons. How do you explain the observations of Dr. Ivanitria when she proved the proportional relationship between bifartulated nonsensicons and negative topomerons!? I bet you don't even know what that is!!
(It's totally within the rules of this site to make up random bullshit, right? Seems fair if others do it.)
Aha. It appears you have not done your homework.
While the terms have been refined over the years, the implementation of technology that takes advantage of such anomalous phenomena first proposed in 1949 is successfully underway.
(http://)
Their technology is crude and outdated, but it is consistent with the model. Perhaps I should write to Rockwell and bring them up to speed. Their headquarters is actually not too far from where I live.
-
Gravitons = Magnetic Monopoles
Yes, you keep asserting this bullshit but are yet to back it up.
Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.
And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.
Yet you seem completely incapable of doing so and instead just copy and paste mountains of shit.
Each and every known element in the periodic table discovered, described decades before their actual discovery: a 100% proof of the existence of the subquark atomic model.
And yet another baseless claim.
Now, read the following:
MAGNETIC MONOPOLES AND MAXWELL'S ORIG. SET OF EQS.
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf
No. I'm done with your BS links.
Explain it yourself.
Are you capable of doing that?
Does this link even attempt to prove your BS?
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html
Are you aware this site is dead? It doesn't have anything like you suggest.
See this is one problem with just linking to crap and copying and pasting ancient BS. The links can die.
That is why you should explain things yourself.
That means your hypothetical planets couldn't be held together by that. If you tried that, the repulsive charges would cause it to be blown apart.
It also means that you can't have the link between Neptune and Uranus. If both are attracted to the sun then they must be an opposite "charge" to the sun and thus the same charge as each other, which means they would repel each other, not attract.
Why are you dreaming so much jackblack?
I'm not the one dreaming. This alone completley refutes the BS you have been claiming, that gravity could be replaces by electrostatic or magnetic interactions.
When and where did I ever propose such a lousy model to account for the orbits of the planets?
See, this is another problem with copying and pasting so much BS, you don't even realise what it claims.
Here we have an example:
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.
You were even nice and bolded it to draw attention to it.
In the correct FE model we have TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, exactly the ones described by Newton.
So in the non-existent model.
There is no FE model.
And what you claim is not what is described by Newton.
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
Isn't this wonderful? You ask a RE how attractive gravity works and you get something like: BY PURE MAGIC.
Nope. Not pure magic, a known limitation of science which applies to every single scientific field.
We do not know what causes a photon to interact with an electron to transfer energy. We just know it does.
All we know is that it happens.
You haven't got a clue as to how attractive gravity works. Which means your RE spherical theory requires A LOT OF UNWARRANTED FAITH to believe in.
No. We have a very good understanding. So no, very little faith is required. The only faith required is that in common with all science, which is far less than any other system.
On the other hand FE is a pile of bullshit repeatedly requiring unsubstantiated magic to work, making it require so much faith it isn't funny.
First, how about you explain how photons interact with electrons?
Each electron is composed of nine preons (subquarks with fractional charge, recently discovered).
Each subquark with a negative vortex (receptive vortex) is made up of some 14 billion bosons (=photons). In the correct ether model of the atom, the carrier of light is the boson (currently described as the photon).
And this crap doesn't explain the interaction at all. How does the vortex interact with the photon(s)?
You also seem to have no idea what these words mean.
A boson isn't always a photon.
A boson is a particle with integer spin.
This can be a photon, a phonon, a graviton, a proton an electron pair in a superconductor and so on.
Except the oceans are pretty much the same on alleged flat Earth and the real round one.
As such, the pressure required would be the same. As such either life forms would be crushed on both or neither.
Do you understand where you are and what is being discussed here?
Yes. Do you? You don't seem to. You seem to have no idea at all.
ON A SPHERICAL EARTH, FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER WOULD STAY GLUED TO THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THAT SPHERE.
If you want pressure gravity to account for this, then that pressure will exert a force on each cloud, living lifeform, tree, everything under the sun.
The force required to keep the water in place would crush anything else to the very ground.
You are yet to establish this.
How did you determine what pressure was required?
However, on a flat surface of the earth, there is no need to worry about this scenario, as the water is held beautifully, without the need of any pressure, at the flat surface.
Pure bullshit.
How does this beauty hold the water to the surface?
Why can't this beauty work with a spherical Earth?
Desperation time strikes deep for you jackblack, as you are unable to provide a clear explanation for attractive gravity:
Nope. The only desperate person here is you. Asserting pure nonsense with no backing to try and pretend a RE is impossible.
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
Again, this isn't just gravity, this is everything. Even the stuff in your BS. You just reduce what we have as the fundamental level down one more step. But then you just have baseless assertions with no greater explanatory power. In fact, you have less as you have more things to explain.
-
sandokhan post guide 101
1- Make sure to bring unproved and/or imaginaries things add an "=" with a similar thing:
i.e.: unicorns = leprechauns = gold pots and the end of the rainbow (by the way the rainbow is an unicorn fart)
next step:
2- if you can't explain something by yourself copy/paste a mountain load of crap and make sure all of it is not proved and/or even real. (if you can convice them or prove anything try to confuse them)
3- after that, claim that you absolute defeat the people that repeatedly had debunked you.
4- profit ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?
i'm no physicist, but NOT A SINGLE sandokhan STATEMENT has been observed or proved, just a lot of failed and/or debunked experiments/theories that doesn't match reality, one thing is for sure, relativity CANT explain quantum physics/mechanics and viceversa.
-
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140130061439/http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (it is very easy to find any web page that is not active anymore on the internet archive)
jackblack, you were asked a very simple question: can you provide an explanation as to how attractive gravity works?
Here is your answer:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
But this is PURE MAGIC.
You have no idea how two gravitons attract each other.
You are requiring of your viewers an unwavering FAITH in pure magic: the pressurizing force which would keep in place four trillion billion liters of water would not affect anything else, not the clouds, not any lifeform, nothing else.
You are living in a fantasy world of your own making: ignoring very cleary explained experiments conducted by some of greatest physicists in history, Dr. Francis Nipher, Dr. Maurice Allais, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux, and clinging to PURE MAGIC as explanation for gravity.
For this is what you wrote:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
Electron/photon interaction in ether theory, the Compton effect:
http://www.teslaphysics.com/Chapters/Chapter110-ParticleNature.htm
"The photo-electric effect and the Compton effect are
cited as proof that photons are transmitted from source to
destination. Recorded impacts are evidence of the arrival of
the sent photons. However, the same effect can be explained
by waves traveling through the medium of aether activating
aether cells already located at the destination, thus giving the
false impression of the cells actually having traveled there.
Similarity with a line of dominoes provides visualization of
this phenomenon. The first one is pushed into the second and
so on, with the final domino striking whatever is next to it at
the destination. Think also of waves from a ship striking the
seashore. It is the waves but not the water that travel from
the ship to the shore. It is acknowledged that the photoelectric
effect and the Compton effect gained acceptance
because they were able to provide a quantitative evaluation
of the phenomena, whereas the wave analysis did not, but it
is suggested that this was due to the lack of consideration of
an aether supporting the waves."
You are forgetting that I can always prove the exactness of the quantum ether model.
In that model, what are currently described as bosons, become the carriers of light.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf
A century-old claim by two early leaders of the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations are found to be consistent with facts of nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected. Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of matter is shown to agree with the
string model. Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory. The implication of this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.
Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real objects and were not fabricated ac-
cording to their expectations? Knowing which groups of the periodic table
these undiscovered elements belong to could have enabled them to deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of the atomic weights of these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for these elements agree with their chemical atomic weights to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have come about by chance in every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery. These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.
The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if Besant and Leadbeater had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation. Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements? This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively, 1939 and 1940, about seven years after the deaths of the two
Theosophists. How, if MPAs are not atoms, could they have anticipated in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in 1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.
This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted. Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of physics. If this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have compositions and UPA populations indicating that they consist of the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of an element. This
makes them more akin to what nuclear physicists call "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion of two very fast-moving nuclei. Moreover, precognition would not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry. If they had used
merely precognition, they would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and
mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing the neutron in 1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult
Chemistry appeared. No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that Besant and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.
The following sections of the article by Dr. Stephen Phillips provide a complete and correct model of the atom, up to boson/antiboson level:
Micro-psi Atoms
Quark Model
A Statistical Test
Quantum Chromodynamics
The String Model
Micro-psi Confirmation of the String Model
Structure of the UPA (Subquark)
Superstrings
UPA as Subquark State of Superstring
Detection of subquarks/preons:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981
Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:
DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.
In the Occult Chemistry (copied by Murray Gell-Mann, P. Dirac, and P. Higgs), A. Besant described correctly EACH AND EVERY element of the periodic table (including isotopes); moreover, the atom is shown to be made up of vortices (ether/subquarks/tachyons).
A 100% statistical proof of the correctness of the ether model (see also the graphs in the article of Dr. Phillips).
OCCULT CHEMISTRY TABLE OF CONTENTS:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm
You, on the other hand, have nothing at your disposal other than this:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
The shit that you hold to be your scientific belief can be dismissed easily and immediately using the Nipher experiments:
Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.
And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE OBJECTS, AND FOR THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, THE EXPERIMENT PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ARE ABSOLUTELY LINKED.
I told you that you are scientifically illiterate.
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
You have nothing at your disposal other than this pathetic argument:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
If you cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other, there is no credibility whatsoever attached to the RE hypothesis.
-
Here, once and for all, is the CORRECT QUANTUM ETHER MODEL.
Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.
In fact, Gell-Mann did not even bother to modify the information on the quarks contained in that treatise.
The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.
The greatest treatise on ether, quantum mechanics ever written:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101
Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).
A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.
HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks
A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).
However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif)
A proton is further subdivided into baryons, the first state of ether.
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif)
The further subdivions occurs at the level of mesons, each consisting of six subquarks, the second state of ether:
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif)
Then we reach the third state of ether, the quarks, each made up of three subquarks:
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif)
The fourth state of ether, are the subquarks/magnetic monopoles/gravitons themselves:
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)
EACH AND EVERY SUBQUARK IS MADE UP OF SOME 14 BILLION BOSONS.
"The exact number of these bubbles included in an ultimate physical atom is not readily ascertainable, but several different lines of calculation agree in indicating it as closely approximating to the almost incredible total of fourteen thousand millions. Where figures are so huge direct counting is obviously impossible, but fortunately the different parts of the atom are sufficiently alike to enable us to make an estimate whose margin of error is not likely to be very great."
A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons. A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.
Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.
Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.
The particles that make up the magnetic field are subquarks (also called omegans, tachyons, preons).
A subquark (tachyon, anu, omegan) is made up of vortices which consist of bosons and antibosons (strings of bosons).
Ether (telluric currents) consists of double vortices of subquarks also; in a conductor, the atoms made up of subquarks will align themselves to let bosons pass from a subquark to another, that is, electricity.
An electric current brought to bear upon the Anu checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the Anu exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines, and in each line the heart-shaped depression receives the flow, which passes out through the apex into the depression of the next, and so on. The Anu always set themselves to the current. Fig. 4. In all the diagrams the heart-shaped body, exaggerated to show the depression caused by the inflow and the point caused by the outflow, is a single Anu.
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig004.gif)
-
SUBQUARK QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS
For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything – the holy grail of modern physics?
Quantum foam, also known as space-time foam, is a concept in quantum physics proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler in 1955 to describe the microscopic sea of bubbling energy-matter. The foam is what space-time would look like if we could zoom in to a scale of 10-33 centimetres (the Planck length). At this microscopic scale, particles of matter appear to be nothing more than standing waves of energy. Wheeler proposed that minute wormholes measuring 10-33 centimetres could exist in the quantum foam, which some physicists theorise could even be hyper-spatial links to other dimensions. The hyper-spatial nature of the quantum foam could account for principles like the transmission of light and the flow of time. Some scientists believe that quantum foam is an incredibly powerful source of zero-point energy, and it has been estimated that one cubic centimetre of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.
So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a1-Subatomic-Particle.jpg)
According to Leadbeater these particles are composed of 10 vibrating strings, which are in turn composed of even smaller particles, which are in turn composed of even smaller strings, etc... This suggests that the seemingly incompatible standard model and string theory may in fact be two sides of the same coin.
String theory proposes that everything is composed of incredibly minute strings or loops of energy-matter vibrating in ten (or more) dimensions. Our brains can only comprehend four dimensions – the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height) plus one temporal dimension (time). So according to string theory, six (or more) hidden spatial dimensions must exist beyond our perception. It is interesting to note that the ancient cosmologies of eastern religions are based on seven planes of existence, with our physical plane being the lowest.
According to Leadbeater the fundamental particle shown in Figure 1 is merely the fundamental particle of our physical dimension (plane 1) – for this reason I will refer to it as the 1-atom. 1-atoms are so small that modern science has not yet detected them, but they were theorised back in 1974 by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, who referred to them as "preons". According to Leadbeater, two varieties of 1-atom exist (positive and negative), each with the same basic structure but the spirals spin the other way in the negative variety (see Figure 2). This is due to zero point energy flowing down through the negative atoms and up through the positive atoms.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a2-Positive-and-Negative.jpg)
1-atoms are far from being the ultimate fundamental particle from which everything in the universe is composed. Each 1-atom is composed of ten separate "strings" (closed loops) which are in turn composed of coiled loops of even smaller particles – see figure 3.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a3-String-Microstructure.jpg)
1-atoms are the fundamental particles of the physical plane (plane 1), 2-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 2, 3-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 3, etc. According to Leadbeater, each 1-atom is composed of forty nine 2-atoms, each 2-atom is composed of forty nine 3-atoms, each 3-atom is composed of forty nine 4-atoms, etc. The matter of the lower planes is composed of the matter of the higher planes, so all the planes can interpenetrate each other and occupy the same space. Figure 3 shows the number of fundamental atoms from the various planes that make up one fundamental atom of the physical plane.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a4-Anatomy-of-an-Atom.jpg)
According to Leadbeater there are actually seven phases of physical matter; and where that ends different kinds of even subtler matter begin. The three lowest phases of physical matter (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) broadly correspond to solid, liquid and gas. The four higher phases of physical matter (1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7) are etheric, and are what science refers to as subatomic particles or dark matter. 1-atoms belong to the 1:7 phase and combine in many different molecular permutations to produce the hundreds of sub-atomic particles and chemical elements known to science.
Figure 5 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom as described by Leadbeater a hundred years ago. The nucleus is composed of six units (in two groups of three), and each unit is composed of three 1-atoms. According to conventional science the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is composed of only three units called quarks.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a5-Subatomic-Hydrogen.jpg)
Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:
•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.
(http://www.esotericscience.org/diagrams/5a7-Baryon-Meson-Quark-Preon.jpg)
Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.
The Higgs Field
The Higgs field is a quantum field that is believed to permeate the entire universe. The theory was proposed by physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s to account for the fact that that particles have mass. Particles of matter that interact with the Higgs field are subject to resistance, which shows itself as mass. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light. The Higgs field has been compared to treacle through which every particle in the universe has to "swim". Small particles can easily move through the Higgs field so they appear to have negligible mass, but large particles create more drag so appear to be heavier.
Leadbeater described something very similar to the Higgs field over 50 years earlier in Occult Chemistry. He explained that an incredibly dense substance, which he called koilon, permeates the entire universe, and that every atom of matter corresponds to an empty bubble in this incredibly dense substance.
When a particle moves, its corresponding bubble must move through the dense koilon and this causes resistance. This resistance manifests as inertia in the particle, and inertia gives the appearance of mass. Large particles correspond to large clusters of bubbles which are subject to greater resistance, giving the appearance of a large mass. Small particles correspond to small clusters of bubbles which are subject to less resistance, giving the appearance of a small mass.
The perfect description of ether (telluric currents): these currents consist of subquarks (both dextrorotatory and laevorotatory).
-
Piles of uncontaminated bull manure!
Nice drawings though.
Bring back sagnac!
-
The sun is 33m in diameter and 3.8 km away
Pluto due to it's eliptical orbit 110-170 km away from the sun as a tiny golfball.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star 1.000.000 km away
The Andromeda galaxy 650.000.000.000 km away
The planets found by the trappist telescope 40.000.000 km away
All numbers are calculated with an earth with a 30cm diameter as reference.
(http://1.1m.yt/FMuvCJE.gif)
-
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140130061439/http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (it is very easy to find any web page that is not active anymore on the internet archive)
No. It isn't.
Some sites use a robots.txt file which stops crawlers like this indexing them. Regardless, it shows you don't bother putting in any effort.
It isn't on me to find the evidence for your claims.
And of course it just repeats the same baseless bullshit as you.
jackblack, you were asked a very simple question: can you provide an explanation as to how attractive gravity works?
Here is your answer:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
And there you go lying about me.
That was specifically for how gravitons interact, not how gravity works.
But this is PURE MAGIC.
No. It is a known limitation of all of science.
You have no idea how two gravitons attract each other.
And you still keep repeating this same bullshit as if they should, showing a complete ignorance of how a graviton model of gravity would work.
Do you not bother reading what people say?
Why should they attract?
You are requiring of your viewers an unwavering FAITH in pure magic: the pressurizing force which would keep in place four trillion billion liters of water would not affect anything else, not the clouds, not any lifeform, nothing else.
Nope. Not at all. You are the one appealing to faith in pure magic, where on a flat Earth the water is just held their magically without requiring anything, but on a round Earth it needs something.
Electron/photon interaction in ether theory, the Compton effect:
http://www.teslaphysics.com/Chapters/Chapter110-ParticleNature.htm
And like usual, you link to more crap. What's the matter, unable to explain it yourself?
Also, all you did was lie and deflect. The wave model can't explain it, because 2 waves overlapping would have the same energy, yet doesn't result in the electron being ejected.
So now do you want to tell us how the magic aether waves interact with your magic aether cells?
You are forgetting that I can always prove the exactness of the quantum ether model.
You are yet to prove a single thing. All you do is spout nonsense.
And I will skip over the rest of your copied and pasted BS.
You have nothing at your disposal other than this pathetic argument:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
You mean that fact that is completely irrefutable, which you are trying to abuse to unfairly attack RE and other real sciences when FE and your other bullshit suffers the same?
If you cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other, there is no credibility whatsoever attached to the RE hypothesis.
RE is not just a hypothesis, it is a scientific theory, that doesn't need gravity to be a theory.
If that is all you have to attack the RE, pathetic strawmen and dishonesty and complaining we don't know exactly how everything works in the universe, then you have no refutation of the reality of RE.
-
Now Sandy, instead of pasting more mountains and mountains of bovine excrement, you instead try to do what was asked of you quite some time ago:
EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!
Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.
-
RE is not just a hypothesis.
But it is: in fact it is the most miserable of all hypotheses.
It rests ON PURE MAGIC.
Here you are confirming the above assertions:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.
Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
You still do not know what a WAVECLE is?
Only the ether theory can properly the current debacle on the wave vs. particle debate.
BOSONS TRAVEL THROUGH SUBQUARK STRINGS IN A LONGITUDINAL WAVE FASHION.
THESE LONGITUDINAL WAVES PROPAGATE THROUGH THE TRANSVERSAL SUBQUARK STRINGS.
It is as simple as this.
I am going to go to even more lengths to show you how bosons/photons interact with electrons:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536
EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!
Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.
You are mistaken again.
That is the COMPLETELY WRONG model of FE planetary/stellar gravitation.
There is no need for like charges to attract.
Planets/stars are kept in orbit by the very effect of the rotational ether which takes place above the first dome.
If you do not believe me, here is Newton explaining to you how this works:
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
-
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
Does that matter? If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.
-
RE is not just a hypothesis.
But it is: in fact it is the most miserable of all hypotheses.
It rests ON PURE MAGIC.
Here you are confirming the above assertions:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.
Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
You still do not know what a WAVECLE is?
Only the ether theory can properly the current debacle on the wave vs. particle debate.
BOSONS TRAVEL THROUGH SUBQUARK STRINGS IN A LONGITUDINAL WAVE FASHION.
THESE LONGITUDINAL WAVES PROPAGATE THROUGH THE TRANSVERSAL SUBQUARK STRINGS.
It is as simple as this.
I am going to go to even more lengths to show you how bosons/photons interact with electrons:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536
EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!
Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.
You are mistaken again.
That is the COMPLETELY WRONG model of FE planetary/stellar gravitation.
There is no need for like charges to attract.
Planets/stars are kept in orbit by the very effect of the rotational ether which takes place above the first dome.
If you do not believe me, here is Newton explaining to you how this works:
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Newton had no idea. He may have speculated a bit in idle chat with friends, but he didn't know what gravity was. His equations, however, were perfectly useful for water and people staying on Earth and all of the orbits observed in the sky. You throwing a rock will behave according to the exact same laws of gravity as the Moon orbiting the Earth. (Please recall that it was RE mathematicians who found Neptune using Newtonian equations.)
However, Newton turned out to be imperfect after measurements got much better. The orbit of Mercury was a little funny, and it took Einstein to work out a new theory of gravity. Now we have an even better theory of gravity that accounts for subtler effects and other phenomena such as time dilation (important for your GPS). Einstein's predictions keep coming true: black holes, time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves...
Sorry, dude. He beat you to it a hundred years ago.
-
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.
Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
I laughed, can't deny the man has style.
Gravity is a tricky one, I thought we had more or less given up on finding a graviton, isn't that where string theory came from?
-
If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.
How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.
Plenty of experiments carried out by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.
And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.
In the classic Lamoreaux experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, the two plates ARE PUSHED TOGETHER BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE.
No attraction at all.
Please inform yourself before posting a message.
His equations, however, were perfectly useful for water and people staying on Earth and all of the orbits observed in the sky.
But they do not.
Newton's differential equations approach FAILS CATASTROPHICALLY in fact.
Here is the three body problem paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581
From a mathematical point of view, Newton's ideas lead TO PURE NONSENSE.
Please recall that it was RE mathematicians who found Neptune using Newtonian equations.
But they didn't.
In fact, they had no idea what they were doing.
Do your homework on the subject.
The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus. Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune.
The orbit of Mercury was a little funny, and it took Einstein to work out a new theory of gravity. Now we have an even better theory of gravity that accounts for subtler effects and other phenomena such as time dilation (important for your GPS).
Einstein FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)
EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 DATA ON THE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING.
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
THE SAGNAC EFFECT RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE EFFECT PREDICTED BY STR:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886058#msg1886058
Your statements, jonny, prove that you haven't got a clue when it comes to scientific matters. Please upgrade your knowledge by reading my messages.
-
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.
Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies.[/b] He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Not still raving on about two romantic gravitons are you?
Maybe on your earth they might, not on mine.
But, in the meantime these 1.37 billion km3, are held in place, not glued, by a total force of close to 1.41 x 1018 tonnes force.
Seems to work quite well!
All by Newtonian Gravitation.
Einstein's GR would give almost the same result give or take a billion tonnes or so, but the sums are a bit hard for a tyro like me!
And, yes Isaac Newton might have speculated about lots of things. This idea of masses attracting was a bit radical!
Newton seems to have it sorted out by the time he published, but even you don't get it yet!
:D Some people are a bit slower than others, I guess. :D
Bye bye. Have a nice day! Just watch that blood pressure though!
-
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing. Just Google "gravitational lensing images" and you will find dozens of photos (along with some illustrations). Thanks again for acknowledging Neptune, Uranus, and the solar system. You could learn a lot from reading your own posts!
-
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing.
You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.
Certainly gravitational lensing CANNOT BE caused by the ideas coming from the theory of relativity:
EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 DATA ON THE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING.
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".
What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.
When are you going to learn to do your homework before posting here?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/
Black Holes do not exist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html (one of the best archives on black holes hoax)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090303083616/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm (black holes, fact or fiction?)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm#b2
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Schreiber_black_holes.pdf
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/
But, in the meantime these 1.37 billion km3, are held in place, not glued, by a total force of close to 1.41 x 1018 tonnes force.
Please explain how attractive gravity works.
How do two gravitons (the quanta of gravitational waves) attract each other?
You have no idea, do you?
Go ahead and ask any professor of physics, all over the world, how does attractive gravity function: how do two bodies attract each other?
You will find out that they haven't got a clue.
This means your description is a just an armchair pipe dream: you are expecting everyone to believe your story based ON PURE MAGIC.
Again, HOW DOES ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY WORK?
How do two gravitons attract each other?
You do want gravity to be attractive, right?
Go ahead and describe the process by which two bodies attract each other.
If you cannot, your whimsical bedtime stories amount to nothing at all.
-
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing.
You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.
...
first of all you should learn how to use the quote-function of this forum.
-
There is plenty of astronomical evidence for gravitational lensing.
You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.
Certainly gravitational lensing CANNOT BE caused by the ideas coming from the theory of relativity:
EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 DATA ON THE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING.
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".
What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.
When are you going to learn to do your homework before posting here?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/
Black Holes do not exist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html (one of the best archives on black holes hoax)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090303083616/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm (black holes, fact or fiction?)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm#b2
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Schreiber_black_holes.pdf
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/
But, in the meantime these 1.37 billion km3, are held in place, not glued, by a total force of close to 1.41 x 1018 tonnes force.
Please explain how attractive gravity works.
How do two gravitons (the quanta of gravitational waves) attract each other?
You have no idea, do you?
Go ahead and ask any professor of physics, all over the world, how does attractive gravity function: how do two bodies attract each other?
You will find out that they haven't got a clue.
This means your description is a just an armchair pipe dream: you are expecting everyone to believe your story based ON PURE MAGIC.
Again, HOW DOES ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY WORK?
How do two gravitons attract each other?
You do want gravity to be attractive, right?
Go ahead and describe the process by which two bodies attract each other.
If you cannot, your whimsical bedtime stories amount to nothing at all.
Using only your sources, we now have the acknowledgment of the existence of stars, galaxies, and the solar system. We are really getting somewhere!
-
RE is not just a hypothesis.
But it is: in fact it is the most miserable of all hypotheses.
It rests ON PURE MAGIC.
Nope. It has been confirmed with mountains of evidence meaning it is a theory, a very strong one.
Not being able to explain interactions below the fundamental level doesn't mean it rests on magic.
Here you are confirming the above assertions:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
And that applies to you as well.
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
Gravity is not the basis of RE theory.
Observations of Earth, which indicate it to be round, is the basis of RE theory.
Gravity explains a few things in RE theory, but it is not the basis for it.
Regardless, as I said this applies to literally EVERYTHING!!!
Stop acting like it is just the RE that has this limitation.
Your mountains of bullshit have the same problem.
No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.
And you can't answer why they would have to for gravity to work.
You seem to be quite ignorant of gravity in general.
Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
Nope. By gravity.
You are the one that believes it stays glued to Earth by magic.
You still do not know what a WAVECLE is?
A nonsense made up word?
Only the ether theory can properly the current debacle on the wave vs. particle debate.
There is no more debate in scientific circles.
We have accepted that light (as well as so many other things) is a collection of particles, and all particles have wave-nature.
BOSONS TRAVEL THROUGH SUBQUARK STRINGS IN A LONGITUDINAL WAVE FASHION.
THESE LONGITUDINAL WAVES PROPAGATE THROUGH THE TRANSVERSAL SUBQUARK STRINGS.
It is as simple as this.
Sure, as simple as a pile of unsubstantiated bullshit.
I am going to go to even more lengths to show you how bosons/photons interact with electrons:
By linking to more crap?
How about this, you go to a simple length and explain it here? Are you incapable of doing so?
Also note that this will be an entirely pointless endeavour for you, as each explanation you give will just push the problem one step back and I will ask about that instead.
EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!
Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.
You are mistaken again.
That is the COMPLETELY WRONG model of FE planetary/stellar gravitation.
No. I'm not wrong. I never said it was.
Don't you remember your claim?
Here it is again:
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.
So explain how electricity or magnetism act in the same way as gravity and allow like charges to attract.
If you can't, just admit you were wrong.
There is no need for like charges to attract.
Then why did you effectively claim they do?
If you do not believe me, here is Newton explaining to you how this works:
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
More baseless crap.
Newton only knew the formula for gravity. He had no idea what caused it.
The same formula applies on Earth as it does in space.
If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.
How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.
No it isn't.
It is explained horribly by various claims which contradict observed reality. It also still lacks the fundamentals for the explanation.
And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.
Sure, just like 2 magnets attractign each other show that all forces are really just magnets...
In the classic Lamoreaux experiment
Which has nothing at all to do with gravity.
Please inform yourself before posting a message.
Good advice, you should follow it and stop saying such ignorant crap.
An experiment showing one force at work doesn't mean all other forces are that force.
Newton's differential equations approach FAILS CATASTROPHICALLY in fact.
More baseless bullshit, which rather than explain here, you need to link away to the liars only section of the forum.
Here is the three body problem paradox:
If it is what I think you are referring to, it is the three body problem, not paradox. There is nothing contradictory about it.
I can't be bothered reading through your mountains of crap to try and find the paradox.
From a mathematical point of view, Newton's ideas lead TO PURE NONSENSE.
And another baseless claim.
Please recall that it was RE mathematicians who found Neptune using Newtonian equations.
But they didn't.
But they did, and so far all you have done to refute that is baselessly assert they are wrong and claim electricity or magnetism could replace gravity.
THE SAGNAC EFFECT RECORDED BY THE GPS SATELLITES IS MUCH LARGER THAN THE EFFECT PREDICTED BY STR:
Yes, when you calculate it completely wrong.
Your statements, jonny, prove that you haven't got a clue when it comes to scientific matters. Please upgrade your knowledge by reading my messages.
You mean your mountains of baseless bullshit?
Guess what? You asserting it doesn't make it true.
You are not prepared to debate with me on gravitational lensing or any other related subject.
You aren't prepared to debate anyone on anything.
All you can do is ignore what people say and repeatedly spout the same refuted/baseless garbage. That isn't how debate works.
Certainly gravitational lensing CANNOT BE caused by the ideas coming from the theory of relativity:
Explain why here, don't just link to crap or copy and paste crap.
Black Holes do not exist:
Except they do, and can be observed.
You have no idea, do you?
You are the one with no idea. If you had an idea you would stop asking such a stupid question.
Go ahead and ask any professor of physics, all over the world, how does attractive gravity function: how do two bodies attract each other?
No. They do have a clue. What they don't understand is the interaction below the fundamental level, which is true of everything.
-
Just so you know: your black hole article gives the value for gravity as zero and therefore requiring infinite mass. Since they don't even know the most basic fact about gravity, I have a hard time taking the rest of it seriously.
-
jack, your hapless messages are not meant to swell the RE ranks.
You are still unable to offer a simple/clear explanation as to how attractive gravity works.
Unless you can do so, your hypothesis amounts to nothing.
You expect everyone of your readers to believe in PURE MAGIC.
How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT IS SO: HOW DO TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
From your statements YOU ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
How can then anybody take your hypothesis (attractive gravitation) seriously?
There is no mountain of evidence for attractive gravitation, perhaps you used the wrong words: just the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.
No evidence whatsoever.
Whenever you are faced with undeniable proofs, the Lamoreaux effect, the Nipher experiments, the Allais effect, the Poincare chaos theory on the three body problem, your response is invariably:
By linking to more crap?
But these are some of the very best RE physicists, and their celebrated experiments DENY your hypothesis: there is no such thing as attractive gravity.
I can explain IMMEDIATELY AND BEAUTIFULLY how pressure gravity works on a flat earth.
Subquarks = gravitons = magnetic monopoles
They come in two "flavors": left handed spin (laevorotatory) and right handed spin (dextrorotatory).
It is the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause these phenomenons: radiation, decomposition, disintegration of matter.
Here is how the G FORCE works on a flat earth:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852870#msg1852870
ETHER (SUBQUARKS STRINGS) HAS TO EXIST IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE G FORCE.
Here is one of the best RE scientists explaining this fact to you:
“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.
Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.
Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.
The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”
EXPERIMENTS WHICH DO PROVE THAT GRAVITY IS NOT ATTRACTIVE:
DEPALMA EXPERIMENT
KOZYREV EXPERIMENT
ALLAIS EXPERIMENT
LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT
DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX
SAGNAC EFFECT
Pressure gravity works beautifully on a flat Earth.
You, on the other hand, came up with this precious explanation:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
PURE MAGIC!
In your learned opinion, it just happens.
But it doesn't work like that.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
IF YOU CANNOT, YOU ARE DONE HERE.
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.
That was the claim made in THAT article, the author had no idea of the existence of ether, a much stronger form of MAGNETISM.
I have already explained, just like Newton, that there are two kinds of gravitational forces:
1. TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, a force of pressure
2. ROTATIONAL GRAVITY, a force of rotation, keeps in orbit planets/stars
Both are caused by ETHER.
If it is what I think you are referring to, it is the three body problem, not paradox. There is nothing contradictory about it.
Your catastrophic knowledge of celestial mechanics comes into play again.
A mathematical formulation of the planetary orbits, based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and Kepler's supposed elliptical orbits then will lead directly to the THREE/N BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.
This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.
Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.
That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg987360#msg987360
(KAM theory, homoclinic orbits, Smale horseshoes)
The quote from Henri Poincare, the greatest mathematician in the world at the end of the 19th century (S. Ramanujan was to appear some ten years later on the scene), has been deleted/censored from textbooks on the celestial mechanics at the undergraduate/graduate level.
A differential equation (initial value d.e.) approach to celestial mechanics IS IMPOSSIBLE.
As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.
For your knowledge, Henri Poincare was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.
Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/po_zpssqpn8hkw.jpg)
To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.
To put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.
Yes, when you calculate it completely wrong.
You are completely delusional jackblack.
Here is one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, Dr. A.G. Kelly performing the calculations for you:
The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.
STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.
The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.
COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf
page 8
Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.
Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.
Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.
Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.
YOU ARE TOTALLY OUT OF LUCK jack.
The Sagnac effect proves the existence of ether, directly and precisely.
Let us take a look at your assertion, which proves you have NO CLUE as to what causes attractive gravity:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
YOU ARE REQUIRING FAITH OF YOUR READERS TO BELIEVE THAT FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER STAY GLUED NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.
Everybody here is laughing at you.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
-
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
I have absolutely no idea.
The curved spacetime idea has some merit, I believe even if it's just that the maths works well locally.
-
I have absolutely no idea.
Believe it or not, this is exactly the same response offered by each and every RE physicist when asked how does attractive gravity work, or how do two bodies attract each other.
The curved spacetime idea has some merit.
There is no such thing as curved spacetime.
H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.
He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
-
I have absolutely no idea.
Believe it or not, this is exactly the same response offered by each and every RE physicist when asked how does attractive gravity work, or how do two bodies attract each other.
The curved spacetime idea has some merit.
There is no such thing as curved spacetime.
H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.
He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
You've certainly done some reading Sandokhan.
I don't pretend for an instant to understand GR.
-
jackblack, on the nature of attractive gravity:
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
But it cannot happen.
HERE IS THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX.
Applying any "attractive" force model to the Earth Moon dynamic forces, we obtain this system:
The Earth’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Moon.
The Moon’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Earth.
At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system; however,... the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system. The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body. Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed equal reaction".
This double force paradox is directly applicable to the "mass attraction",... the General Relativity “attraction” and all other attraction type concepts of gravity.
This example may help visualize the double force issue.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
The Mass Attraction Models of Gravitation
The attraction concepts accept Newton's inverse square equation of gravity's force between two bodies as:
F = G x (M1 x M2) / r squared .
The surface gravity (g) for each of the bodies can be derived from the gravitational constant (G) and the mass and radius of the bodies. Using Newton's equation the g forces, allegedly "seated" in each of the "two" bodies acting on the other at a distance, can be calculated.
Within the "attraction" concepts:
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
The General Relativity Model of Gravitation
The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
Modern science describes the sun-earth system thusly:
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:
Gravity is a force.
Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.
That makes gravity the centripetal force.
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)
Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583
Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Here are the precise calculations:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double5_zpsnae9mdr8.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double6_zpsuzu7wyba.jpg)
-
Is he for real?
-
jack, your hapless messages are not meant to swell the RE ranks.
You are still unable to offer a simple/clear explanation as to how attractive gravity works.
I have provided one. What I can't explain is the interaction below the fundamental level, which no one can, for anything.
Unless you can do so, your hypothesis amounts to nothing.
Nope. It matches experimental observations. Even without a mechanism, that still makes it a theory as it is a model which matches reality and has predictive capability.
You expect everyone of your readers to believe in PURE MAGIC.
Nope, that would be you, like water staying stuck to Earth by magic.
How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
By their four trillion billion kg of mass being acted upon by gravity, resulting in a force holding them to Earth.
Do you have an explanation for how it stays? No.
If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT IS SO: HOW DO TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER?
I already did.
There are several models.
The simplest is that of curved space-time.
A massive object distorts space time, such that the time axis points towards it. This means any object near by, while moving forward in time will move towards the object.
Another option is with gravitons. In this case it functions almost identically to electrostatics, but with like charges attracting each other.
Gravity is just as well explained as electrostatics.
From your statements YOU ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
And from your's, you are unable to explain anything.
How can then anybody take your hypothesis (attractive gravitation) seriously?
It isn't a hypothesis. It is a theory. You can take it seriously because it matches experimental observations.
In order to throw it into question you would need to throw basically of of science into question, especially things like electrostatics.
No evidence whatsoever.
Except all the evidence you pretend isn't real.
Whenever you are faced with undeniable proofs, the Lamoreaux effect, the Nipher experiments, the Allais effect, the Poincare chaos theory on the three body problem, your response is invariably:
None of that is undeniable proof.
The Lamoreaux effect is unrelated to gravity, as is the Poincare chaos theory.
The Nipher experiments you have just pasted walls of crap on.
The Allais effect is just baseless, unsubstantiated crap, which your own sources, when honestly analysed, refute it.
The 3 body problem exists regardless of what force you discuss, and it isn't a problem in the sense of making something impossible or unreal.
By linking to more crap?
And do you know why? Because that is what you do.
But these are some of the very best RE physicists, and their celebrated experiments DENY your hypothesis: there is no such thing as attractive gravity.
No. They don't.
I can explain IMMEDIATELY AND BEAUTIFULLY how pressure gravity works on a flat earth.
Then do so, without just copying and pasting or linking to mountains of crap.
EXPERIMENTS WHICH DO PROVE THAT GRAVITY IS NOT ATTRACTIVE:
DEPALMA EXPERIMENT
KOZYREV EXPERIMENT
ALLAIS EXPERIMENT
LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT
DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX
SAGNAC EFFECT
i.e. either crap with nothing to do with gravity, or just your ignorance of gravity.
You, on the other hand, came up with this precious explanation:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.
That isn't an explanation. It is a factual statement about reality.
If you think it is wrong, feel free to provide such a fundamental interaction.
Can you explain how a positive charge attracts a negative charge?
PURE MAGIC!
Yep, that is all you have, pure magic.
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.
That was the claim made in THAT article, the author had no idea of the existence of ether, a much stronger form of MAGNETISM.
That claim was made in your post.
If you don't want to have to justify the bullshit you link to or copy and paste, don't link to it or copy and paste it.
So, are you going to admit it is wrong, and you post pure bullshit, or are you going to defend it?
I have already explained, just like Newton, that there are two kinds of gravitational forces:
You didn't explain anything. You are yet to.
All you did was baselessly assert pure BS, BS that you then refuse to defend.
If it is what I think you are referring to, it is the three body problem, not paradox. There is nothing contradictory about it.
Your catastrophic knowledge of celestial mechanics comes into play again.
i.e. you know that I am right and need to insult me to try to dismiss my arguments.
A mathematical formulation of the planetary orbits, based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and Kepler's supposed elliptical orbits then will lead directly to the THREE/N BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.
Correction, when considering any force at all, as soon as you get three or more objects, you run into the 3 body problem.
This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.
No. It means you are incapable of understanding it.
Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.
More baseless bullshit.
That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:
It can be, such as determining the position of various things like L1 through 5.
Others cannot always be described by a simple solution.
To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.
Yes, 100 million years, determining the exact position.
What impact will it have in the general shape of Earth's orbit in 100 million years?
To put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.
Except we do all the time.
So to put it bluntly, you are full of pure bullshit.
Yes, when you calculate it completely wrong.
You are completely delusional jackblack.
Here is one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, Dr. A.G. Kelly performing the calculations for you:
Yet even with him allegedly being so great, he still got it completely wrong.
The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.
That's right. That doesn't mean it violates relativity.
The Sagnac effect proves the existence of ether, directly and precisely.
Not in the slightest. It is completely explainable without the ether at all.
Let us take a look at your assertion, which proves you have NO CLUE as to what causes attractive gravity:
No, it is a fact, that proves no one know exactly how the interaction works below the fundamental level.
YOU ARE REQUIRING FAITH OF YOUR READERS TO BELIEVE THAT FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER STAY GLUED NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.
Nope. It is observable, no faith is required.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Sure, once you do, using any force, explaining the fundamental interactions.
But it cannot happen.
HERE IS THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX.
i.e. your complete ignorance on how gravity works, or how basically any force works.
The Earth’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Moon.
The Moon’s attractive gravitation balances the orbital centrifugal force of the Earth.
At first this may seem like an orderly and balanced attractive force system
That is because it is.
the following paradox exists. If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies
But it isn't. It is between the 2 bodies, or one body causes the other to move.
the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
No it doesn't. It produces the same force.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body.
No, it doesn't.
It requires that the force from the 2 bodies act on both bodies.
Another example of a balanced system is a rope under tension; each end has an equal amount of opposing force. As noted by Newton's third law of motion, " To every action there is always an opposed equal reaction".
Yes, and it works basically the same, so according to you pulling things with a rope is impossible.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
And the same thing happens with gravity.
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
No. The concept would have gravity acting as the rope, with the force in the rope drawing the moon and Earth towards each other.
It would be the force that is "anchored" at the moon pulling Earth towards it, and the force that is "anchored" at Earth pulling the moon towards it.
No doubling up.
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Nope. By throwing logic out the window and doubling the forces for no reason at all.
The exact same paradox arises with the General Relativity (GR) concept of gravity. It postulates that Mass warps a hypothetical "fabric of spacetime" and the warped fabric of spacetime causes “attraction” of other masses. Since in the GR theory the seat of the attractive force is anchored within the center of the planet’s and moon’s positions, we would again have twice the force required to balance the orbital forces of the Earth Moon system.
Nope. Once again, you have no actual doubling of forces, instead you just have your dishonest baseless claim that it is doubled.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
No. There are just 2 (which is really just one).
There is the force of gravity, pulling the moon towards Earth, and the force of gravity pulling the Earth towards the moon.
If you wish to consider them as anchored, then the force anchored on Earth is only drawing objects to Earth, it isn't drawing Earth to them.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double6_zpsuzu7wyba.jpg)
Yep, just like you would expect.
You have the 2 forces being equal and opposite, and you have that matching the force required for the orbit.
Just like if there was a rope connecting them.
No double forces at all.
-
Odd. Because you can actually OBSERVE this "magical" force in action by taking out a telescope, pointing it at Jupiter and then start watching the positions of it's moons for a few days.
Hmm, what force could be causing the moons of Jupiter to orbit it in roughly circular orbits?
Thank you, desertphile.
Bruh, gravity is observable around Jupiter. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.
-
Odd. Because you can actually OBSERVE this "magical" force in action by taking out a telescope, pointing it at Jupiter and then start watching the positions of it's moons for a few days.
Hmm, what force could be causing the moons of Jupiter to orbit it in roughly circular orbits?
Thank you, desertphile.
Bruh, gravity is observable around Jupiter. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.
;D ;D ;D ;D they're just lights in the sky ;D ;D ;D ;D
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky. How much can we expect to ever know about them?
In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy. Zetetic means "seeker." As in, seeker of truth.
http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm (http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm)
Yes, so many Flat Earthers just try to close their eyes to those "lights in the sky" because their movement just will not fit into their model!
The Babylonians were possibly the last of the "Flat Earthers" with a "Cosmology" that was close to reality.
-
I have absolutely no idea.
Believe it or not, this is exactly the same response offered by each and every RE physicist when asked how does attractive gravity work, or how do two bodies attract each other.
The curved spacetime idea has some merit.
There is no such thing as curved spacetime.
H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.
He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
You've certainly done some reading Sandokhan.
I don't pretend for an instant to understand GR.
Unlike Sandy, who does pretend for a long time.
-
jackblack, you blew it.
Here was your best chance to explain HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Your total failure to explain the central tenet of RE theory is noted.
The simplest is that of curved space-time.
A massive object distorts space time, such that the time axis points towards it. This means any object near by, while moving forward in time will move towards the object.
But there is no such thing as spacetime curvature.
H. Minkowski had Riemann's multiple variables arranged on a blackboard.
He simply erased the x4 variable, and replaced it with t (time).
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
Another option is with gravitons. In this case it functions almost identically to electrostatics, but with like charges attracting each other.
Really jackblack?
ARE YOU TELLING US THAT GRAVITONS HAVE... LIKE CHARGES?
IS THAT SO?
Because then gravitons would not be electrically neutral, would they?
Exactly my point.
Would you care to explain how those like charges of the graviton WOULD ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER?
Two emissive vortices will not attract each other, on the contrary.
jackblack, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Your useless assertions fail to explain anything at all.
Which means those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
RE THEORY = PURE MAGIC
jackblack PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
The Nipher experiments you have just pasted walls of crap on.
Dr. Francis Nipher, one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm
“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ABSOLUTELY LINKED.
The Allais effect is just baseless, unsubstantiated crap, which your own sources, when honestly analysed, refute it.
Let us then honestly analyze the Allais effect.
REFERENCE #1
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf
(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)
The title of the paper is as follows:
A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003
"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."
The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.
REFERENCE #2
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf
The title of the article is as follows:
A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum
"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."
REFERENCE #3
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22
Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics
Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.
We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.
REFERENCE #4
The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm
REFERENCE #5
Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/
Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal
Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.
In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.
The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?
The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].
REFERENCE #6
Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance
Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045
Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.
REFERENCE #7
Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354
Published in the Physical Review Journal
Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!
This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.
Dr. Maurice Allais:
In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.
In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.
In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”
"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.
Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).
The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."
"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!
From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--
As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"
HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)
That's right. That doesn't mean it violates relativity.
BUT IT DOES: YOU ARE FORGETTING THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.
Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites, and at the same time the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon the clocks is missing also, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.
However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.
In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.
-
You have not been able to explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox: just as usual you used plain denial, nothing else.
The following quote is taken from one of the top treatises on MECHANICS:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
Are you scientifically literate jackblack? Do you understand plain English?
THE EARTH-MOON-SUN WORKS IN THE SAME WAY.
The best RE scientists say so.
When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:
Gravity is a force.
Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.
That makes gravity the centripetal force.
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)
Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583
Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
THEN, WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Here are the precise calculations:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400
Here is another example:
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
The concept would have gravity acting as the rope, with the force in the rope drawing the moon and Earth towards each other.
It would be the force that is "anchored" at the moon pulling Earth towards it, and the force that is "anchored" at Earth pulling the moon towards it.
You have just been given TWO EXAMPLES which defy your silly explanation.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
MODERN SCIENCE VIEWS GRAVITY AS A STRING STRETCHING FROM THE EARTH TO THE SUN, AND FROM THE MOON TO THE EARTH.
SEE THE PRECISE QUOTES POSTED ABOVE.
THEN, WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
Within the "attraction" concepts:
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
-
because their movement just will not fit into their model!
Lol, true. I've heard flat earthers so desperate that after they've been backed up into a corner about there being observable gravity right above their heads flatties will go as far as to say that the images of the planets you see ARE PRE-PROGRAMMED into the telescope!
When asking them: "What about optical telescopes during galileos time? HE saw jupiters moons orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"
Then the flat earther went on to rant about how Galileo was apparently a "Freemason" and how he "lied" about the existence of planets and to top it off he said that I should accept Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour and that I should accept the "fact" that Christianity apparently isn't a religion because it's the "truth".
You can't fix stupid.
-
<< more wallpaper! >>
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
-
<< more wallpaper! >>
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!
Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
-
"What about optical telescopes during galileos time? HE saw jupiters moons orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"
You haven't done your homework on Galileo's telescope, have you?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719875#msg1719875
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719879#msg1719879
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719889#msg1719889
-
For these "boat and rope" metaphors, I think you have to look at it from the rope's perspective.
The tension in the rope should be analogous to the gravitational attraction between the two bodies. And that is one force. The rope only feels ONE force--it doesn't "care" which side is bigger or pulling harder.
-
FE logic: "my stupidity is infinite, therefore my mind is infinite, therefore I have infinite knowledge"
-
If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.
How an apple falls to the ground is explained clearly and beautifully in the correct FE theory.
Plenty of experiments carried out by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.
And those experiments prove clearly that mass does not attract ANYTHING AT ALL.
In the classic Lamoreaux experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, the two plates ARE PUSHED TOGETHER BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE.
No attraction at all.
Please inform yourself before posting a message.
First of all, you failed to understand the point. Just because our current working theory contains a component that is yet to be properly explained, does not mean that the theory is wrong. We look everywhere and see the effects of mass attracting mass. For example in the orbit of planetary bodies. Us not being able to explain it to the fullest, does not mean that it doesn't happen. You can't deny that.
Furthermore, all you do is:
-Point out paradoxes
-Point of things that have not been solved yet
-Misinterpret research
-Cite unscientific sources, going blatantly against well established science for no particular reason
-Don't give anything a second thought; you never seem to try to come up with arguments that would disprove your case, which is quite essential really. How can you support a theory if you haven't thought about how it could be disproven? If you haven't given it a try yourself?
And in the end, all your "proof" and "debunking science", or whatever you call it doesn't mean a thing. Mostly because science is a work in progress; a paradox doesn't mean that everything involved doesn't work, it just means that we're missing something. Not having explained something yet doesn't mean that it doesn't work or exist, it just means that we're not that far yet.
And most of all, you have yet to propose an actual working model for a flat earth that doesn't fall apart immediately.
Go do your homework before telling others to do so.
-
The tension in the rope should be analogous to the gravitational attraction between the two bodies. And that is one force. The rope only feels ONE force--it doesn't "care" which side is bigger or pulling harder.
Brilliant.
However, on both sides of that rope you have boats. And any boats connected by that rope will move. Four forces involved. The Earth and the Moon are connected by a gravitational string. The same four forces will be at work.
Us not being able to explain it to the fullest, does not mean that it doesn't happen.
You haven't been able to properly defend RE theory since you came here.
Your parroting the official dogma speaks for itself.
You had no knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the Allais effect, the double forces of attractive gravitation and much more before you came here.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Explain how two gravitons attract each other.
If you cannot, and obviously this is the case, nobody will look in your direction.
RE theory = pure magic
By magic, one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
By magic, the Earth anchored “attraction” force would not be pulling the Earth toward the Moon, as it obviously should.
By magic, the Moon seated force would not equally be pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
-
"What about optical telescopes during galileos time? HE saw jupiters moons orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"
You haven't done your homework on Galileo's telescope, have you?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719875#msg1719875
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719879#msg1719879
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719889#msg1719889
you really claim that all optical telescopes are not working correct?
-
You keep missing an important point: all of your sources acknowledge the existence of stars, planets, and moons. All that they dispute is a type of force that holds everything together. Since this site is a debate about flat earth, conceding the existence of all these things pretty much means you belong on a physics forum that assumes an RE universe. (Of course, you could just retract all sources that assume all that.)
-
<snip>
I indeed had no idea of the faint young sun paradox (although I've heard about it elsewhere in the mean time and there was no lack of potential solution to this paradox), the Allais effect and whatever else you mention. Why would that be an issue, though? The shape of the earth is not dependent on my knowledge.
Also, the word "magic" is a bit outdated, don't you think? We used to call things we could not explain, "magic", centuries ago. Meanwhile we know there is no such thing and even if we can't explain something, we know something else is behind it. Also, those three "by magic, blabla" points make 0 sense. And once again, I don't have to explain how two bodies attract eachother, for it to actually happen.
Now let me try your tactics back on you. PLEASE SUGGEST A WORKING, COMPLETE FET MODEL.
-
But you have to explain how two bodies attract each other.
Otherwise, your RE hypothesis is just a pipe dream.
How does the Earth attract the Moon?
How do Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons?
It is the central tenet of RE "theory".
If you cannot explain this much, nobody will believe your claims.
I have debated my AFET here and some other places using some 1950 messages out of a total of 2350 (400 messages posted just in the FEB section).
Each and every possible aspect, certainly the best work done towards a complete FE model.
Ask yourself this simple question: how do two bodies attract each other?
-
You really don't understand, do you? I don't have to explain how gravity based on mass works for it to exist. If an apple is red but I can't explain why, does that mean that the apple isn't red?
Besides, how is your working model for FET coming along?
-
<< more wallpaper! >>
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!
Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
Who am I emulating? Incorrect!
-
<< more wallpaper! >>
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!
Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
Who am I emulating? Hmm. Did you just "interrupt my conversation" there? Shame on you! I would ignore you but your posts are too entertaining.
-
<< more wallpaper! >>
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!
Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
Who am I emulating? I'm not but you are ignored alt member of... anyway. whoever you are ignored by reason of "disrespecting". Didin't your family teach you anything as "respect"? Ignored.
-
You forgot to add in a son of whore and an infinitive in there somewhere.
-
jackblack, you blew it.
Nope. I didn't blow anything.
You however have completely failed.
You have shown a complete ignorance of how forces work, and are yet to explain anything at the level you are trying to demand of me.
You are also yet to back up your baseless bullshit, and instead are trying to pretend you never meant some of it.
Your total failure to explain the central tenet of RE theory is noted.
No, the central tenent of RE theory is that Earth is round. This is backed up by experimental observations.
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.
RE theory matches experimental and everyday observations and can provide a predictive framework for various things.
Gravity is the same, even without knowing the exact mechanism behind it, just like electrostatics.
On the other hand, FE and all your other non-scientific bullshit is just pure bullshit, not backed up by any decent experiments.
But there is no such thing as spacetime curvature.
And you are yet to show this.
So far all you have done is complained that someone didn't have time as a variable.
That doesn't show it doesn't exist.
Especially when you then basically explain that it does exist.
Another option is with gravitons. In this case it functions almost identically to electrostatics, but with like charges attracting each other.
Really jackblack?
ARE YOU TELLING US THAT GRAVITONS HAVE... LIKE CHARGES?
IS THAT SO?
Because then gravitons would not be electrically neutral, would they?
No. It comes down to what is meant by charge.
Due to people's understanding of charge and electrostatics, including your claim about how it can replace gravity (which is pure bullshit), gravity can be explained as a force akin to the electrostatic interaction where like charges attract one another, where in gravity the charge is mass. Not an electric charge, a mass charge.
This isn't saying the gravitons have charge either. It is saying the massive objects have a mass "charge".
Just like in electrostatics, the 2 particles have charge, but the particle for the interaction, the photon, does not.
Would you care to explain how those like charges of the graviton WOULD ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER?
Would you care to actually bother reading what I have said and respond to that instead of spouting the same bullshit strawman?
jackblack, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
I have. Why would I bother repeating myself when you just ignore it?
Unlike you, I actually put effort it, rather than just copying and pasting crap.
How about you tell us how 2 electric charges attract each other.
Which means those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
Nope, by gravity, which I have explained, just not at below the fundamental level.
RE THEORY = PURE MAGIC
Nope, RE Theory = a model backed up by mountains of evidence.
Dr. Francis Nipher, one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
I wouldn't give a damn if he was, so far all you have done is pasted mountains of crap and links.
The Allais effect is just baseless, unsubstantiated crap, which your own sources, when honestly analysed, refute it.
Let us then honestly analyze the Allais effect.
I have, one of your references showed 2 pendulums getting the complete opposite effect, clearly indicating it is merely a large error, not an actual effect.
That's right. That doesn't mean it violates relativity.
BUT IT DOES: YOU ARE FORGETTING THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.
No, it doesn't.
Just like you don't need relativity to calculate how quickly a ball is travelling after someone who is walking threw it. It is because it isn't a relativistic effect.
Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites
That is because it is translation, not rotation, and thus wont be picked up.
Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion?
Because it is translation, not rotation.
The correction is based upon the spin of Earth, being one sidereal day.
However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present.
No, it doesn't.
This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.
Yes, including on things like Satellites.
So a clock slowing effect would be observed.
You have not been able to explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox: just as usual you used plain denial, nothing else.
No I explained it, pointing out your claims about it are pure bullshit.
The following quote is taken from one of the top treatises on MECHANICS:
i.e. not from you, which explains why you don't actually understand what is being said and how it relates to gravity.
Are you scientifically literate jackblack? Do you understand plain English?
Yes. Are you? Do you?
THE EARTH-MOON-SUN WORKS IN THE SAME WAY.
That's right. So if gravity would produce twice the force, so would ropes.
THEN, WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
No, we don't.
That explanation works just fine and doesn't produce double forces.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
No. There isn't.
I already explained why that is pure bullshit.
Viewing it as anchored forces like that, you have an Earth anchored force which pulls the moon towards it. It does not move Earth towards the moon.
You have a moon anchored force that pulls Earth towards it, it doesn't move the moon towards Earth.
To view it more honestly, you have gravity as a force acting between the objects pulling them towards each other, just like the rope/string.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
No there isn't. Stop lying and making up forces.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Only with your BS understanding of them.
With your understanding you even get twice the force required in the rope.
Here are the precise calculations:
Yes, and they work fine, showing that the gravitational force provides the centripetal force, not double.
It breaks down when you baselessly assert that it gets doubled.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
And it doesn't.
Instead, both objects are drawn towards one another.
The concept would have gravity acting as the rope, with the force in the rope drawing the moon and Earth towards each other.
It would be the force that is "anchored" at the moon pulling Earth towards it, and the force that is "anchored" at Earth pulling the moon towards it.
That's right. No doubling of forces at all.
You have just been given TWO EXAMPLES which defy your silly explanation.
No. You have provided 2 examples which match my explanation, but then you baselessly assert the forces get magically doubled.
There is no paradox here, just your pathetic ignorance.
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
No, It doesn't.
It is an equal Moon anchored "attraction" force which is pulling the Earth towards the moon.
It is not an Earth anchored attraction force.
Just like with the string, the string is anchored to Earth, pulling the moon towards it, and it is anchored to the moon, pulling Earth towards it.
You are effectively claiming pulling an object with a string is impossible as it magically produces twice the force.
it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Almost, from your baseless assumptions, which make no sense, and just double the forces, you get double the force.
With honest methods, you just get equal and opposite forces drawing the objects towards each other.
However, on both sides of that rope you have boats. And any boats connected by that rope will move. Four forces involved. The Earth and the Moon are connected by a gravitational string. The same four forces will be at work.
So you are saying in a rope the same 4 forces will be at work and produce double the required force, making pulling an object with a string impossible?
You haven't been able to properly defend RE theory since you came here.
No, we have, repeatedly. The one unable to defend anything is you. Rather than trying to justify FE BS with anything, all you do is attack RE with mountains of ignorance and bullshit.
You had no knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the Allais effect, the double forces of attractive gravitation and much more before you came here.
You were right for one of them.
I had no idea of the pure bullshit you are claiming to be a paradox, the double forces paradox, because it isn't a paradox. It is just your ignorance of how forces work.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Explain how two gravitons attract each other.
Explain how 2 photons attract each other.
Explain how 2 electrically charged objects interact.
If you cannot, and obviously this is the case, nobody will look in your direction.
No, they will, because unlike you, we have models which work. They match reality. They make accurate predictions.
On the other hand all you have is BS. You do have models, you can make predictions with them, but they are almost always wrong.
To try to get away from that, you FEers just claim BS like it's not a real model.
No FE model will ever work in Euclidean space.
But you have to explain how two bodies attract each other.
Otherwise, your RE hypothesis is just a pipe dream.
No we don't.
Get this through your thick skull:
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF THE MODEL FOR IT TO BE A THEORY!!!
We have the evidence that backs up the model and shows that it works.
That is enough to make it a theory.
I have debated my AFET here and some other places using some 1950 messages out of a total of 2350 (400 messages posted just in the FEB section).
BULLSHIT.
You haven't debated anything. You just continually assert the same refuted bullshit again and again, no matter how many times it is refuted, until you decide to run away for a bit, then come back and repeat the same refuted bullshit.
That isn't how a debate works.
A debate works by you responding to what your opponent said, and either admitting you were wrong or refuting what they say, not by just repeating the same refuted bullshit.
Each and every possible aspect, certainly the best work done towards a complete FE model.
That you may be right on, but that is because there will never be a complete FE model, because Earth isn't flat.
-
Now then Sandy, I am sicking of you just repeating the same mountains of refuted bullshit again and again, just so you can ignore what has been said.
How about you try to debate honestly for once.
Pick a single topic to discuss (or next time I will pick on for you).
Preferably one of:
Your BS, baseless, refuted claim that electrostatics or magnetism can replace gravity and produce attractive forces between the planets, requiring like electric charges/magnetic monopoles to attract.
Explain how any particles interact below the fundamental level, such as how a positive and negative electric charge interact and attract one another.
Your double forces BS, explaining why the forces need to be doubled, why you claim the Earth "anchored" force must both pull the moon towards Earth and move the Earth towards the moon.
Are you able to do that, or just continue your dishonest posting of mountains of refuted crap?
-
But you have to explain how two bodies attract each other.
Otherwise, your RE hypothesis is just a pipe dream.
No, we don't!
"Thales (B.C. 600) observed that amber (elektron) when rubbed attracted light substances."
The Greeks of 600 BC did not have the slightest understanding electricity, but that did not make it less real!
We know a tremendous lot about the behaviour of gravitation, but no-one would pretend that we understand even all of that.
How does the Earth attract the Moon?
Gravitation, easy!
How do Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons?
You are the only one suggesting that the "Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons"!
In "RE theory" gravitons are hypothetical, but even so no-one is suggesting that "gravitons attract gravitons" any more than "photons attract photons" (actually they do, but it a very second order effect).
And even if gravitons are real then their energy would be so low as to preclude any possibility of "measuring" individual gravitons as can be done with photons.
It is the central tenet of RE "theory".
No, understanding gravitation is not "central tenet of RE 'theory'"
You completely blew any chance of credibility when you come up with stupidity like Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Utter garbage, proving that you haven't even the slightest idea about forces!
By the way, have you forgotten? And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles! ;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?
Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
Then The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
Could I add a simple item to my requests? Please also forward a quote for a "free energy machine" that will produce 10 kWh per day of electric power.
In case you cannot do the sums, that is an average power of only 0.417 kW or 417 W - should be a doodle for someone like you!
-
Ask yourself this simple question: how do two bodies attract each other?
I did an experiment which showed qualitative evidence for a gravitational force attracting two bodies together. You can find it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.0
-
Hiya everyone! How's everyone doing? :D I was just taking a look at this thread and thought I should give my thoughts on it! (I literally made a profile for it!) So here we go:
First off, the initial question:
What is the current plausible explaination for this ?
Note: "this" being the current model of the universe and the vast distances involved.
I understand the issue, really. It's hard to believe--in a universe so big--that we can find the distances and motions of most nearby objects in the universe. But, the basic idea--as I understand it--is that mass attracts other mass, with the strength of the attraction being dependent on both the amount of mass attracting and the distance it's attracting from. That's it. This attraction never 'meters out', per se, it just gets really weak. This means that every single object with mass in the universe is technically affecting every other object, all at different strengths that also constantly change to due the expansion of space. ...Well damn, that;s a lot of variable to try and work out. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact location and course, just an estimate.
When I say estimate of course, I mean a very close estimate, which takes into account most of the major masses near the object, as well as it's velocity. But, even without use being able to calculate this, our current understanding of physics says they'll move through constant attraction through and with every body with mass.
(Fun fact: If any of this is wrong, feel free to correct me! It would be cool if you could do it politely as well. [It's what the thread's for.])
Now, on to what actually takes up the majority of this thread about distance: Proving different models of gravity. Specifically, the method of discussion.
I'm no expert on subatomic particles or forces, but I do have some significant experience in the fields of debate and logic.
Science, no matter how you use it, is a tool. It's a tool for understanding, education, and discovery. Using its tenants, we can develop an idea, no matter what field or genre. As a field of the same name, its always evolving through the use of the tool, trying to spread ideas and facts. But, it has it's limits. You can only teach to those who are willing to learn, and it cannot be taught by those who are not willing to learn as well. In science, no one's a master and everyone's a student.
Science can be taught through debate as well, following the same limits as well. This brings me to Sandy's posts, on which I will be frank:
Disregarding your haughty and grating attitude which easily leads to conflict, you don't seem to understand the basis of debate, which has been explained well to you by Jack (a little confrontational, sure, but I understand his lack of tact after running out of patience). The first action of debate isn't to to speak but to listen. You consider the ideas of others and try to understand them, comparing them to your own and trying to think through them. Of course, to do this, you need to understand your own argument first. Have your own ideas, then edit and support them with evidence. DO NOT use the evidence as your idea, because it's someone else's by definition.
So Sandy, what I'm trying to say is, I don't care if your idea is right or not. (FYI, I actually think the ideas you present are interesting and worth thought. You're presenting it wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not the Earth is flat, round, or a gosh darn pole with a duckbill. You present your idea, back it up with evidence, explain that evidence, then do the opposite with the opponent... without petty insults. Stop trying to prove everyone wrong; try to get others to understand your views with reason. If the other people don't understand it, then phrase it so they do. Don't bite back with the same response but with a couple of changed words. Hostility and a lack of willingness to compromise will get you nowhere. Back up your arrogance with actual quality of character.
(Sorry, btw, Jack. I feel I may have echoed you on some points here, but I really just had to say something... for me more than anyone else.)
-
"Thank you for sharing with me! Now I know that the solar system is held together by magnetism. How interesting! I always thought that it was gravity. Oh well. At least the next time I look up from the spinning, spherical earth at the distant moon and gigantic Sun, I will understand."
Is that what you want me to say?
-
Gravitation, easy!
You mean attractive gravitation.
HOW, THEN, DO TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER, IF IT IS THAT EASY TO EXPLAIN IT?
You are the only one suggesting that the "Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons"!
In "RE theory" gravitons are hypothetical, but even so no-one is suggesting that "gravitons attract gravitons" any more than "photons attract photons" (actually they do, but it a very second order effect).
Are you a FE believer? Because only a FE believer would deny that the Earth's gravitons would attract the Moon's gravitons.
In fact, EACH AND EVERY RE SCIENTIST must rely on the idea of attractive gravitation in order to even hypothesize how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
If RE gravity IS attractive, then PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER, OR HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
If you cannot, as it obviously is the case, your hypothesis amounts to nothing else than a pipe dream.
-
Instead, both objects are drawn towards one another.
You are only describing HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
Let me remind you of the undeniable facts.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
BOTH BOATS, CONNECTED BY A ROPE/STRING, WILL MOVE TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
This involves FOUR FORCES.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
Here is how modern science describes the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM:
When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:
Gravity is a force.
Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.
That makes gravity the centripetal force.
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)
Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583
Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
Then, EXACTLY as in the case of the string connecting the boats, BOTH THE EARTH AND THE MOON WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES AS FOLLOWS:
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Within the "attraction" concepts:
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
It is as simple as this.
On the lake, BOTH BOATS CONNECTED BY THE STRING WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES, THAT IS WHY THEY WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:
Now, ball = Moon
you = Earth
tension in the string = gravity
THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
-
This means that every single object with mass in the universe is technically affecting every other object, all at different strengths that also constantly change to due the expansion of space.
That means that somewhere, out in a far far away galaxy billions of lightyears away, There is a grain sand on an alien planet beach gravitationally attracted to me. The super massive black hole in that galaxy is pulling on me too. I thought I could feel something dragging on me! I knew it!!
-
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.
You do need to explain how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
So far you have totally failed to do so.
Spacetime curvature is a mathematical pipe dream.
Here is how it came into existence.
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
THE SAGNAC EFFECT TOTALLY DISPROVES THE EXISTENCE OF SPACETIME AND DOES PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER.
This isn't saying the gravitons have charge either. It is saying the massive objects have a mass "charge".
Fine.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THOSE GRAVITONS WITH MASS CHARGES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Your failure to do so means you are working on a pipe dream hypothesis, that is all.
How about you tell us how 2 electric charges attract each other.
Sure thing.
Both electrical and magnetic fields are made up of MAGNETIC MONOPOLES.
Here is what a magnetic monopole looks like:
(http://science.trigunamedia.com/anu-of-theosophy/Babbitt_Atom_white_33.jpg)
There are two types of magnetic monopoles/subquarks: one with a left handed spin (laevorotatory) and one with a right handed spin (dextrorotatory):
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)
These magnetic monopoles (anu) consist of strings of bosons.
As an example, here is how electricity flows through a conductor:
An electric current brought to bear upon the Anu checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the Anu exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines, and in each line the heart-shaped depression receives the flow, which passes out through the apex into the depression of the next, and so on. The Anu always set themselves to the current. Fig. 4. In all the diagrams the heart-shaped body, exaggerated to show the depression caused by the inflow and the point caused by the outflow, is a single Anu.
(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig004.gif)
(http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/09-4/1em-radiation.png)
Dr. Robert H. Romer, former Editor of the American Journal of Physics, also chastised the diagram shown above, purporting to illustrate the transverse plane wave traveling through 3-space. In endnote 24 of his noteworthy editorial, Dr. Romer takes that diagram to task as follows:
"…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."
Ether = subquark strings travelling in double torsion fashion (one string is made up of dextrorotatory subquarks, the other string consists of laevorotatory subquarks)
(http://www.selfhealgo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOUBLE_HELIX_PHASE_CONJUGATED_WAVE_1-300x165.jpg)
MAGNETRICITY = ETHER MAGNETISM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332
PRECISE, REAL TIME, PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELECTRICAL CURRENTS, THE DOUBLE VORTEX/SPIN/STRINGS AT WORK:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ma1_zpstnoewm3f.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ma2_zps4ijijfcw.jpg)
Let us now back to the Nipher experiments.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Electricity is absolutely linked to terrestrial gravity.
I have, one of your references showed 2 pendulums getting the complete opposite effect, clearly indicating it is merely a large error, not an actual effect.
You are dreaming, just as usual.
REFERENCE #3
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22
Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics
Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.
We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.
-
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.
You do need to explain how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
So far you have totally failed to do so.
I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.
-
Because it is translation, not rotation.
The correction is based upon the spin of Earth, being one sidereal day.
Just as usual, your superficial approach to science becomes painfully apparent.
Further proofs that the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/linear/translational motion.
The other question one might ask is at what level curvature is important--if it is circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect as Ashby claims, how much does the path have to deviate from a straight line to cause the effect? At Los Angeles the earth rotates about 27 meters during the nominal 70 millisecond transit time of the signal from satellite to receiver. The deviation of the 27 meter movement from the straight line chord distance is only 35 microns at its largest point. It certainly seems incredible that a 35 micron deviation from a straight line could induce a 27 meter change in the measured range.
As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.
The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals
which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf
(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)
In the Sagnac experiment, an ether wind must exist due to its propagation above the flat surface of the Earth which leads to the observed time difference.
"Sagnac detected the first-order effect of a man-made ether wind by using light following
a closed path in a rotating apparatus. In relation to his equipment, light traveled at
different speeds in two opposite directions."
In light of these results, mainstream science has resorted to modifying the speed of light
using two approaches: the Modified Lorentz Ether Theory and Non Time Orthogonal Analysis. However, both of these hypotheses are based either on the Lorentz transformation or on the Minkowski metric/spacetime, and as such are totally in error.
The Sagnac effect demonstrates that electromagnetic beams traveling in opposite directions will not travel at the same speed.
"So what is making one of the light beams travel slower? Sagnac said it was due to the ether impeding its velocity - a resistance that is easily generated by rotating the table. So predictable and precise are these results that the “Sagnac effect,” as it is commonly called, is used routinely in today’s technology for the purpose of sensing rotation, as well as in mechanical gyroscopes."
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf
This is an IOP article.
The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.
He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.
In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.
In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.
Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39644&sid=380ab2ccf12f0e84dc604ec3feeed59e#p39644
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37771#p37771
OFFICIAL GPS DATA, provided by NASA/JPL.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130218082359/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf
"The term “Sagnac effect” is part of the vocabulary of only the observer in the rotating reference frame. The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame."
Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf
Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.
Yes, including on things like Satellites.
So a clock slowing effect would be observed.
BUT IT IS NOT BEING OBSERVED, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed. This is the
well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.
In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent. Surprisingly and happily the GPS
works better than expected from the TR.
Obviously the gravitational
slowing of the atomic clocks on Earth cannot be due to
relative velocity because these clocks rest with respect to
the laboratory observer. What is immediately disturbing
here is that two completely distinct physical causes produce
identical effects, which by it alone is highly suspicious.
GR gives only a geometrical interpretation to the
gravitational time dilation. However, if motions cause
time dilation, why then does the orbital motion of Earth
suppress the time dilation caused by the solar gravitational
potential on the earthbased and GPS clocks? Absurdly
in one case motion causes time dilation and in the
other case it suppresses it. This contradiction lets evident
that what causes the gravitational time dilation is not the
gravitational potential and that moreover this time dilation
cannot be caused by a scalar quantity. If the time dilation
shown by the atomic clocks within the earthbased
laboratories is not due to the gravitational potential and
cannot be due to relative velocity too then it is necessarily
due to some other cause. This impasse once more
puts in check the central idea of the TR, according to
which the relative velocity with respect to the observer is
the physical parameter that rules the effects of motions.
The above facts show that the parameter that rules the
effects of motions is not relative velocity but a velocity
of a more fundamental nature.
On the other hand, the time dilation effect of the solar
gravitational field on the atomic clocks orbiting with
Earth round the Sun, which is predicted by GR but not
observed, is a highly precise observation. It exceeds by
orders of magnitude the experimental precision and
hence is infinitely more reliable. If the orbital motion of
Earth round the Sun suppresses the time dilation due to
the solar gravitational field and moreover does not show
the predicted relativistic time dilation due to this orbital
motion, then it seems reasonable that a clock in a satellite
orbiting round the Earth in a direct equatorial orbit or in a
jet flying round the Earth too should give no evidence of
such a relativistic time dilation. The relativistic time dilation
alleged in both these round the world Sagnac experiments
is in clear and frontal contradiction with the
absence of such a relativistic time dilation effect in the
case of the orbiting Earth round the Sun.
Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. Why is there no
requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit
time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely
canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.
Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.
A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.
Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.
Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.
However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.
In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.
I already told you that your messages are not meant to swell the RE ranks.
-
I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.
You haven't shown anything.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70403.msg1902001#msg1902001
-
I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.
You haven't shown anything.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70403.msg1902001#msg1902001
Your counterarguments in that post seem to be:
- Cavendish screwed up the experiment
(I ran the experiment, so are you saying I too, did it wrong? If so, please explain what.)
- electro-gravitation is a thing
(I ran the experiment with nothing that conducts electricity so I'm fairly sure electricity had nothing to do with it. If it did, please explain what.)
- zero point energy exists
(zero point energy and gravitational attraction can both exist in the same universe. Also in my experiment, all my masses were far enough apart for zero point energy to affect nothing. If I'm wrong, please explain how.)
Further, that post doesn't specifically concern my experiment, just Cavendish's.
I apologise, but I have shown something. I saw it and have data for it, which under zetetic and scientific conditions means it's valid. How do you explain my findings? Do you want further data?
-
Here is an experiment denying your "findings".
http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (experiment carried out in full vacuum by the team of researchers which worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)
Gyro Drop Experiment
In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.
Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.
A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.
(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop3.jpg)
Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.
-
Here is an experiment denying your "findings".
Okay, so you've already got me on the wrong foot here. I really don't like you suggesting my findings are false, especially because that insinuates I have done something wrong without explicitly claiming that. It's sneaky and I don't like it, but I'll ignore it because I couldn't care less what you think of me, I just care about what you think of my science.
(Note: I believe in a flat earth.)
Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.
What? No, the results are basically identical, and within the margin of error listed on that very graphic! Even the source you pull your quotes from doesn't claim they are falling at different rates, because they very clearly aren't.
However, this is all deflection. What do you think of my experiment? Was anything wrong with my experiment? Not looking at anyone else's work, but specifically mine. Is my experiment flawed, and if so how? I genuinely want to know, because if I'm wrong, it opens up a whole bunch of options for consideration.
-
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.
When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:
http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png
Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.
Dr. Bruce DePalma published his experiment in a respected journal.
So did Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.
So did Dr. Steve Lamoreaux.
So did Dr. Maurice Allais.
No, the results are basically identical
(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop3.jpg)
Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.
Final conclusion of the experiment:
A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.
-
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.
When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:
http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png
Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.
Dr. Bruce DePalma published his experiment in a respected journal.
So did Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.
So did Dr. Steve Lamoreaux.
So did Dr. Maurice Allais.
No, the results are basically identical
(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop3.jpg)
Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.
Final conclusion of the experiment:
A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.
Yeah, my experiment is not up to scratch with a peer-reviewed journal. Of course it isn't. I did it in my basement. However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment. What are you suggesting caused my alleged error?
If you want more information, ask and you shall receive. What do you want me to show to you? I have the data on my computer.
Look at the mean data down the bottom, that's what counts. And then look at the margins of error. It's clear from the margins of error and mean data that this experiment could have all been down to pure chance. If it had been run more than 7-13 times (and replicated), then you could increase its accuracy and I would be more likely to believe you.
To recap my points:
- How do you suggest my experiment has gone wrong? (I'd actually sincerely like to know, because it matters a great deal for the FE formula I'm deriving)
- What data do you want from my experiment?
- Your data does not disprove mine. (In fact, you can never say something is 'proven' or 'disproven' in science. You can say something isn't supported by the majority of evidence, but I have multiple replications and I can't see any for the experiment you describe)
- Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does. (I could be misinterpreting you, in which case please let me know.)
-
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.
When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:
http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png
If you bothered to read it, there was never any intention of a proof or even a measurement just a simple demonstration that masses attract!
All he said was I did an experiment which showed qualitative evidence for a gravitational force attracting two bodies together. You can find it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.0
Just as the one I posted here
Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment « Reply #3 on: April 26, 2017, 05:07:16 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.msg1902047#msg1902047)
was intended as nothing more that a crude demonstration.
By the way those requested items must have been lost in the mail. Could you please resend:By the way, have you forgotten? And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles! ;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?
Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
Then The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
Could I add a simple item to my requests? Please also forward a quote for a "free energy machine" that will produce 10 kWh per day of electric power.
In case you cannot do the sums, that is an average power of only 0.417 kW or 417 W - should be a doodle for someone like you!
Either give us some real evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist (I read about quantum magnetic monopoles, but not "free ones") or admit that your theories are a heap of garbage!
And if you cannot give solid evidence of free energy machines, not just pretty pictures of scam machines, admit they are simply fraudulent devices to extract money from gullible customers!
:o :o :o Like cheap free energy machine plans, only $200! :o :o :o
If YOU had any guts you would get your revolutionary "theories" published and proven, or disproven!
-
Either give us some real evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist
Magnetic monopoles are a proven fact of science.
Magnetic monopoles discovered for the first time:
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/magnetic-monopoles-discovered-by-lcn-scientists
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/%E2%80%98magnetricity%E2%80%99-observed-and-measured-for-the-first-time
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab
However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.
So now you finally admit to resorting to "peer-reviewed" replications of the Cavendish experiment.
I told you that those experiments have terrible flaws in them, make sure you read this paper thoroughly:
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
In the gyrodrop experiment, runs 3-7 simply cannot exist, cannot occur on a round earth.
http://depalma.pairsite.com/gyrodrop.html
The calculations in this paper are pretty clear:
h) Fictitious Force Increment: Calculation to find a hypothetical, fictitious force increment which would have to be applied to the Non-Rotating gyroscope to cause the increased acceleration observed for the Rotating gyroscope
The fictitious force increment is 0.024 lbs.
g) Change in Acceleration:
Percentage change in acceleration: 0.333%
The mean standard deviation for the non-rotating object is: 0.66203
The mean standard deviation for the rotating object is: 0.66097
NOW, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840
“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm
-
However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.
So now you finally admit to resorting to "peer-reviewed" replications of the Cavendish experiment.
I told you that those experiments have terrible flaws in them, make sure you read this paper thoroughly:
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
What? I didn't 'resort to anything. I think my experiment can stand alone, but you said:
Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.
So I responded by showing you peer-reviewed studies. How is this logic incorrect?
Also, I read the Miles Mathis paper before I even started my experiment, and I deliberately, because of that paper, went about it from a skeptical perspective. You ought to know I did the experiment skeptically had you read my OP.
Mile's paper refers to the experimental setup of the original experiment, pointing out flaws I think are valid. That's why I tried to remove those flaws from my experiment. I ask you again, not to attack you but to gain clarity: What did I do wrong?
In the gyrodrop experiment, runs 3-7 simply cannot exist, cannot occur on a round earth.
No experiment is exactly perfect. There is such a thing as margin of error. Are you saying that this one study was done perfectly? Look at the margin of error that is listed on the photo. It clearly shows runs 3-7 can exist.
I say it again:
- Your data does not disprove mine.
and
- Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does.
Yes, they calculate a fictitious force element. And? That's called being thorough. I have nothing against that.
I'd like to take a side not to say, because clearly I have not said it enough: I am not advocating for the existence of a Round Earth. I am advocating for the existence of gravity on a Flat Earth. There is no reason a Flat Earth can't have gravity.
Now, onto your side-topic of Nipher. The papers you source admit the Cavendish Experiment was valid. In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction. So which is it?
1. Was the Cavendish experiment flawed, and if so, specifically how is my replication.
2. Was the Cavendish experiment correct, meaning you can use your Nipher deflection.
You can't have it both ways.
So, to recap:
- How do you suggest my experiment has gone wrong?
- What data do you want from my experiment?
- Your data does not disprove mine.
- Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does.
- Is Cavendish, and therefore Nipher, wrong?
-
Either give us some real evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist
Magnetic monopoles are a proven fact of science.
Magnetic monopoles discovered for the first time:
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/magnetic-monopoles-discovered-by-lcn-scientists
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/%E2%80%98magnetricity%E2%80%99-observed-and-measured-for-the-first-time
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab
The monopoles discovered this week are not that Holy Grail, but are the next best thing. Rather than existing throughout the universe, they only exist within a special type of material called `spin ice’. They can be imagined as the north and south poles of magnets, but free to float around independently within the material. However, someone living within in a block of spin ice would think that these are exactly those magnetic monopoles long sought by physicists.
Try again! They are not "free magnetic monopoles". They are still paired within the "spin ice".
Of course, there is no theoretical reason why they should not exist, but so far none have been found "free".
However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.
<< ignored >>
You will really have to learn how to use [quote author=victim's nsme] . . . << sandokhan''s latest copy-pasta >>. . .[/quote] ??? ??? So we can identify your current victim! ??? ???
By the way, I'm waiting for: By the way, have you forgotten? And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles! ;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?
Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
Then The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the "correct" distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
Could I add a simple item to my requests? Please also forward a quote for a "free energy machine" that will produce 10 kWh per day of electric power. "
In case you cannot do the sums, that is an average power of only 0.417 kW or 417 W - should be a doodle for someone like you!
And if you cannot give solid evidence of free energy machines, not just pretty pictures of scam machines, admit they are simply fraudulent devices to extract money from gullible customers!
:o :o :o Like cheap free energy machine plans, only $200! :o :o :o
If YOU had any guts you would get your revolutionary "theories" published and proven, or disproven!
Bye bye, have fun!
-
You were invited to read a very important paper on the Cavendish experiment, requiring of you at least a few days of serious stuying.
Yet, here you are 15 minutes later claiming that it is no problem at all for you.
So, I have to do your homework for you.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Did you read up on the Walker (Cavendish type experiment) experiment?
Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.
It is even more strange now that we have apples weighing only ounces standing as proof of gravitational theory, the weight and density of the earth, and the accepted value of an important constant. That is to say, we now accept apples as having easily measurable and verifiable gravitational attractions, but we ignore the gravitational attractions of walls weighing thousands of pounds. I can only imagine that we do this because walls are not made of metal, or walls are not spherical, or something. I can’t really fathom it.
At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.
This means that the four walls must be taken into account, not only as blockers of wind, but as suppliers of mass and any possible E/M interaction.
This is clear, I think, with Cavendish, and it is equally clear with Walker and all modern machines and environs. Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it.
“As Cavendish proved…[there were] enormous effects of air currents set up by temperature differences inside the box.” We don’t hear much of that anymore. We are supposed to assume that Cavendish solved his wind problems by building the box.
Next he says this:
With such small beams as I am now using it is much more convenient to replace the long thin box generally employed to protect the beam from disturbance by a vertical tube of circular section, in which the beam with its mirror can revolve freely. This has the further advantage that if the beam is hung centrally, the attraction of the tube produces no effect, and the troublesome and approximate calculations which have been necessary to find the effect of the box are no longer required.
See that he admits that he has not done any “troublesome calculations” on his box, just assuming it produces no effect.
Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.
But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn’t even bother to include the weight of his walls.
The same applies to Walker and the new experiments. They are incredibly sloppy about mass in an experiment that concerns mass, and yet they always seem to get reliable results. Does no one else find this the least bit strange? All they have to do is block the wind and the experiment provides all the right motions. They can switch it from clockwise to counterclockwise without concern: they still get attraction. They don’t have to worry if one wall is bigger than the other, or if there are magnetic fields in the area, or if they have cameras or ladders in the way, or if they are not square to the wall, or if they are nearer the floor or the ceiling. All these things that you would think might matter in an experiment concerning mass don’t seem to matter. Very curious.
You should find it very mystifying that all these scientists not only ignore huge masses only two feet away, masses that may or not be balanced, they also ignore the need to say why they can ignore these masses. In other words, they ignore these facts, then ignore their own ignorance of these facts, and none of it seems to matter. We are such blessed creatures, apparently, that we can stumble on the correct answer every time, without even being fully conscious.
THEN THE AUTHOR PROCEEDS TO CALCULATE THE INFLUENCE OF THE E/M FIELDS SURROUNING THE EXPERIMENT AND FINDS OUT THAT THEY GREATLY AFFECT THE FINAL RESULT.
But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.
Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.
This means that Cavendish succeeded by a compensation of errors. The big ball is blocking almost exactly the amount that is missing from the equations, due to the loss of its own gravitational acceleration. Any Cavendish-like machine with large balls that are fixed would be expected to have the same compensation of errors.
This probably explains the variation in all contemporary measurements of gravity, too, including the most recent. Because the researchers are ignorant of the fields present, and the actual actions of their machines, all of their conclusions are skewed.
-
In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction.
Read my previous message again carefully: Cavendish shows no gravitational attraction at all.
Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.
He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.
In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."
Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."
Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ARE ABSOLUTELY LINKED.
rabinoz, do your homework before posting nonsense.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab
The approach of David Hall and colleagues at Amherst College in Massachusetts and collaborators at Aalto University in Finland is to produce an analogue of what is known as a "Dirac monopole", the generalized quantum-mechanical form of a magnetic monopole put forward by Dirac. Prior to 1931, nobody had been able to combine classical electromagnetism and quantum mechanics to allow the existence of magnetic monopoles, but Dirac was able to do this by considering what happens when a monopole interacts with an electron. He found that when a monopole passes through an electron cloud – the distribution in space of a single electron as described by quantum mechanics – it leaves a vortex in its wake. This is a line of zero electron density around which the density spirals: "Like water swirling as it goes down the drain," says Hall.
Hall's group has reproduced that vortex in a Bose–Einstein condensate of ultracold rubidium atoms. The condensate is a single matter wave and stands in for the electron cloud in Dirac's formulation. To reproduce the monopole, the researchers applied a real, external magnetic field to the condensate to orient the constituent atoms in such a way that they create a "synthetic" magnetic field inside the condensate. There is a "one-to-one correspondence" between that synthetic field and the field that would be produced by a magnetic monopole, Hall explains. "You could draw exactly the same field lines in the synthetic field and the locus of the monopole is where those field lines spring from," he says.
Polar vortex
To show that they really had produced a Dirac monopole, the researchers shone a laser beam through the condensate. The beam created a "shadowgraph", in which the shadow cast by the atoms in the sample was pierced by a narrow strip of light. That strip, they concluded, was the vortex created by an isolated north pole (it being north rather than south simply for technical reasons). "What we see is remarkable," says Hall, "because normally a vortex created inside a Bose–Einstein condensate goes from one side of the condensate to another. But here it ends in the bulk. That is the hallmark of the monopole."
You wanna play games with me?
Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):
Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.
It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.
It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.
It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.
It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.
Besant & Leadbeater published their discovery of the neon-22 isotope about five years before the physicist J.J. Thomson separated neon into two fractions and 12 years before his assistant Francis Aston separated and measured the masses of the neon-20 and neon-22 isotopes.
Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real objects and were not fabricated ac-
cording to their expectations? Knowing which groups of the periodic table
these undiscovered elements belong to could have enabled them to deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of the atomic weights of these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for these elements agree with their chemical atomic weights to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have come about by chance in every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery. These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.
The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if Besant and Leadbeater had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation. Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements? This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively, 1939 and 1940, about seven years after the deaths of the two
Theosophists. How, if MPAs are not atoms, could they have anticipated in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in 1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.
This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted. Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of physics. If this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf
Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.
In fact, Gell-Mann did not even bother to modify the information on the quarks contained in that treatise.
The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.
Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).
A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.
OCCULT CHEMISTRY (1908) TABLE OF CONTENTS:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm
SUBQUARKS/MAGNETIC MONOPOLES CLEARLY SEEN OUTSIDE OF THE SPIN ICE ENVIRONMENT.
Subquarks = magnetic monopoles
https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (pg 66-73)
A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that subquarks = magnetic monopoles.
-
You were invited to read a very important paper on the Cavendish experiment, requiring of you at least a few days of serious stuying.
Yet, here you are 15 minutes later claiming that it is no problem at all for you.
So, I have to do your homework for you.
I spent days reading it. I told you; I read Mile's paper before embarking on my experiment. Your statement is insulting and baseless. This is a discussion of science, not hurling of insults.
You show flaws in Cavendish's and Walkers design. I accept these. As I said, I designed my experiment to combat them, specifically because of Mile's paper.
If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.
Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.
No, I never said that. In fact, I've barely looked into them. Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid. It says this multiple times in the article, including sections you yourself quoted.
He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
He concluded gravitation existed, using Cavendish's experiment. This means that if Cavendish was flawed, then so was Nipher.
Look! You even quote a line in Nipher's experiment which shows "qualitative evidence for gravitational attraction"!
The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.
Furthermore, Coulomb's Law (developed sometime after 1784, when the experiment was done), shows that an electrically charged object (like lead balls charged with high voltage, like in Nipher's experiments) will apply a force to electrostatic objects (like lead balls not charged with high voltage, like in Nipher's experiments).
So, in conclusion: No, nothing to do with Nipher's experiments disproves gravitational attraction in any way.
To recap:
- If you have a grievance with my experiment, raise it against my experiment, like I asked in my OP.
- Nipher has nothing relevant to do with this discussion, since his experiment relies on Cavendish's being correct, and also describes a completely unrelated scientific principle.
I'd also like to respectfully ask, curious individual to curious individual, don't insult me.
-
You did not read M. Miles' paper.
Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it.
But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.
Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.
This means that Cavendish succeeded by a compensation of errors. The big ball is blocking almost exactly the amount that is missing from the equations, due to the loss of its own gravitational acceleration. Any Cavendish-like machine with large balls that are fixed would be expected to have the same compensation of errors.
This probably explains the variation in all contemporary measurements of gravity, too, including the most recent. Because the researchers are ignorant of the fields present, and the actual actions of their machines, all of their conclusions are skewed.
I had to do your homework for you.
If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.
If you want anyone to understand anything about your experiment, then you are going to have to offer many more details as to how you performed it. Go ahead and include these details at the other thread.
Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid.
Nipher discovered AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT, in addition to the effect OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY WHICH IS NOT A FORCE OF ATTRACTION, BUT OF PRESSURE.
Professor Nipher showed that TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION (PRESSURE) AND ELECTRICITY (ANTI GRAVITATIONAL FORCE) ARE ABSOLUTELY RELATED.
No, nothing to do with Nipher's experiments disproves gravitational attraction in any way.
Did you use the same superficiality in examining a scientific paper in performing your own experiment?
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Your conclusions could not be more wrong: how then is anyone here going to trust your OWN experiment, your take on it?
-
In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction.
Read my previous message again carefully: Cavendish shows no gravitational attraction at all.
Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.
Nobody places much credence on experiments performed only once by one person.
That is one reason why "Cavendish type" experiments have been performed so many times.
Note that I said "Cavendish type" experiments not simply "Cavendish" experiments.
When all of your one off experiments have been verified adequately, come back are talk again.
But what I find so significant is that we have four self-professed very intelligent people, yourself, JRoweSkeptic, sceptimatic and of course İntikam.
And I honestly believe that all four are very intelligent, but
all of you have your own quite incompatible models and theories, yet each of you asserts quite aggressively that you are correct.
But only one, at the most, of you can be possibly correct!
My bet is that none of you are correct,
but maybe all four can get together and decide on a "Unified Flat Earth Theory" you might be a lot more convincing!
-
Nobody places much credence on experiments performed only once by one person.
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: FULL DETAILS
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363
But what I find so significant is that we have three self-professed very intelligent people, JRoweSkeptic, sceptimatic and of course İntikam.
Many people can claim whatever they want.
However, these debates constitute the ULTIMATE TEST as to the truth of those FE models.
In less than five minutes, any other FE model can be debunked: very rapidly.
-
In this thread, sandokhan shows that he is not capable of holding a reasonable debate and is also not open to anything that does not fit his current views.
-
I understand the issue, really. It's hard to believe--in a universe so big--that we can find the distances and motions of most nearby objects in the universe. But, the basic idea--as I understand it--is that mass attracts other mass, with the strength of the attraction being dependent on both the amount of mass attracting and the distance it's attracting from. That's it. This attraction never 'meters out', per se, it just gets really weak. This means that every single object with mass in the universe is technically affecting every other object, all at different strengths that also constantly change to due the expansion of space. ...Well damn, that;s a lot of variable to try and work out. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact location and course, just an estimate.
This made me think of another key point, the issue with scaling:
Lets say you have 2 objects, with size r1 and r2, and density p1 and p2, separated by some distance d.
The volume of each will be (4/3)*pi*r^3, and thus the mass will be p*(4/3)*pi*r^3.
So the force of gravity between them will be:
G*p1*(4/3)*pi*r1^3*p2*(4/3)*pi*r2^3/d^2.
This can simplify quite a bit, but basically to make it simplify as much as possible, i will just put k as the all the constants combined (e.g. G, pi, numbers, etc, and the densities).
This gives:
F=k*r1^3*r2^3/d^2
Which we will call F0.
Now lets scale this by a factor of s, as done in the OP, and find the force then (Fs)
The scale will scale down r and d, but lets keep p constant.
This means:
Fs=k*(r1*s)^3*(r2*s)^3/(d*s)^2=k*r1^3*s^3*r2^3*s^3/(d^2*s^2)
=(k*r1^3*r2^3/d^2)*s^3*s^3/s^2
=F0*s^4.
You can also remove one of the masses and to determine the acceleration, where using similar math, you get:
as=a0*s.
This is a big problem with trying to scale systems like this. It doesn't always scale nicely.
If you shrink the system to 1 millionth of the size, so the distance between the sun and Earth is 150 km, so s=0.000001, you will scale the gravitational attraction between them by a factor of 0.000000000000000000000001 (I think that is the right number of zeros). That means the force will be 1 septillionth of that in the real system.
(Sorry, btw, Jack. I feel I may have echoed you on some points here, but I really just had to say something... for me more than anyone else.)
I don't mind. More people saying it might have it sink in.
-
Instead, both objects are drawn towards one another.
You are only describing HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
I see you chose your double ignorance of gravity "paradox".
So lets stick to that until we have that settled.
Let me remind you of the undeniable facts.
I don't need reminding. I understand it quite well.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
Yes, just like you expect, you get the gravitational force that provides the centripetal force.
This involves FOUR FORCES.
Nope.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
And that is just like how the moon and Earth attract one another.
Here is how modern science describes the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM:
How about you skip the condescending bullshit and get to the point?
Then, EXACTLY as in the case of the string connecting the boats, BOTH THE EARTH AND THE MOON WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES AS FOLLOWS:
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
No. They wont.
Gravity is acting as the string. The tension in the string is pulling the 2 objects towards each other.
You have a boat 1 "anchored" force pulling boat 2 towards it.
At the same time, you have a boat 2 "anchored" force pulling boat 1 towards it.
There is no force "anchored" in boat 1 that is pulling boat 1 to boat 2.
The same applies to gravity.
There is the Earth "anchored" force, pulling the moon towards it.
There is the moon "anchored" force, pulling Earth towards it.
There is not an Earth "anchored" force pulling Earth towards the moon.
All Earth "anchored" forces will pull objects towards Earth.
So no, there is no doubling of the forces.
You repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again and again and again wont magically make it true.
You need to explain these baseless claims of yours.
You need to explain why there should be an Earth "anchored" force which both pulls the moon towards it, and pulls itself towards the moon.
You then need to do the equivalent for the moon.
You are yet to do that. Instead all you can do is repeatedly assert that it is the case.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
No. Only your ignorant misrepresentations of them.
On the lake, BOTH BOATS CONNECTED BY THE STRING WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES, THAT IS WHY THEY WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
No, they wont.
Each boat will be subjected to a single force.
That force is what results in the motion of the boat.
The same applies to the Earth-moon system.
Each one is subject to a single force, which causes it's acceleration.
Now stop repeating the same bullshit and actually justify your claims.
And now that you have chosen this, I will not let it die on this thread until you either admit you were wrong, or run away with your tail between your legs, or you somehow manage to do the impossible and justify your claims.
-
You are ignoring my simple question: All of your sources accept spherical Earth, Moon, Sun, planets, etc all in a galaxy of sun-like stars...all held together by something other than gravity. FINE!! I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT!!
Please stop quoting the same nonsense again and again and again AND AGAIN.
NONE OF US CARE!!
All that shows (if accepted) is that FE is wrong. You want us to accept a spherical Earth and Moon orbiting a distant Sun all held together by something other than gravity? Will that make you happy? This is a forum for the SHAPE OF THE EARTH!
Which is easily shown to be a sphere. All other questions are irrelevant to this forum. I will not read any more of your comments about anything other than the shape of the Earth. Nor will I wade through a 1,000 word copy and paste of a bunch of disproven "gravity is magnets" crap to find your one comment on the shape of the Earth. Stick to the topic or get out.
-
You did not read M. Miles' paper.
I did though.
But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.
Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.
This has nothing to do with my experiment; I controlled for this. If you look in my OP, that detail has been there since the beginning.
If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.
If you want anyone to understand anything about your experiment, then you are going to have to offer many more details as to how you performed it. Go ahead and include these details at the other thread.
Sure thing! What details do you want me to add?
Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid.
Nipher discovered AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT, in addition to the effect OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY WHICH IS NOT A FORCE OF ATTRACTION, BUT OF PRESSURE.
Professor Nipher showed that TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION (PRESSURE) AND ELECTRICITY (ANTI GRAVITATIONAL FORCE) ARE ABSOLUTELY RELATED.
I refer you to your own prior comment:
The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.
This is repeated throughout the documents you have provided. This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists, and that it is not caused by pressure. Do you really want to disagree with Nipher? I mean, dude was a smart dude.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction. So, is Nipher right, or are you?
Also, please explain to me what Nipher's experiment showed that cannot be explained using Coulomb's Law.
Your conclusions could not be more wrong: how then is anyone here going to trust your OWN experiment, your take on it?
I asked nicely to keep insults out of this. Please, don't discredit your ideas.
To recap:
- If you would like me to add detail to my OP, then please explain what you would like and I shall add it if it is within my ability. If it isn't, I will explain why in a rational and hopefully satisfactory manner.
- Nipher relies on gravitational attraction. You claim gravitational attraction doesn't exist. You can't both be right. So either Nipher goes, or you do.
- If you have issue against my experiment, raise it against my experiment, not against me. That's just common courtesy.
I would like to point out (for the third time so far): I believe that the Earth is flat.
I have no dispute with you there. I do have dispute with the arguments you are using to conclude gravitational attraction doesn't exist.
I do agree with Jonny B Smart here though. If you want to continue this debate, let's move it over to the relevant thread.
-
Nobody places much credence on experiments performed only once by one person.
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: FULL DETAILS
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363
But what I find so significant is that we have three self-professed very intelligent people, JRoweSkeptic, sceptimatic and of course İntikam.
Many people can claim whatever they want.
I see that you left youself off the list of "very intelligent people". I guess that's something!
But all four of you insist that you each have the only true model of the flat earth. Why should anyone accept yours over the others?
Are you that much smarter than they? I doubt that they'd agree!
However, these debates constitute the ULTIMATE TEST as to the truth of those FE models.
In less than five minutes, any other FE model can be debunked: very rapidly.
Rubbish! These debates mean nothing in the real world!
So what if you can brow-beat a few into swallowing your garbage! That changes nothing.
The only way for you to change anything is to get your theories accepted in the wider community, and skulking here won't do that. .
This little backwater has no influence! Still, go your merry way. I don't care one way or the other.
PS I'm still waiting for information on your supplying these magnetic monopoles, a free energy machine and also
the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
If you have no idea, just admit it.
-
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
How about you skip the condescending bullshit and get to the point?
These are the views expressed by modern science as to how attractive gravity works.
Is this what you call "condescending bullshit"?
When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:
Gravity is a force.
Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.
That makes gravity the centripetal force.
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)
Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583
Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
FIRST EXAMPLE
TWO BOATS LINKED BY A ROPE
SECOND EXAMPLE
TWO RAFTS LINKED BY A ROPE
IN BOTH CASES, the boats will move towards each other.
Four forces at work.
The first boat will attract the second boat, BUT ALSO AN EQUAL FIRST BOAT ANCHORED ATTRACTION FORCE IS PULLING THE FIRST BOAT TOWARDS THE SECOND BOAT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT BOTH BOATS/RAFTS WILL MOVE TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
THEN, THE SAME THING MUST HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.
Remember this?
As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:
Now, ball = Moon
you = Earth
tension in the string = gravity
THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts, both planets will BE PULLED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
You need to explain why there should be an Earth "anchored" force which both pulls the moon towards it, and pulls itself towards the moon.
You then need to do the equivalent for the moon.
Sure.
Very simple.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
Raft x is pulling raft y, and at the same time is moving toward raft y.
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION FORCES.
FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y
FORCE 2: the raft x anchored force will cause raft x to be moving itself toward raft y
Same forces apply to raft y.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
Then, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE MOON TO REMAIN STILL AND BE THE SOURCE OF THE FORCE (Earth-Moon attractive gravitational model).
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCES.
TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT X, TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT Y, causing both to move towards each other.
This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists
Terrestrial gravitation can be caused, on a flat earth, by far different forces other than "attraction".
Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction.
You better do your homework on the Allais effect: an antigravitational effect caused by pressure.
-
This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists
Terrestrial gravitation can be caused, on a flat earth, by far different forces other than "attraction".
That's besides the point, because Nipher, the man you cite, says it's caused by attraction, and his experiment works based on this principle. So you can't use him as evidence against attraction.
Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction.
You better do your homework on the Allais effect: an antigravitational effect caused by pressure.
Cool, I just did. It's been alleged, and experiments have been done which both support and do not support it. Also, that doesn't describe a 'field' of force as I clearly state. So, I stand by my statement.
To recap:
- You still have not even remotely addressed my main points.
If you want to address them, please do so in the thread suggested and provided, because I sense dark eyes frowning upon me for further derailing this thread.
-
<< another copy of the same old wall-paper >>
If you can't work where you are wrong with your trivial raft problem there in no chance that you'll understand anything advanced.
Go learn knitting, it might be right up your alley!
-
Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New York Times (19 September 1917)
"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."
A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.
"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."
New Gravitation Theory ~
Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.
Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.
However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.
In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.
Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."
Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
rabinoz... leave classical mechanics to those who do know something about it.
FROM A CLASSIC TEXT ON MECHANICS:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
Exactly as in the above example, using two boats, or a boat and a ship.
FORCE #1: boat x is pulling on boat y
FORCE #2: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)
"To every action there is always an opposed equal reaction".
FORCE #3: boat y is pulling on boat x
FORCE #4: the boat y anchored force will MOVE BOAT Y TOWARDS BOAT X
THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON RE SYSTEM: BOTH PLANETS WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
As simple as this.
-
Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New York Times (19 September 1917)
"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."
A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.
"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."
New Gravitation Theory ~
Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.
Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.
However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational pull upon the suspended small lead balls and the small lead balls were slightly pulled over towards the large spheres.
In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.
Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."
Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
rabinoz... leave classical mechanics to those who do know something about it.
FROM A CLASSIC TEXT ON MECHANICS:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
Exactly as in the above example, using two boats, or a boat and a ship.
FORCE #1: boat x is pulling on boat y
FORCE #2: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)
"To every action there is always an opposed equal reaction".
FORCE #3: boat y is pulling on boat x
FORCE #4: the boat y anchored force will MOVE BOAT Y TOWARDS BOAT X
THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON RE SYSTEM: BOTH PLANETS WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
As simple as this.
Okay, but irregardless of the repulsion (explained by Coulomb's Law and easily replicated by pulling a fruit loop around a water-filled bowl with a magnet), Nipher used the principles of Gravitational Attraction to conduct his experiment.
So you're simultaneously saying he was both wrong and right. That's a paradox.
Nipher himself, in quotes you have used, acknowledges gravitational attraction. You say he is wrong.
But then his electric repulsion must also be wrong.
How can his experiment be both wrong and right? How can he prove electric fields can override gravitational ones without acknowledging gravitational ones exist.
And yes, he shielded his masses. But to say that electricity is causing the effect, you have to acknowledge, well, that electricity is having an effect. This effect is modelled for by Coulomb's Law.
There is no contradiction between attractive gravity, Coulomb's Law and Nipher's experiment.
To recap:
- Is Nipher wrong, or is he right? He can't be both.
- Coulomb's Law.
- This is the wrong thread.
-
You seem to be VERY confused.
Coulomb's law describes the force interacting between static electrically charged particles.
Now, pay attention to this:
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects.
In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.
You cannot invoke Coulomb's law.
So you're simultaneously saying he was both wrong and right. That's a paradox.
I am not saying that at all.
Do you understand that there are TWO FORCES AT WORK AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH?
One of them is commonly called terrestrial gravitation, and it involves dextrotatory subquarks.
The second force, which can be activated by sound, electrical tension or double torsion (CYMATICS, BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, DEPALMA OR ALLAIS EXPERIMENTS) is due to the influence of laevorotatory subquarks.
No paradox involved here.
Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."
Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
-
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects.
This is what the shielding was:
Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.
The problem is that iron conducts electricity, so it would have provided zero protection from electrostatic effects.
Here's a diagram from your source:
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/n1fig2.jpg)
This is a nice illustration of how the shield wouldn't have worked at all.
Do you understand that there are TWO FORCES AT WORK AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH?
Well, actually there are a few more than two. Also, this again? Please don't insult me, because it doesn't lend credibility to your points or further diminish mine. It's pointless if you want a reasoned discussion.
Here's another image from your source:
(http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/n1fig1.jpg)
It even has gravitational attraction written on it!
Here's another experiment:
1. Go to your source and press ctrl+f
2. Type 'gravitational attraction'
Results of this experiment:
There are 27 instances where the articles reference gravitational attraction.
Ooh, ooh, here's a good one:
What about the fact that the website you pull these sources from is a parody website?
(http://i.imgur.com/fq6jUdQ.png)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rex_Research
The image (which I took myself), and the website link provided do a good job proving that.
To recap:
- The experiment did not adequately shield from electric effects.
- The experiment heavily discusses gravitational attraction.
- The experiment can only be sourced by a discredited website.
- The experiment is not relevant.
I say again, if you don't believe my experiment, show that specifically my experiment was flawed. Don't give me other experiments; look at mine in a vacuum.
-
Professor Nipher's articles were published in a respected journal and peer reviewed.
Moreover, he was one of the top physicists at that time.
Your drivel amounts to nothing at all.
Electrical Experimenter (March 1918)
Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis XXIII (4): 173-176 (July 28,1916)
Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis XXIII (4): 177-193 (July 28, 1916)
Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis XXVII: 383-387 (March 2, 1920)
Read the papers.
Each and every possible disturbance was totally eliminated.
No one would have published his papers had that not been the case.
You wanna play games with me?
The Nipher effect is just a small scale Biefeld-Brown effect.
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT
In earlier experimentation, Thomas Townsend Brown had made the startling discovery that a Coolidge X-ray tube exhibited thrust when charged to high voltage. It took Brown a while to realize that the motion was not caused by the X rays themselves, but by the electricity coursing through the tube. Brown went on to develop a device he called the "Gravitor," an electrical condenser sealed in a Bakelite case, that would exhibit a one percent weight gain or a one percent weight loss when connected to a 100-kilovolt power supply.
"The Gravitor, in all reality, is a very efficient motor. Unlike other forms of motor, it does not in any way involve the principles of electromagnetism, but instead it utilizes the principles of electro-gravitation.
A simple gravitor has no moving parts, but is apparently capable of moving itself from within itself. It is highly efficient for the reason that it uses no gears, shafts, propellers or wheels in creating its motive power. It has no internal mechanical resistance and no observable rise in temperature. Contrary to the common belief that gravitational motors must necessarily be vertical-acting, the gravitor, it is found, acts equally well in every conceivable direction."
T.T. Brown, 1929
In 1955, he went to work for the French aerospace company SNCASO—Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du SudOuest. During this one-year research period, he ran his discs in a vacuum. If anything, they worked better in a vacuum.
http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm
Since the time of the first test the apparatus and the methods used have been greatly improved and simplified. Cellular "gravitators" have taken the place of the large balls of lead. Rotating frames supporting two and four gravitators have made possible acceleration measurements. Molecular gravitators made of solid blocks of massive dielectric have given still greater efficiency. Rotors and pendulums operating under oil have eliminated atmospheric considerations as to pressure, temperature and humidity.
The disturbing effects of ionization, electron emission and pure electro-statics have likewise been carefully analyzed and eliminated. Finally after many years of tedious work and with refinement of methods we succeeded in observing the gravitational variations produced by the moon and sun and much smaller variations produced by the different planets.
Let us take, for example, the case of a gravitator totally immersed in oil but suspended so as to act as a pendulum and swing along the line of its elements.
(https://i84.servimg.com/u/f84/17/91/23/29/00fig210.gif)
When the direct current with high voltage (75-300 kilovolts) is applied the gravitator swings up the arc until its propulsive force balances the force of the earth's gravity resolved to that point, then it stops, but it does not remain there. The pendulum then gradually returns to the vertical or starting position even while the potential is maintained. The pendulum swings only to one side of the vertical. Less than five seconds is required for the test pendulum to reach the maximum amplitude of the swing but from thirty to eighty seconds are required for it to return to zero.
(T.T. Brown, How I Control Gravitation, 1929)
“Brown’s first experiments consisted of two lead spheres connected by a nonconductive glass rod, like a dumbell. One sphere was charged positive, the other negative, with a total of 120 kilovolts between them. This formed a large electric dipole. When suspended, the system moved toward the positive pole, arcing upwards and staying there against the force of gravity tugging downward. This showed that electric dipoles generate self-acceleration toward the positive pole. This experiment was repeated in oil, in a grounded tank, proving that ion wind was not responsible.
Improved versions of this setup replaced the lead spheres with metal plates, and glass rod with dielectric plates or blocks. This created a high voltage parallel plate capacitor with one or more layers. Brown’s British patent #300,111 – issued in 1927 – described what he termed a “cellular gravitator” consisting of numerous metal plates interleaved with dielectric plates, the entire block wrapped in insulating material and end plates connected to output electrodes and a spark gap to limit the input voltage. This device produced significant acceleration.
Brown’s 1927 patent described a self-contained device that exhibited no ion wind effects and relied solely upon the electrogravitational action arising from the electric dipoles within the gravitator-capacitor.”
“When a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to a capacitor whose electrodes have different physical dimensions, the capacitor experiences a net force toward the smaller electrode (Biefeld-Brown effect).
The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).”
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.
Condensers of various types, air dielectric and barium titanate were assembled on a rotary support to eliminate the electrostatic effect of chamber walls and observations were made of the rate of rotation. Intense acceleration was always observed during the vacuum spark (which, incidentally, illuminated the entire interior of the vacuum chamber). Barium Titanate dielectrique always exceeded air dielectric in total thrust. The results which were most significant from the standpoint of the Biefeld-Brown effect, was that thrust continued, even when there was no vacuum spark, causing the rotor to accelerate in the negative to positive direction to the point where voltage had to be reduced or the experiment discontinued because of the danger that the rotor would fly apart.
In short, it appears there is strong evidence that Biefeld-Brown effect does exist in the negative to positive direction in a vacuum of at least 10-6 Torr. The residual thrust is several orders of magnitude larger than the remaining ambient ionization can account for. Going further in your letter of January 28th, the condenser "Gravitor" as described in my British patent, only showed a loss of weight when vertically oriented so that the negative-to-postive thrust was upward. In other words, the thrust tended to "lift" the gravitor."
T.T. Brown, 1973
“The initial experiments conducted by Townsend Brown, concerning the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity, had the characteristic of simplicity which has marked most other great scientific advancements.
The first startling revelation was that if placed in free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when charged, exhibited a forward thrust toward the positive poles. A reversal of polarity caused a reversal of the direction of thrust. The experiment was set up as follows:
(http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/rose5.jpg)
The antigravity effect of vertical thrust is demonstrated by balancing a condenser on a beam balance and then charging it. After charging, if the positive pole is pointed upward, the condenser moves up.
If the charge is reversed and the positive pole pointed downward, the condenser thrusts down. The experiment is conducted as follows:"
(http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/rose3.jpg)
VACUUM TEST #1
http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)
At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.
VACUUM TEST #2
https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)
VACUUM TEST #3
https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)
MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm
VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER
https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/
https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf
In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .
In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:
(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.
These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.
PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER
When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).
VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)
-
How about you skip the condescending bullshit and get to the point?
These are the views expressed by modern science as to how attractive gravity works.
Is this what you call "condescending bullshit"?
The condescending bullshit is continually repeating this as if everyone else is an ignorant moron that doesn't understand it at all.
None of that is in dispute. The dispute comes from you claiming the force magically doubles, which you have no basis for.
Four forces at work.
NO! THERE ISN'T.
Each object has a single force acting upon it.
The first boat will attract the second boat, BUT ALSO AN EQUAL FIRST BOAT ANCHORED ATTRACTION FORCE IS PULLING THE FIRST BOAT TOWARDS THE SECOND BOAT.
No, there isn't.
The first boat "anchored" force is just pulling the second boat 2 it.
There is no first boat "anchored" force which is pulling the first post towards the second boat.
This is the part you need to back up, because so far all you have done is repeatedly assert this.
THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.
No. Forces akin/equivalent to the same forces will be at work, but there won't be 4.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
No. There isn't.
The only force pulling Earth towards the moon is a moon "anchored" one.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
No, there isn't.
There is the force of gravity acting between the Earth and moon, where the gravity of Earth attracts the moon and the gravity of the moon attracts Earth.
There is no magic doubling of forces like you claim.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
No they don't, only your ignorant, baseless doubling of forces do.
You need to explain why there should be an Earth "anchored" force which both pulls the moon towards it, and pulls itself towards the moon.
You then need to do the equivalent for the moon.
Sure.
Very simple.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
Yes, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean both actions are "anchored" in the same spot.
The equal and opposite reaction to the force of boat x pulling boat y, is boat y pulling boat x.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.
There is the equal and opposite reaction.
That doesn't result in the magic doubling of forces you claim exists.
Raft x is pulling raft y, and at the same time is moving toward raft y.
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION FORCES.
Yes, because raft y is pulling raft x.
The opposite reaction would only be missing if you had it so raft x was pulling raft y, but raft y wasn't pulling raft x.
There are other ways of saying the same thing, for example:
"If you push an object, it pushes back."
What that means is if you apply a force F to an object, that object will in turn apply a force F back to you.
It doesn't mean that you apply a force F back to yourself.
FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y
FORCE 2: the raft x anchored force will cause raft x to be moving itself toward raft y
Same forces apply to raft y.
Nope.
Force 1: raft x pulling raft y.
Force 2: raft y pulling raft x.
There is no magic force "anchored" at raft x that is causing raft x to move towards raft y.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
Then, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE MOON TO REMAIN STILL AND BE THE SOURCE OF THE FORCE (Earth-Moon attractive gravitational model).
Again, no one is doubting that.
This is because raft y will be exerting an equal but opposite force on raft x.
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCES.
TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT X, TWO OF THEM WORK ON RAFT Y, causing both to move towards each other.
No. One works on raft y, the equal and opposite one works on raft x.
Just like when you push an object, one force is applied to the object you are pushing, the equal but opposite one applies to you.
Forget the raft problem, as it is clearly too complex for you to understand.
Start simpler.
Start with you pushing a block.
See if you can describe the forces there.
-
Your drivel amounts to nothing at all.
You wanna play games with me?
Really? I have taken the sources you provide, show evidence from those sources that your conclusions aren't supported (notice I didn't say you were wrong), asked you multiple times to not throw insults, and yet the response I get for following etiquette is more insults.
You aren't doing yourself any favours.
Are you saying my experiment is wrong? If so, then provide evidence to back up your claim. By evidence, I'm not talking about copy+pasting sources which agree with you. I could do that all day long. Show me where my experiment is wrong, or conduct your own experiment and open it up to the same scrutiny I have. If you cannot or will not do this, then we have nothing to discuss.
Are you going to reciprocate a willingness to learn? If not, then we're done here.
I'll not be replying to you anymore on this thread; we've derailed it enough.
Want to continue this discussion?
- Raise objections to the way I conducted my experiment.
- Do so in the thread provided for such.
- Demonstrate that you are willing to expand your knowledge, the way I have in my OP.
-
Take a look at yourself jack.
You have no idea what causes attractive gravity.
Not the faintest idea.
Yet, here you are mighty sure of yourself trying to debate the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.
Your arguments are a total failure jack.
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
TWO BOATS CONNECTED BY A ROPE/STRING.
Modern science describes the EARTH-MOON in exactly the same way.
Do you understand the law of action-reaction?
Yes, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean both actions are "anchored" in the same spot.
The equal and opposite reaction to the force of boat x pulling boat y, is boat y pulling boat x.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.
There is the equal and opposite reaction.
But it doesn't work like that jack.
You cannot change the "spot" of the application of the force upon each boat, as you will.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
There will be two forces acting on boat/raft x.
FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y
FORCE 2, the one you are missing out on: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)
Are you telling everybody here that you do not understand this very simple concept jack?
If boat x pulls on the rope, there will be TWO FORCES AT WORK.
Yes, he does pull boat y, but at the same time THIS VERY BOAT X WILL START MOVING TOWARD BOAT Y based on this anchored force at the very boat x.
Law of action/reaction applied to boat x.
If the boat is pulling on a very large ship, this second force IS THE ONE WHICH WILL CAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD THE SHIP.
The same thing will happen in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.
BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.
Remember this?
As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:
Now, ball = Moon
you = Earth
tension in the string = gravity
THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts, both planets will BE PULLED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
YOU ARE TOTALLY FAILING TO REGISTER THE SECOND FORCE ACTING ON BOAT X, WHICH IS MOVING IT TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE LARGE SHIP).
You are deviously trying to change THE LOCATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF ACTION/REACTION, and it doesn't work like that.
THE LAW OF ACTION/REACTION APPLIED TO THE VERY POINT OF CONTACT FOR BOTH BOAT X AND BOAT Y.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
Your bumbling analysis is catastrophic.
You are missing out on the proper/correct application of the law of action/reaction on both the boat x and the boat y.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.
There is the equal and opposite reaction.
Totally wrong.
You have described ONLY HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
Certainly boat x is pulling boat y, but at the same time boat x will start moving toward boat y based on this opposite force (action/reaction at the very same spot), the anchored force based at boat x.
The same thing happens in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.
-
Take a look at yourself jack.
How about you stop with the petty insults and try to actually defend your baseless claims?
Your arguments are a total failure jack.
Nope. They are pointing out why your arguments are pure garbage, so the total failure here is you.
Do you need to keep accusing others of being total failures to try and reassure yourself that you aren't one?
I'm going to skip the rest of your insults and your condescending BS.
Do you understand the law of action-reaction?
Yes.
Do you?
It states if you push an object, it pushes back, if you pull an object it pulls back.
It doesn't state that if you push an object, as well as it pushing back you will also push back on yourself.
It is quite simple:
A applies a force F to B.
The equal but opposite is B applying a force of -F to A.
It is not A applying a force of -F to itself. The force is equal in magnitude and in the opposite direction, but it doesn't have the relationship between A and B, either the same or opposite.
It is the opposite relationship that is required for the law of action-reaction.
So do you understand the law of action-reaction?
Yes, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. That doesn't mean both actions are "anchored" in the same spot.
The equal and opposite reaction to the force of boat x pulling boat y, is boat y pulling boat x.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.
There is the equal and opposite reaction.
But it doesn't work like that jack.
No. It does work like that.
That is how the equal but opposite reaction works.
A applies a force of F to B. B applies a force of -F to A.
You cannot change the "spot" of the application of the force upon each boat, as you will.
I don't.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
But they aren't. At least not in the dishonest representation you have.
The seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction force of A is external to A and instead internal to B.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
No, it doesn't.
It requires that the force from one body acting on the remote body is equal to the force from that remote body acting on the original.
It does not require that that force from one body acts on both the remote body and itself.
That makes no sense at all.
It is entirely attraction.
The force from one body will only cause attraction to itself. It will never cause it to move towards another body. That will only ever be the force from that body which attracting the original to it.
There will be two forces acting on boat/raft x.
FORCE 1: raft x is pulling raft y
FORCE 2, the one you are missing out on: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)
No. There wont be.
There will be a single force (just focusing on these attraction force, ignoring the water and so on).
This 1 force will be the force of raft y pulling raft x.
It is this force which causes raft x to move towards raft y.
I'm not missing any force.
The actual equal but opposite force from raft x pulling raft y towards it is the force from raft y pulling raft x towards it.
Are you telling everybody here that you do not understand this very simple concept jack?
No. I'm showing quite clearly that I understand it quite well and understand your claims about it are pure bullshit.
If boat x pulls on the rope, there will be TWO FORCES AT WORK.
Yes, the force from x pulling y towards it and the equal but opposite force from y pulling x towards y.
Yes, he does pull boat y, but at the same time THIS VERY BOAT X WILL START MOVING TOWARD BOAT Y based on this anchored force at the very boat x.
No. Not based upon the force anchored at x. The force anchored at x is only pulling y towards it.
x will start moving towards y based upon the equal and opposite reaction force, the force anchored at y pulling x towards it.
You are missing out on the proper/correct application of the law of action/reaction on both the boat x and the boat y.
No. I am applying it correctly.
x is pulling on y, so y in turn will be pulling on x.
That means the x anchored force pulling y towards x will result in a reaction force, anchored at y, pulling x towards y.
The force pulling boat x is anchored at y, the force pulling boat y is anchored at x.
There is the equal and opposite reaction.
Totally wrong.
You have described ONLY HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
No. Totally correct.
I have described all the forces involved.
There is the force from x pulling on the rope causing y to move towards it, and the reaction force which results in x moving towards y.
Certainly boat x is pulling boat y, but at the same time boat x will start moving toward boat y based on this opposite force (action/reaction at the very same spot), the anchored force based at boat x.
No. It will start moving towards boat y based upon the opposite reaction force, "anchored" at boat y which is pulling boat x towards boat y.
Are you sure you don't want to use the analogy of pushing a block? It is a lot simpler. Perhaps you can actually understand that?
-
You have no idea what causes attractive gravity. Not the faintest idea.
Which is not the slightest evidence that it is not a fact
Yet, here you are mighty sure of yourself trying to debate the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.
The only "double forces of attractive gravitation paradox" is in your mind and proves once and for all that the great all-knowing Sandohnan has not the slightest understanding of even the basic laws of physics!
Go back to the Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law)
Is that down to your level or should I hunt up a kindergarten one?
Read, learn and inwardly digest:
Your two, four (I'm sure you will add a few more next time) forces are all the same force.
<< Rubbish we've seen numerous times >>
Please go back to school!
-
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
No RE can account for the fact that boat x moves toward boat y due to TWO FORCES AT WORK:
1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X
But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.
2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?
Exactly.
It is coming from the reaction force (action/reaction pair) on BOAT X.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y.
THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)
You have to account for the two movements, the two forces acting on boat x (and, of course, on boat y) in these two examples:
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
If the boat is pulling on a very large ship, this second force IS THE ONE WHICH WILL CAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD THE SHIP.
The same thing will happen in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.
BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.
Remember this?
As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:
Now, ball = Moon
you = Earth
tension in the string = gravity
THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts, both planets will BE PULLED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
It is quite simple:
A applies a force F to B.
The equal but opposite is B applying a force of -F to A.
It is not A applying a force of -F to itself. The force is equal in magnitude and in the opposite direction, but it doesn't have the relationship between A and B, either the same or opposite.
It is the opposite relationship that is required for the law of action-reaction.
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, ITS VERY MOVEMENT TOWARD BOAT Y.
TWO FORCES AT WORK.
Boat y is pulling boat x, and at the same time the boat x anchored force will be moving/pulling boat x toward boat y.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES AT WORK, ON EACH BOAT: 2 + 2 = 4.
It requires that the force from one body acting on the remote body is equal to the force from that remote body acting on the original.
It does not require that that force from one body acts on both the remote body and itself.
That makes no sense at all.
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ONLY ON BOAT X.
Yes, you do have an action/reaction pair of forces: boat x is pulling boat y, and boat y is pulling on boat x.
BUT THESE FORCES DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOVEMENTS OF THE TWO BOATS TOWARD EACH OTHER.
At the very location of boat x, there will be formed an action/reaction pair of forces, TOTALLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE OBSERVED MOVEMENT OF BOAT X.
THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)
There is the force from x pulling on the rope causing y to move towards it, and the reaction force which results in x moving towards y.
Again, you are describing HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
How do you account for the movement of boat x toward boat y?
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
It will start moving towards boat y based upon the opposite reaction force, "anchored" at boat y which is pulling boat x towards boat y.
The movement of boat x is due to two obvious forces:
1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X
But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.
2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?
In exactly the same manner, the EARTH-MOON system will behave similarly.
BOTH PLANETS WILL HAVE TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER, JUST LIKE IN THE CASE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE TWO BOATS/RAFTS.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
By properly taking into account the forces ACTING ON THE ORIGINATING BODIES, we can justify the observed movement of boat x toward boat y.
TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
This is what will totally account for its movement.
Boat y is pulling on boat x, AND AT THE SAME TIME
The boat x anchored force is moving/pulling boat x toward boat y
This is what can be seen in reality, exactly as exemplified in the quotes provided from the classic texts on mechanics.
-
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
Wait, what?
-
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
<< deleted pages of useless garbage >>
There is no "double forces of attractive gravitation paradox" except in your deranged mind .
And repeating it does not make it any more true!
| (https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1429114964p2/9810.jpg) | .... |
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” |
― Albert Einstein
-
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
<< deleted pages of useless garbage >>
There is no "double forces of attractive gravitation paradox" except in your deranged mind .
And repeating it does not make it any more true!
| (https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1429114964p2/9810.jpg) | .... |
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” |
― Albert Einstein
Oh sorry, but I forgot to repeat my request for the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars.
And don't forget those free magnetic monopoles and they free energy machine (in good working order).
Much obliged!
Do have a nice day!
-
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:
Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.
sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.
So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.
However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.
So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.
- Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.
- rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.
So who is right?
Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.
-
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n9j62
Lol double force paradox. Sorry sandokhan but lol.
Newtons third law, no magic forces for you, or anyone else for that matter.
If you are trying to debunk Newton to fit a hypothesis your first thought should always be that you are most likely incorrect.
-
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Yet, the RE have fallen into it.
No RE can account for the fact that boat x moves toward boat y due to TWO FORCES AT WORK:
1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X
But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.
2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?
Exactly.
It is coming from the reaction force (action/reaction pair) on BOAT X.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y.
THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)
Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
If the boat is pulling on a very large ship, this second force IS THE ONE WHICH WILL CAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD THE SHIP.
The same thing will happen in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.
BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.
WE HAVE TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES AT WORK.
Boat x is pulling boat y and of course boat y is also pulling boat x. This is the first, GLOBAL (as in the area encompassed by the two boats/rafts on a lake) pair of forces (action/reaction).
The SECOND PAIR OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES will be localized right on the spot where the two boats/rafts find themselves on that lake.
Now, we can totally account for the clearly seen/observed movement of the two boats.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y.
THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)
This is the reason why Newton dismissed the FAILED/FLAWED/DISASTROUS "LAW" OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton says that YOU, ALL OF THE RE, are incompetent in the faculty of thinking (to put it nicely).
-
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
Of course he did, however that does not make his laws wrong. Not at all.
We can't explain a lot of things in QM but they happen and are repeatable.
-
But the law of universal attractive gravitation is wrong.
That is why Newton dismissed it as pure garbage.
He not only dismissed it, but thrashed it in no uncertain terms.
How can anybody believe in such a "law" having been described by its alleged founder as follows:
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton says that YOU, ALL OF THE RE, are incompetent in the faculty of thinking (to put it nicely).
-
Then why are you attacking Newton?
-
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Highlighting the wrong bit.
Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.
Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:
I don't like cats.
That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!
-
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Highlighting the wrong bit.
Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.
Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:
I don't like cats.
That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!
Cats are dumb. You can quote me on that.
-
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Highlighting the wrong bit.
Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.
Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:
I don't like cats.
That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!
Cat's are dumb. You can quote me on that.
Now I'm sad.
-
Why is it even remotely relevant what Newton thought? Back in his time, they only had a fraction of the knowledge and understanding of now.
-
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
Nope. It isn't a paradox. The only thing it demolishes is anyone thinking you understood mechanics.
No RE can account for the fact that boat x moves toward boat y due to TWO FORCES AT WORK:
That is because there is just one force at work, the force which is moving boat x towards boat y.
1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X
But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.
No, that accounts entirely for their movement. The only simplification has been ignoring other forces (like drag from the water) and the string itself.
2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS
No, we don't. That would only be the case if you want to consider it at an atomic level or include the string.
In that case, there is no force at y pulling x towards it and instead the only location of the force pulling x towards y is at x.
For example, it is the tension in the string, which is held at x, which is applying a force to x and pulling it towards y.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y
PROVE IT. STOP JUST BASELESSLY ASSERTING THIS SAME REFUTED BULLSHIT.
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?
Your imaginary force isn't coming from anywhere because it doesn't exist.
You have to account for the two movements, the two forces acting on boat x (and, of course, on boat y) in these two examples:
No I don't. That is because one of these forces acting on each boat is an imaginary force which doesn't exist in reality. Not an apparent force due to a choice of reference frame like the centrifugal force, a purely imaginary force which does not exist anywhere except in your head with no actual basis in reality.
BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.
Yes, and they do, but because of their sideways motion this results in an orbit around the barycenter.
Remember this?
Yes, I remember your condescending bullshit repetition of very basic science.
When are you planning on moving away from that and start explaining/justifying your actual claims?
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
No. It doesn't.
The moon seated force is just pulling Earth towards it. It isn't moving the moon towards Earth, that would be the equal but opposite reaction force seated on Earth.
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, ITS VERY MOVEMENT TOWARD BOAT Y.
And I did. It is the equal and opposite reaction force to boat X pulling boat Y towards it, the force of boat Y pulling boat X towards it.
Like I said, if A pulls B, B pulls A.
It isn't some magic bullshit like you claim where A pulls B with a force of F, and then A magically also moves itself with a force of -F.
That is just delusional nonsense.
Boat y is pulling boat x, and at the same time the boat x anchored force will be moving/pulling boat x toward boat y.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES AT WORK, ON EACH BOAT: 2 + 2 = 4.
You keep repeating this same bullshit, it doesn't magically make it true.
You are still just as wrong now as you were before.
YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ONLY ON BOAT X.
No. You need to account for the forces acting on boat x and boat y.
Yes, you do have an action/reaction pair of forces: boat x is pulling boat y, and boat y is pulling on boat x.
BUT THESE FORCES DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOVEMENTS OF THE TWO BOATS TOWARD EACH OTHER.
But they do.
There is a force on boat y. This force is from boat x. This force causes boat y to move towards boat x.
There is a force on boat x. This force is from boat y. This force causes boat x to move towards boat y.
These forces are equal but opposite.
So it does account for it, unless you want a more detailed treatment of the string.
At the very location of boat x, there will be formed an action/reaction pair of forces, TOTALLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE OBSERVED MOVEMENT OF BOAT X.
No, there won't be.
If that was the case then boat X will experience some force F and then experience an equal but opposite reaction force -F, meaning it would experience a net force of 0 and thus not move at all.
The only time there will be a action/reaction pair in the same spot is if you include the string and the action/reaction force occurs at the join of the string with the boat. This is then a force which is pulling boat x towards y, and pulling the string towards boat x.
Then on the other end of the string boat y is being pulled towards the string and the string is being pulled towards boat y.
This means each boat has a single force acting upon it.
The only entity here with 2 forces acting upon it is the string, where it has one force pulling it towards boat y and another pulling it towards boat x, resulting in no net force.
So still, no double forces.
There is the force from x pulling on the rope causing y to move towards it, and the reaction force which results in x moving towards y.
Again, you are describing HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
Again, I'm describing all the forces acting on the boats.
You are making up forces.
I'm getting tired of you repeating the same refuted BS again and again, repeating it several times in a single post.
-
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:
Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.
sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.
So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.
However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.
So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.
- Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.
- rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.
So who is right?
Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.
Not quite.
Rabinoz and myself are both saying basically what you said at the start:
"Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B."
sandokhan (I have no idea what that is meant to be a pun on, perhaps because I don't see where it should be split), is suggesting that as well as that you also have Object A somehow exerting a force on itself which draws it towards Object B, and Object B likewise exerts a force on itself which moves it towards Object A; which makes no sense at all.
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Highlighting the wrong bit.
Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.
Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:
I don't like cats.
That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!
Still the wrong bit (at least that is what I thought). I thought the important part was:
so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else
Which would effectively be action at a distance with nothing carrying the force, like pulling an object with a rope, but the rope not being there.
-
Cats are dumb. You can quote me on that.
Cats are so smart that they pretend to be dumb to get gullible people to wait on them hand and foot.
And you can quote me on that.
-
I did a search for quotes from Newton (not the best source, agreed)
"I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madeness of people."
"To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty & leave the rest for others that come after you."
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isaacnewto717931.html
And then I found this in the British newspaper The Independent:
"He was particularly obsessed by the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, and eventually reasoned that the influence of gravity must extend over vast distances. After seeing how apples always fall straight to the ground, he spent several years working on the mathematics showing that the force of gravity decreased as the inverse square of the distance.
But what evidence is there that Newton was really inspired by a falling apple? He left no written account suggesting this, although there were other documents suggesting that he had spoken to others about it when he was an old man.
Historians point to the one particular account written by one of Newton's younger contemporaries, an antiquarian and proto-archaeologist called William Stukeley, who also wrote the first biography of Britain's greatest scientist, entitled Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's Life.
Stukeley was also born in Lincolnshire, and used this connection to befriend the notoriously cantankerous Newton. Stukeley spent some time in conversation with the older man, and the pair met regularly as fellows of the Royal Society, and talked together. On one particular occasion in 1726, Stukeley and Newton spent the evening dining in London.
"After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden & drank thea under the shade of some apple tree; only he & myself," Stukeley wrote in the meticulously handwritten manuscript released by the Royal Society.
"Amid other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly the notion of gravitation came into his mind. Why sh[oul]d that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself; occasion'd by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood.
"Why sh[oul]d it not go sideways, or upwards? But constantly to the Earth's centre? Assuredly the reason is, that the Earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter. And the sum of the drawing power in the matter of the Earth must be in the Earth's centre, not in any side of the Earth."
-
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:
Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.
sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.
So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.
However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.
So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.
- Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.
- rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.
So who is right?
Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.
Not quite.
Rabinoz and myself are both saying basically what you said at the start:
"Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B."
sandokhan (I have no idea what that is meant to be a pun on, perhaps because I don't see where it should be split), is suggesting that as well as that you also have Object A somehow exerting a force on itself which draws it towards Object B, and Object B likewise exerts a force on itself which moves it towards Object A; which makes no sense at all.
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Highlighting the wrong bit.
Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.
Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:
I don't like cats.
That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!
Still the wrong bit (at least that is what I thought). I thought the important part was:
so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else
Which would effectively be action at a distance with nothing carrying the force, like pulling an object with a rope, but the rope not being there.
I may have been slightly mistaken, that was only my interpretation. Sorry for misconstruing your points!
And I like your correction of my highlighting. Makes far more sense!
sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.
-
jack, you don't sound convincing at all.
On the contrary.
You can no longer fool anybody here.
Boat x/raft x is pulling boat y.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Are these things clear to you?
Boat/raft x will move toward raft y, and boat/raft y will move toward boat x.
Do you understand the situation so far?
Then, you have a huge problem.
Boat x will experience TWO FORCES ACTING UPON IT.
1. Boat y is pulling of course on boat x, causing it to thrust forward.
2. But the man is also pulling on the rope, CAUSING BOAT X TO ALSO MOVE FORWARD.
TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
Both are clearly observable on that lake, as boat x moves toward boat y based on these two forces.
You have an action/reaction pair between the two boats (x and y) AND ALSO AN ACTION/REACTION PAIR AT THE VERY LOCATION OF BOAT X.
You cannot deny this.
Boat x will move toward boat y based on these TWO FORCES AT WORK.
No imaginary force at work.
On the contrary, it is clearly being observed.
Certainly there is a pair of forces action/reaction acting globally on boats x and y.
But additionally, to explain the movement of boat x toward boat y, you do need the second pair of action/reaction forces which act on boat x.
Boat x is pulled by boat y.
But, AT THE SAME TIME, the anchored boax x force (man acting on the rope itself) will be pulling boat x toward boat y.
The only entity here with 2 forces acting upon it is the string, where it has one force pulling it towards boat y and another pulling it towards boat x, resulting in no net force.
No.
There will be a second action/reaction pair of forces acting exactly on boat x, as described above.
That is how boat x will move toward boat y.
Clearly, observable action/movement.
Your description only includes HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
Please read carefully.
In exactly the same manner, the EARTH-MOON system will behave similarly.
BOTH PLANETS WILL HAVE TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER, JUST LIKE IN THE CASE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE TWO BOATS/RAFTS.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
By properly taking into account the forces ACTING ON THE ORIGINATING BODIES, we can justify the observed movement of boat x toward boat y.
TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
This is what will totally account for its movement.
Boat y is pulling on boat x, AND AT THE SAME TIME
The boat x anchored force is moving/pulling boat x toward boat y.
You cannot deny what is being actually observed in reality.
Boat x will move toward boat y based on TWO FORCES.
You included only a single pair force (action/reaction).
But on boat x you will have a SECOND PAIR FORCE, AT THE SAME TIME, the anchored boat x force (man acting on the rope itself) will be pulling boat x toward boat y.
It is as simple as this.
-
What is this "anchored force"? All the force has to be transmitted by the rope. Do you mean inertia? That doesn't move the boat.
-
I may have been slightly mistaken, that was only my interpretation. Sorry for misconstruing your points!
That's okay, no need to appologise. I assume it was just a misunderstanding.
sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.
Okay, that makes sense then and explains his picture.
Whenever I hear khan I think of Genghis Khan or Khan Noonien Singh from star trek.
Perhaps this also explains why so much of his writing is pure fiction?
-
jack, you don't sound convincing at all.
On the contrary.
You can no longer fool anybody here.
And that is just because you don't want to be convinced. Instead you want to find whatever excuses you can to pretend Earth can't be round and gravity can't be real.
But the problem is so far all you have are baseless claims, not even a decent explanation.
While I can actually explain things and properly explain the laws of motion.
I'm not fooling anyone, and I hope you aren't either, even though you are trying hard to do so.
Perhaps the even more pathetic thing is that you are trying to attack a string pulling 2 boats together to try and say gravity isn't real.
But what you are doing is effectively arguing that it is impossible for 2 boats to be pulled together with string because it results in a doubling of forces with no origin.
That is what you are doing.
You are literally arguing that it is physically impossible to bring 2 boats together with string as it results in a doubling of forces.
Do you understand that?
Don't you think that indicates your understanding might be a bit wrong?
I will skip over your condescending crap and repeated past arguments, lets see what we have:
1. Boat y is pulling of course on boat x, causing it to thrust forward.
2. But the man is also pulling on the rope, CAUSING BOAT X TO ALSO MOVE FORWARD.
Right, so this is your issue, your ignorance of how forces work and how you can simplify problems.
This is just 1 force.
Boat y isn't directly pulling on boat x.
Boat y is only pulling on the string.
I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.
The issue is that you are ignoring the string and pretending that boat y pulls directly on boat x, but then also trying to include the string and have it pull as well.
You can't do it like that.
You either treat it as the string being there, in which case boat y does not pull on boat x, only the string does, and boat y only pulls on the string, or your simplify the string out and just have it as transmitting the force, in which case boat y instead of pulling on the string, pulls directly on boat x with the force the string pulls on boat x with in reality.
In that simplified view you have 2 forces:
1 - boat x pulling on boat y.
2 - boat y pulling back on boat x.
So there is no doubling of forces.
The doubling only results in your dishonest/ignorant attempt to combine the simplified view with view which includes the rope.
Perhaps the simplest way to point out the flaws:
Where is the action/reaction pair between boat x and the rope?
Why does the force from boat x pull boat y, but the force from the string pull boat x?
Like I said, action reaction pairs are always in the form of:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.
So the correct analysis of this situation will be either the simplified form:
X applies F to Y.
Y applies -F to X.
Or the slightly more complicated form (which includes the string):
X applies F to S.
S applies -F to X.
S applies F to Y.
Y applies -S to X.
Notice how in both cases only 1 force is acting on X and only 1 force is acting on Y, and in each case, the force is part of an action/reaction pair?
(It gets far more complicated when you try to include the person as then you need to know their mass and the mass of the raft, and more so when you try to split the string into pieces).
But this is what you have:
X applies F to Y.
S applies -F to X.
Y applies -F to X.
S applies F to Y.
Notice how now only 1 is the action/reaction pair, that between X and Y.
This indicates you have a serious problem with your analysis.
You either need to remove the 2 forces which aren't action/reaction pairs (the ones involving S), or you need to change your existing action/reaction pair such that X interacts with X and Y interacts with S, instead of X and Y interacting with each other.
TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
Both are clearly observable on that lake, as boat x moves toward boat y based on these two forces.
Nope. When considering the string as an entity which is applying force, there is only 1 force acting on x, that of the string pulling the boat.
The only time boat x applies a force to boat y is when you don't consider the string, in which case it is just boat y pulling boat x.
Either way, just a single force.
You have an action/reaction pair between the two boats (x and y) AND ALSO AN ACTION/REACTION PAIR AT THE VERY LOCATION OF BOAT X.
You cannot deny this.
Yes, I can deny this as it is pure garbage.
What are your 2 action reaction pairs?
You have the action/reaction pair between the 2 boats, where boat x pulls boat y and boat y pulls boat x. But then you go and throw in another completely unpaired force where boat x is pulled towards boat y.
Certainly there is a pair of forces action/reaction acting globally on boats x and y.
But additionally, to explain the movement of boat x toward boat y, you do need the second pair of action/reaction forces which act on boat x.
No, you don't.
You either just have that "global" force between boat x and boat y, which then fully explains the movement of both boats, or you go to a local level, where that global force pair doesn't exist, and instead have just the local ones between each boat and the string.
Either way, there is no doubling of forces. Each boat has 1 force act on it.
There will be a second action/reaction pair of forces acting exactly on boat x, as described above.
Except you haven't provided 2 pairs.
Clearly, observable action/movement.
Nope. Not clearly observable. The clearly observable one is the one in which the string is involved. In this case boat x is applying no force to boat y. Instead, boat x is only applying a force to the string.
This is easily observable based upon what is happening, the person pulls the string to make the boats move together.
If you cut the string, the boats don't get pulled together.
So it is the string pulling the boats together, not some magic force between boat x and boat y.
Your description only includes HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
Again, my description includes all the forces involved, in either the simplified view or the more complex one.
Your description takes all the forces involved in the simplified view, and then adds in 2 forces from the more complex one.
You cannot deny what is being actually observed in reality.
Yet you repeatedly do, claiming magic forces are at work instead of the observed forces.
It is as simple as this.
Nope. You are completely wrong, it is as simple as that.
Depending on how you view it, there is either a single action/reaction pair between boat x and boat y, or there are 2 action/reaction pairs, one between boat x and the string and one between boat y and the string.
You are trying to combine the 2 views, taking the action/reaction pair between boat x and y from the simple view, and taking half of each reaction pair from the complex view.
It is pure garbage.
If you want to go down this path, then including an explicit treatment of the string, how does boat x pull boat y? What is the origin of this magic force claim exists?
-
jack, you don't sound convincing at all.
Have you forgotten how to read? The topic is
Distances in the universe.
And I have asked you many times what is
the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
If you haven't a clue, just say so!
Though, I guess that if you can't even read the topic title, you haven't been able to read my request.
Maybe take it to a kid in second grade, he could read it for you!
Here are a few:
When all your silly theories seem to end up with impossible chronology
and the sun and presumably the moon and planets, some 12 miles (or km or cubits or something) above the flat earth.
Yet we know that
radar return echoes from the moon take about 2.5 seconds and
radar return echoes from the moon take about 5 minutes (one measurement 295.5065 secs).
You, of course are going to tell me that your super-high-density-magical-aether is slowing light down to about 146.19 miles per hour.
So, sorry if my figures are a bit wrong, but it's impossible to find anything buried in your rubbish bin!
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
I'm still waiting for information on your supplying these magnetic monopoles, a free energy machine and also
the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
If you have no idea, just admit it.
Oh sorry, but I forgot to repeat my request for the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars.
-
jack, the proof is in the pulling.
You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.
Here is what you wrote.
I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.
WHILE BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y WITH FORCE A (LET US CALL IT A), THE FORCE EXERTED BY THE MAN IN THE SECOND BOAT Y IS NOT A AT ALL, BUT A DIFFERENT FORCE, LET US CALL IT B.
Can't you understand these simple issues?
The two men will pull with DIFFERENT FORCES.
Take a look at the classic example from mechanics.
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR MISTAKE/ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING.
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force A, applied on boat y
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -A
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force B, the man in the second boat is USING A DIFFERENT FORCE, HE HAS A DIFFERENT WEIGHT, DIFFERENT FORCE APPLIED
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force -B.
Now, we have the two pairs of action/reaction forces.
One is global: the one you mentioned.
This takes place between boat x and boat y.
GIVEN THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF THE TWO FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B, CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE ACTION/REACTION FORCES RIGHT ON THAT SPOT, AT THAT LOCATION.
Boat x is pulling boat y with force A.
Therefore, the REACTION FORCE will be the very movement/thrust forward of boat x with that force A, the applied force.
This is exactly what happens in reality, as can be clearly seen and observed.
Boat x is moving forward due to TWO FORCES: boat y is pulling on it, sure, but at the same time, THE MAN IN BOAT X IS APPLYING A FORCE A HIMSELF, WHICH CAUSES THE THRUST FORWARD.
The same thing happens at the other end.
Sure boat y will be pulling boat x with force B.
But, at the same time, that force B will cause boat y to also thrust forward, toward boat x.
Can't you understand these very simple descriptions?
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
BOAT X APPLIES FORCE A.
BOAT Y APPLIES FORCE B.
AS SIMPLE AS THIS.
Instead, boat x is only applying a force to the string.
This is easily observable based upon what is happening, the person pulls the string to make the boats move together.
Certainly boat x is applying a force A to the string. No problem.
But just take into account the movement of boat x in the direction of boat y.
DUE TO WHAT FORCES BEING APPLIED?
Certainly boat y is pulling boat x on the string/rope WITH FORCE B.
But at the same time, BOAT X, THE MAN THEREOF, IS APPLYING HIMSELF A FORCE A ON THAT STRING/ROPE.
TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, GIVEN THE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES BEING APPLIED.
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
We have the global action/reaction force, boat x does pull on boat y with force A, and boat y does pull on boat x with force B.
No problem.
BUT ALSO BOAT X IS THRUSTING FORWARD DUE TO THE VERY APPLICATION OF THE FORCE A ON THAT ROPE.
This is what is being observed in reality.
You made a terrible mistake BY ASSUMING THAT WE ONLY HAVE ONE FORCE, YOU CALLED IT FORCE X.
A grievious mistake.
We have two forces here, clearly being described in the quote from the classic text on mechanics:
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
BOAT X IS APPLYING FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS APPLYING FORCE B.
TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, TWO DIFFERENT PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, ONE GLOBAL, AND ONE LOCAL.
As simple as this.
Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.
Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts we should see both the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
As simple as this.
-
sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.
Okay, that makes sense then and explains his picture.
Whenever I hear khan I think of Genghis Khan or Khan Noonien Singh from star trek.
Perhaps this also explains why so much of his writing is pure fiction?
He is half man, half tiger, he cannot be tamed.
-
jack, the proof is in the pulling.
You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.
You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.
Here is what you wrote.
I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.
WHILE BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y WITH FORCE A (LET US CALL IT A), THE FORCE EXERTED BY THE MAN IN THE SECOND BOAT Y IS NOT A AT ALL, BUT A DIFFERENT FORCE, LET US CALL IT B.
Can't you understand these simple issues?
The two men will pull with DIFFERENT FORCES.
As simple as this:
If the two men are pulling on the same rope they must be pulling with the SAME FORCE.
I simply fail to see how it could be any other way.
End of story,but apparently you not read my introductory lesson in Newton's third law, so:
In the first diagram, the man pulls on the rope with a force of 500 N, there is a force of 500 N applied (to each end) of the scales and the rope pulls on the wall with a force of 500 N, agreed.
So, how many forces? You count them?
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a12.gif)
Now in the elephant also plus on the rope with a force the rope,
but with only this informstion can you calculate the force exerted by the elephant?
-
If the two men are pulling on the same rope they must be pulling with the SAME FORCE.
I simply fail to see how it could be any other way.
Here is the quote from a classic work on mechanics which says YOU ARE WRONG:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
THE STRING/ROPE WILL TRANSMIT TWO SEPARATE FORCES: FORCE A FROM BOAT X AND FORCE B FROM BOAT Y.
BOAT X PULLS WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B.
No mistake on my part. None whatsoever.
The classic text on mechanics agrees with me.
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
-
You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.
Nope. In each case I analyse it using my brain to show my correct understanding.
On the other hand you just repeat insane, delusional bullshit.
Here is what you wrote.
I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.
Yep, as that is a correct description of the situation.
WHILE BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y WITH FORCE A (LET US CALL IT A), THE FORCE EXERTED BY THE MAN IN THE SECOND BOAT Y IS NOT A AT ALL, BUT A DIFFERENT FORCE, LET US CALL IT B.
Can't you understand these simple issues?
I understand your delusional nonsense. I realise it is nonsense.
As you wish to appeal to the string, none of this boat x is pulling on y bullshit.
If you wish to claim Boat X is pulling on Boat Y tell us how? What is carrying this force other than the string?
If it is the string then Boat x isn't pulling on boat y, it is pulling on the string.
The two men will pull with DIFFERENT FORCES.
No. By virtue of the 3rd law of motion they are the same force (unless by different force you meant physically different, like in a different location instead of a different spot).
If it was a different force, then there would be a net force on the rope and the rope would move, which means it isn't solidly in any of their hands.
Take a look at the classic example from mechanics.
I have seen you repeat these again and again. At no point do they justify your claims.
NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR MISTAKE/ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING.
No. I haven't made one so I can't look at it.
If you like, I will take a look at my CORRECT understanding.
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
Yep, just like I thought, a completely correct understanding.
No mistake/error there.
Perhaps you can say exactly what you think is in error?
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force A, applied on boat y
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -A
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force B, the man in the second boat is USING A DIFFERENT FORCE, HE HAS A DIFFERENT WEIGHT, DIFFERENT FORCE APPLIED
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force -B.
No. He has a different weight and thus it will result in a different acceleration. The same force is applied.
The force will just cause the heavier (technically more massive) object to move less.
Now, we have the two pairs of action/reaction forces.
One is global: the one you mentioned.
This takes place between boat x and boat y.
No. It doesn't.
That force pair does not exist. Not when you consider the string and the force in the string.
It is only there in the simplified example where you ignore the string and thus it is the only action/reaction pair.
With the string there, there are 2 action/reaction pairs, one connecting the string to boat X and one connecting the string to boat y.
There is no action/reaction pair between boat x and y.
GIVEN THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF THE TWO FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B, CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE ACTION/REACTION FORCES RIGHT ON THAT SPOT, AT THAT LOCATION.
You mean given your ignorance of how these forces work which leads you to falsely conclude that they are different.
Unfortunately that is completely wrong.
However yes, you can consider there to be a separate action/reaction pair at each point, but that means no action/reaction pair between the boats.
Boat x is pulling boat y with force A.
No it isn't.
Boat x is pulling the string with force A.
Boat x doesn't pull boat y at all, the string does that.
Therefore, the REACTION FORCE will be the very movement/thrust forward of boat x with that force A, the applied force.
The reaction force will be the string pulling back on boat x with a force -A (or A if you are ignoring the direction), resulting in boat x moving towards the string.
This is exactly what happens in reality, as can be clearly seen and observed.
What can be seen in reality is that the boat is pulling on the string. It isn't pulling on the other boat, the string is doing that.
Boat x is moving forward due to TWO FORCES: boat y is pulling on it, sure, but at the same time, THE MAN IN BOAT X IS APPLYING A FORCE A HIMSELF, WHICH CAUSES THE THRUST FORWARD.
NO!!! Boat x is moving due to a single force, the string pulling on it.
The man pulling on the string is applying a force to the string, the reaction force for that is the string pulling on the boat.
Can't you understand these very simple descriptions?
I understand that they are completely wrong.
But just take into account the movement of boat x in the direction of boat y.
DUE TO WHAT FORCES BEING APPLIED?
The force of the string on boat x.
Certainly boat y is pulling boat x on the string/rope WITH FORCE B.
No it isn't.
Boat y is pulling the string. The string is pulling boat x.
You can't have it both ways. You either consider the string or your don't.
TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, GIVEN THE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES BEING APPLIED.
Yes, one action/reaction pair between the string and boat x, and one between boat y and the string.
A key thing about action/reaction pairs, they link the same object. You can't have an action/reaction pair where A pulls B and C pulls back on A.
It is always akin to A pulls B, B pulls A.
We have the global action/reaction force, boat x does pull on boat y with force A, and boat y does pull on boat x with force B.
NO! We do not. We have the local action/reaction force between each boat and the string.
There is no direct force between boat x and boat y.
Boat x pulls on the string with force A, the string then pulls on boat y with force A. The reaction forces to these is boat y pulling on the string with force -A (which you call B), and the string pulling back on boat x with force -A.
BUT ALSO BOAT X IS THRUSTING FORWARD DUE TO THE VERY APPLICATION OF THE FORCE A ON THAT ROPE.
No. It isn't.
The force applied to the rope would only move the rope, not the boat.
The force moving the boat is the reaction force to that, the string pulling on the boat, the only force acting on the boat.
This is what is being observed in reality.
Again, what is being observed in reality is the string pulling on the boat, not boat x pulling on boat y.
Boat x doesn't touch boat y.
Boat x is just pulling the string, which in turn pulls boat y.
You made a terrible mistake BY ASSUMING THAT WE ONLY HAVE ONE FORCE, YOU CALLED IT FORCE X.
No. I accurately and correctly analysed the situation.
I accurately determined that in this situation there will be 4 forces, 2 acting on the string and one acting on each boat. Each force will be equal in magnitude.
You are the one continually making mistakes.
We have two forces here, clearly being described in the quote from the classic text on mechanics:
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
No. We have have forces of the same magnitude.
We have different rates of acceleration.
As you may remember, F=ma, or to put it another way, a=F/m.
Thus for the same force, an object with a greater mass will accelerate less.
As it accelerates less, it will be moving more slowly.
So no, that still has the same force.
Force and acceleration are not the same.
BOAT X IS APPLYING FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS APPLYING FORCE B.
And A=-B.
TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, TWO DIFFERENT PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, ONE GLOBAL, AND ONE LOCAL.
And where does the local one act? Boat x or Boat y?
You seem to want to split it and have part act at boat x and part act at boat y.
That should be a dead giveaway that you are completely wrong.
You either have a single global pair acting directly between boat x and y, in a simplified view of the system; or you have 2 local pairs, each acting between the string and a boat.
It is as simple as that.
Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.
Lets deal with your ignorance of the strings before getting to more complicated systems.
-
Here is the quote from a classic work on mechanics which says YOU ARE WRONG:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
This quote doesn't prove us wrong at all.
There is no direct mention of force.
Instead it talks about velocity or speed.
You seem to be under the impression that velocity is directly linked to force.
That is only the case when you have a constant mass.
If you have 2 different masses, such as a small ship and a big ship, then the big ship requires more force to make it accelerate at the same rate and travel at the same speed.
So no, that just further shows your ignorance/mistakes.
The classic text on mechanics agrees with me.
Not in the slightest.
-
People do get a little upset when you start saying Newtons laws aren't applicable Sandokhan.
Newtons third law is pretty well established it usually holds true to forces.
As for this
Here is the quote from a classic work on mechanics which says YOU ARE WRONG:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
I think you are forgetting Newtons second law F=ma, of course the boat with less mass experiences more acceleration with the same force.
Dew the math.
(https://s29.postimg.org/b7ts78lw7/latest.png)
-
jack, you are history here.
Everyone can see the unbelievable subterfuges you are using in order to not acknowledge your mistake.
The text on classic mechanics does agree with me.
The very large ship will apply a much larger pulling force to the rope/string, than the much smaller boat.
This is what we are talking about here.
Here is what you wrote.
I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.
You have mistakenly assumed it is the same force.
It is not. Not at all.
Boat x will pull with force A.
Boat y will pull with force B.
Having realized your catastrophic knowledge of basic mechanics, you quickly switched to a new subterfuge:
He has a different weight and thus it will result in a different acceleration. The same force is applied.
The force will just cause the heavier (technically more massive) object to move less.
Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.
Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.
Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.
Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.
What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?
Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No problem.
BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS EXERTING THE FORCE A, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT X, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.
This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.
Of course, the same thing will happen with the other boat y.
Certainly boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
BUT ALSO, BOAT Y IS EXERTING THE FORCE B, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT Y, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.
That is why your "analysis" is useless.
As if this wasn't enough, you made an even more disastrous mistake.
Here it is.
NO!!! Boat x is moving due to a single force, the string pulling on it.
The man pulling on the string is applying a force to the string, the reaction force for that is the string pulling on the boat.
That rope/string will transmit two forces.
Exactly the ones described above.
Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.
Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.
Even if you bring accelerations into play, the distribution of forces will NOT CHANGE.
There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X, FORCE A, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.
BASIC MECHANICS.
BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y, FORCE B, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.
No it isn't.
Boat y is pulling the string. The string is pulling boat x.
You can't have it both ways. You either consider the string or your don't.
You are describing half of the forces.
Certainly boat y is pulling on the rope. With force B.
BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING WITH FORCE A.
There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X, FORCE A, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.
BASIC MECHANICS.
BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y, FORCE B, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.
That rope/string will transmit two forces.
Exactly the ones described above.
Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.
Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.
Boat x pulls on the string with force A, the string then pulls on boat y with force A. The reaction forces to these is boat y pulling on the string with force -A (which you call B), and the string pulling back on boat x with force -A.
See how confused you are?
I am not calling it B, IT IS ACTUALLY FORCE B.
BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B.
YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES AT WORK, THROUGH THE SAME ROPE.
And A=-B.
TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.
BOAT X PULLS WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B.
CERTAINLY NOT THE SAME.
TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, ONE ROPE.
That rope/string will transmit two forces.
Exactly the ones described above.
Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.
Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.
Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.
Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts we should see both the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
-
Newtons third law is pretty well established it usually holds true to forces.
No problem.
But it has to be applied correctly.
Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.
Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.
Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.
Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.
What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?
Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No problem.
BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS EXERTING THE FORCE A, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT X, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.
This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.
Of course, the same thing will happen with the other boat y.
Certainly boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
BUT ALSO, BOAT Y IS EXERTING THE FORCE B, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT Y, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.
-
Newtons second law though, isn't this what you are describing?
F=ma.
With the same force the smaller boat accelerates faster than the more massive boat.
We can even calculate the difference in acceleration using that simple equation, if we are willing to forget about friction for the sake of simplicity.
Lets try it.
F = m x a
So lets say we know the force and the mass.
Boat A 200kg
Boat B 500kg
And lets say we have 1000kg of force
For Boat A
1000kg = 200kg × (5)
For Boat B
1000kg = 500kg × (2)
So Boat B will accelerate at 0.4 or 2/5 the rate of Boat A.
We can see the acceleration of Boat B will always be 0.4 the rate of Boat A regardless of force, I just used simple numbers.
-
Everyone can see the unbelievable subterfuges you are using in order to not acknowledge your mistake.
Do you mean honestly and rationally analysing the situation as there was no mistake?
The text on classic mechanics does agree with me.
No it doesn't.
It states the speeds are different, not the force.
The very large ship will apply a much larger pulling force to the rope/string, than the much smaller boat.
No it wont.
It applies the same force.
As the mass of the large ship is larger, that means it will move at a slower speed.
Here is what you wrote.
I know what I wrote, the correct analysis you are yet to refute.
You have mistakenly assumed it is the same force.
Boat x will pull with force A.
Boat y will pull with force B.
And A=-B.
As such, they are the same.
Having realized your catastrophic knowledge of basic mechanics, you quickly switched to a new subterfuge:
You mean based upon my intelligence and education and being able to understand the point you are trying to make, I understood your mistake and pointed it out.
Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.
Yes, the force from each boat, which will be the same force.
Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.
Yes, and each pair will be between a single boat and the string. There is no force between the 2 boats.
Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
No. Boat x is pulling on the string with force A.
Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No. Boat y is pulling on the string with force B.
This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.
That is not a pair of action/reaction forces.
They are 2 separate action forces with their reaction forces missing.
It is only a complete pair when you ignore the string and make it a direct interaction between boat x and boat y, in which case that is the ONLY pair.
Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.
But if the above was the action/reaction pair, you already had.
Why are you trying to apply the law twice?
If you do it with the string then sure, you need to do it, and you find that as well as X pulling on the string with A, the string pulls back with A.
What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?
The only force acting on the boat is the string pulling it.
Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No. The string is pulling it, it is pulling it with a force A.
How is boat y pulling on boat x?
This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.
But to make that you have used a member of what you have already claimed is a pair.
How does one action force give rise to 2 separate reaction forces?
Of course, the same thing will happen with the other boat y.
Yes, boat y will also only be pulled by the string. It will not be pulled by boat x.
Certainly boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
Nope.
The string is pulling on boat Y with a force B in reaction to it pulling on the string with force B.
Boat x isn't pulling on boat y at all.
That is why your "analysis" is useless.
Nope. My analysis is completely correct and you are yet to point out a flaw with it. Instead you just keep repeating the same refuted BS again and again.
Tell me, HOW IS BOAT X PULLING ON BOAT Y??
As if this wasn't enough, you made an even more disastrous mistake.
You mean I pointed out your disastrous mistake, and you again try and deflect?
NO!!! Boat x is moving due to a single force, the string pulling on it.
The man pulling on the string is applying a force to the string, the reaction force for that is the string pulling on the boat.
That rope/string will transmit two forces.
The rope will exert 2 forces. One on boat x, one on boat y. This force will be equal to the tension in the rope, which is what necessitates that A and B are the same.
Boat x pulls on the string with force A and the string pulls back with force -A. Boat y is also pulling on the string with force B, and that pulls back on boat y with force -B.
Once the rope is tensioned, that tension is due to A and B and will be T=A=-B.
Exactly the ones described above.
Yes, exactly the ones I described above.
Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.
No. Boat y isn't pulling on boat x. Boat y is pulling on the string, which along with A causes the string to be tensioned.
This force you claim is boat y pulling on boat x with a force of B is the string pulling back on boat x with a force of A.
The 2 forces are the same force.
Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.
Again, those 2 are the same forces.
Boat x pulling on boat y through the string is the string pulling back on boat y with force B.
Even if you bring accelerations into play, the distribution of forces will NOT CHANGE.
That is right, which is why you were completely wrong with claiming that mechanics boot supported you.
There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
No. There is a single force, that of the string pulling on boat x with a force of -F (or -A or B).
BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.
No it isn't.
Boat y is pulling the string, not boat x.
BASIC MECHANICS.
No, basics mechanics are the 4 force pairs I described above.
Lets go to a hypothetical where boat x isn't pulling the string at all, instead it is just holding it.
Boat Y now pulls on the string with a force of F.
This causes the string to pull back on boat Y with a force of -F.
This force is carried through the string to boat X.
This results in the string pulling on boat X with a force of F.
This will also result in a reaction force, causing boat X to pull back on the string with force -F.
They are the 4 forces involved. No extra forces come into play.
Doing it your way with A and B, if the 2 were unequal, with say B being larger, then the string is being pulled more towards Y. This would result in boat X losing the string. Or, boat X needs to increase the force it is applying to the string to make it match force B.
You are describing half of the forces.
No. I am describing them all, you are trying to magic some in.
Certainly boat y is pulling on the rope. With force B.
BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING WITH FORCE A.
Yes, and that force is equal. A=-B. This causes tension in the rope.
There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
No. there is a single force, that reaction force of it pulling on the string, it is the force -A. That is all.
BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.
NO IT ISN'T.
Boat Y is pulling the string, not boat X
Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.
Again, before going to the Earth-Moon system you need to understand the string example, which you clearly don't.
-
Newtons third law is pretty well established it usually holds true to forces.
No problem.
But it has to be applied correctly.
Yes, and that is exactly what you are not doing.
You are applying it completely incorrectly.
It is always applied akin to this:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.
Instead you want this:
A applies F to B.
C applies -F to A.
B applies -F to A.
C applies F to B.
Notice how C doesn't have any force applied to it, yet it is magically applying force?
That is a direct violation of the 3rd law.
The only action/reaction pair here is A applying F to B and B applying -F to A.
This is a correct method:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.
B applies F to C.
C applies -F to B.
Now in each case, you have a reaction pair. First between A and B, and the second between B and C.
Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.
Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.
Yes, one at boat x, between boat x and the string, and one at boat y, between boat y and the string.
And they are the only pairs that will exist in this system.
Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
No. Boat x is pulling the string with force A.
Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No. Boat y is pulling the string with force B (which is equal to -A).
This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.
No. That isn't a pair.
Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.
If that was a pair the action/reaction law would already be met, and thus not need to be applied.
What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?
Just the string pulling back on X with force -A.
Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
Nope. Just the string is.
Boat y is just pulling the string.
This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.
But that isn't a pair.
That is taking one member from the above pair and trying to pair it up again.
This gives you 1 force with 2 reaction forces, a direct violation of the 3rd law.
-
(https://s3.postimg.org/nicev7c2b/eyeofthetiger.jpg)
Sorry Sandokhan this argument is just silly.
P.S Jack you take this too seriously.
-
jack, wake up!
This gives you 1 force with 2 reaction forces, a direct violation of the 3rd law.
But it does not.
WE HAVE TWO FORCES AT WORK.
No. Boat y is pulling the string with force B (which is equal to -A).
BUT IT CANNOT BE THE SAME FORCE.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE B.
They cannot be the same.
They are 2 separate action forces with their reaction forces missing.
No missing reaction forces at all.
Why are you trying to apply the law twice?
BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO FORCES AT PLAY: TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES.
And A=-B.
As such, they are the same.
They simply cannot be the same.
IF BOAT X PULLS WITH FORCE A, AND BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B, ARE THEY THE SAME FORCE? CERTAINLY NOT.
You are very confused jack.
Instead you want this:
A applies F to B.
C applies -F to A.
I want no such thing: where did force C come from?
Again, let us apply the third law to the TWO FORCES AT WORK ON THE SAME ROPE.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE STRING (AND THUS ON BOAT Y) WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE STRING (AND THUS ON BOAT X) WITH FORCE B.
So far so good.
Let us see what forces are applied at the end of the rope/string of boat x.
Certainly boat y is pulling on the string with force B.
No problem.
HOWEVER, ALSO BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X, THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS ALSO APPLYING THE FORCE A ON THE SAME ROPE.
Let us now take a look at the delusional thinking of mr. jack.
Here is what he wrote.
This force you claim is boat y pulling on boat x with a force of B is the string pulling back on boat x with a force of A.
The 2 forces are the same force.
How can two different forces be the same force?
If BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B, THEN CERTAINLY THE ROPE WILL BE PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
How confused are you jack?
How can you write something like this?
This force you claim is boat y pulling on boat x with a force of B is the string pulling back on boat x with a force of A.
THE STRING PULLING BACK ON BOAT X IS THE REACTION FORCE TO THE MAN PULLING ON THE SAME STRING WITH FORCE A.
See now where you went wrong?
FORCE B IS A SEPARATE FORCE, ACTING ON THE SAME ROPE.
THAT IS WHY THERE ARE TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES.
Lets go to a hypothetical where boat x isn't pulling the string at all, instead it is just holding it.
Boat Y now pulls on the string with a force of F.
This causes the string to pull back on boat Y with a force of -F.
This force is carried through the string to boat X.
This results in the string pulling on boat X with a force of F.
This will also result in a reaction force, causing boat X to pull back on the string with force -F.
This is a very different situation than the one we have been discussing here.
SINCE BOAT X IS NOT APPLYING THE FORCE A, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME EVENT.
In our situation, the exact analogy with the Earth-Moon system, WE HAVE TWO BOATS X AND Y, BOTH PULLING.
This gives you 1 force with 2 reaction forces, a direct violation of the 3rd law.
BUT WE HAVE TWO FORCES AT WORK: A AND B.
THEN WE HAVE TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, NO VIOLATION AT ALL.
But to make that you have used a member of what you have already claimed is a pair.
How does one action force give rise to 2 separate reaction forces?
TWO ACTION FORCES.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y, ON THE ROPE AS YOU SAY, WITH FORCE A.
AT THAT VERY INSTANT, WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION PAIR AT WORK ON BOAT X.
BOAT X IS PULLING THE ROPE WITH FORCE A, THE ROPE IS PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE ROPE, WITH FORCE B.
NOW WE HAVE SECOND ACTION/REACTION PAIR ACTING ON BOAT X AND BOAT Y THROUGH THE ROPE. THE SAME ROPE. BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B BOAT X. A SECOND FORCE ACTING THROUGH THE SAME ROPE ON BOAT X. SAME SITUATION WITH BOAT B.
This force you claim is boat y pulling on boat x with a force of B is the string pulling back on boat x with a force of A.
The 2 forces are the same force.
They cannot be the same.
If boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, how in the world is the string pulling back with force A?
The string pulling back with force A is THE REACTION FORCE TO THE ACTION OF BOAT X (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) EXERTING THE FORCE ON THE ROPE, FORCE A.
FORCE B IS A DIFFERENT FORCE.
The rope/string will be subjected to two different forces: A and B.
They cannot be the same.
That is where your confusion ensues and makes your arguments plain silly.
Certainly boat x will thrust forward BASED ON THE ACTION OF BOTH FORCES AT WORK.
Boat y is pulling on the rope, but also boat x is exerting an anchored force at boat x to also thrust forward.
This is what is being observed in reality.
No way to work around that.
-
jack, wake up!
This gives you 1 force with 2 reaction forces, a direct violation of the 3rd law.
But it does not.
WE HAVE TWO FORCES AT WORK.
No. Boat y is pulling the string with force B (which is equal to -A).
BUT IT CANNOT BE THE SAME FORCE.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE B.
Can't you see the complete impossibility of
"BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE A" and "BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE B"?
If it is the same rope it must have the same tension (force) at all points along it, so the only possibility is that FORCE = FORCE B.
And there is only one force!
Please explain how it could be any other way.
And the earth - moon system behaves in exactly the same way.
The gravitational force of the moon on the earth is the same force as the gravitational force of the earth on the moon.
It's as simple as that!
-
Newtons laws are only allowed to be violated on specific days, so far there's only one time we have accepted them being broken and been alright with it.
Otherwise, no magic forces allowed.
One rope between two boats there is one force on that rope. It doesn't matter how you try and say it or how much irrelevant information you post, one rope between the two boats has a single force.
This is so simple man.
-
If you really want to do it your way, fine, lets examine all the forces which exist:
(X - boat X, Y - boat Y, S - String)
1 - X applies A to Y.
2 - Y applies B to X.
3 - S applies -A to X.
4 - S applies -B to Y.
None of these are action/reaction pairs.
So we need to pair them up.
If X applies A to Y, then Y must apply -A to X.
If Y applies B to X, then X must apply -B to Y
If S applies -A to X, then X needs to apply A to S.
If S applies -B to Y, then Y needs to apply B to S.
Thus we have 4 more forces:
5 - Y applies -A to X.
6 - X applies -B to A.
7 - X applies A to S.
8 - Y applies B to S.
So to list all 8 forces now we have:
1 - X applies A to Y.
2 - Y applies B to X.
3 - S applies -A to X.
4 - S applies -B to Y.
5 - Y applies -A to X.
6 - X applies -B to A.
7 - X applies A to S.
8 - Y applies B to S.
Or we can express them as their action-reaction pairs:
1 - X applies A to Y.
5 - Y applies -A to X.
2 - Y applies B to X.
6 - X applies -B to A.
3 - S applies -A to X.
7 - X applies A to S.
4 - S applies -B to Y.
8 - Y applies B to S.
But this isn't really what is happening.
X isn't applying a force directly to Y.
Instead it is applying it through the string.
That means the reaction pair 1, 2 needs to be split into 2 separate reaction pairs:
1a - X applies A to S.
5a - S applies -A to X.
1b - S applies A to Y.
5b - Y applies -A to S.
Notice how 5a and 3 look quite similar?
This should be a hint that you screwed up and are double counting forces.
But lets continue, as Y applying B to X is the same:
2a - Y applies B to S.
6a - S applies -B to Y.
2b - S applies B to X.
6b - X applies -B to S.
So now we have these forces in total:
1a - X applies A to S.
5a - S applies -A to X.
1b - S applies A to Y.
5b - Y applies -A to S.
2a - Y applies B to S.
6a - S applies -B to Y.
2b - S applies B to X.
6b - X applies -B to S.
3 - S applies -A to X.
7 - X applies A to S.
4 - S applies -B to Y.
8 - Y applies B to S.
But notice how X is applying A to S (1a), and X is applying A to S (7)?
Notice how similarly, Y is applying B to S(2a) and Y is applying B to S(8)?
Notice how also the string applies -A to X (5a) and applies -A to X(3); and it also applies -B to Y(6a) and -B to Y(4)?
Notice how you have double counted each force?
Lets combine these forces into a new set, looking at just the sums (and keeping them as action reaction pairs):
11 - X applies A-B+A to S.
12 - S applies -A+B-A to X.
13 - S applies A-B-B to Y.
14 - Y applies -A+B+B to S.
Lets change the sums to be nice, having the a first, and either having the a being positive or having it all in a minus sign:
11 - X applies A+A-B to S.
12 - S applies -(A+A-B) to X.
13 - S applies (A-B-B) to Y.
14 - Y applies -(A-B-B) to S.
So X isn't really applying a force of A. Instead it is applying a force of A+A-B.
But what is this?
Well, we can consider the string.
We know it isn't moving, so its net force must be 0.
That means -(A+A-B)+(A-B-B)=0.
Expanding that we get -A-A+B+A-B-B=0
Thus -A-B=0
Thus B=-A.
Now subbing that back into our sums we get:
11 - X applies A+A+A to S.
12 - S applies -(A+A+A) to X.
13 - S applies (A+A+A) to Y.
14 - Y applies -(A+A+A) to S.
So X isn't pulling with a force of A, it is pulling with a force of A+A+A. So that is clearly a big problem for you, as you aren't adequately accounting for the force of X pulling on the string.
But lets simplify a bit by letting F=A+A+A:
11 - X applies F to S.
12 - S applies -F to X.
13 - S applies F to Y.
14 - Y applies -F to S.
Notice how that matches what I said before?
Here is why the forces get trippled, lets show the full list, but with B=-A (also just like I said before):
1a - X applies A to S.
5a - S applies -A to X.
1b - S applies A to Y.
5b - Y applies -A to S.
2a - Y applies -A to S.
6a - S applies A to Y.
2b - S applies -A to X.
6b - X applies A to S.
3 - S applies -A to X.
7 - X applies A to S.
4 - S applies A to Y.
8 - Y applies -A to S.
And now lets group the forces together:
1a - X applies A to S.
6b - X applies A to S.
7 - X applies A to S.
2b - S applies -A to X.
3 - S applies -A to X.
5a - S applies -A to X.
1b - S applies A to Y.
4 - S applies A to Y.
6a - S applies A to Y.
2a - Y applies -A to S.
5b - Y applies -A to S.
8 - Y applies -A to S.
Notice how it is just this three times:
21 - X applies A to S.
22 - S applies -A to X.
23 - S applies A to Y.
24 - Y applies -A to S.
What you are doing is counting this multiple times. That is why you are getting a "doubling of forces", and if you applied the 3rd law properly with your BS analysis, you would end up with a tripling, which would literally be counting the forces 3 times.
-
jack, your tag team partners have arrived.
But they won't be able to help you.
jack is following in the footsteps of his heroes: Kepler and Einstein.
Kepler fudged/faked his entire Nova Astronomia.
Einstein fudged his Mercury perihelion equation, and faked the 1919/1922 experiments.
jack has no problem equating FORCES A AND B.
No. Boat y is pulling the string with force B (which is equal to -A).
And A=-B.
As such, they are the same.
Yes, TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, A AND B, BECOME A SINGLE FORCE IN jack's WORLD.
Unbelievable.
1 - X applies A to Y.
2 - Y applies B to X.
3 - S applies -A to X.
4 - S applies -B to Y.
None of these are action/reaction pairs.
But they are, just as described before.
If X applies A to Y, then Y must apply -A to X.
If Y applies B to X, then X must apply -B to Y
If S applies -A to X, then X needs to apply A to S.
If S applies -B to Y, then Y needs to apply B to S.
Thus we have 4 more forces:
5 - Y applies -A to X.
6 - X applies -B to A.
7 - X applies A to S.
8 - Y applies B to S.
Completely wrong.
jack, you really think playing games with me will work?
YOU COUNTED ONE FORCE TWICE IN YOUR UNFORTUNATE EXAMPLE.
then Y must apply -A to X.
If S applies -A to X,
You need to go back to primary school to learn how to count.
Of course, this means the rest of your message is total waste of time.
-
This gives you 1 force with 2 reaction forces, a direct violation of the 3rd law.
But it does not.
But it does. You have X applying a force of A to Y, with the reaction force of Y applying -A to X (which you are claiming is Y applying B to X), and you have an extra reaction force of the string applying a force of -A to X.
If you think you aren't, state explicitly what each of the pairs are.
BUT IT CANNOT BE THE SAME FORCE.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE ROPE WITH FORCE B.
They cannot be the same.
No. Quite the opposite. Due to how mechanics work, they MUST be the same.
Based upon how tension in strings work, A=-B. There is no other way.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO FORCES AT PLAY: TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES.
But you don't have 2 action/reaction pairs.
IF BOAT X PULLS WITH FORCE A, AND BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B, ARE THEY THE SAME FORCE? CERTAINLY NOT.
Yes, they are.
Instead you want this:
A applies F to B.
C applies -F to A.
I want no such thing: where did force C come from?
C is the string.
The force in question is F.
Again, let us apply the third law to the TWO FORCES AT WORK ON THE SAME ROPE.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE STRING (AND THUS ON BOAT Y) WITH FORCE A.
BOAT Y IS PULLING ON THE STRING (AND THUS ON BOAT X) WITH FORCE B.
Sure, lets do that:
X applies A to S.
S applies A to Y.
Now we need the reaction pairs:
S applies -A to X.
Y applies -A to Y.
Thus Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -A, which you claim is B, and you claim is not -A.
There is no need to invoke a different force.
Let us see what forces are applied at the end of the rope/string of boat x.
But you don't. You ignore half the forces.
How can two different forces be the same force?
Because you are pretending they are different forces when they are not.
If BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B, THEN CERTAINLY THE ROPE WILL BE PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
And that force will be the same force that force X is pulling on the string with, i.e. -A.
This is because the only force Y applies will be that through the string, which has the reaction force of X pulling back on the string.
Thus whatever force Y pulls on the string with, X will pull back on the string with.
How can you write something like this?
Because it is true.
See now where you went wrong?
Nope. I see where you continue to assert the same nonsense.
FORCE B IS A SEPARATE FORCE, ACTING ON THE SAME ROPE.
No. Force B is -A, acting on the same rope, being the same force.
THAT IS WHY THERE ARE TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES.
No. There are 2 pairs because there are 2 boats and 2 ends of the string.
One pair occurs between boat x and the string.
Another pair occurs between boat y and the string.
Lets go to a hypothetical where boat x isn't pulling the string at all, instead it is just holding it.
Boat Y now pulls on the string with a force of F.
This causes the string to pull back on boat Y with a force of -F.
This force is carried through the string to boat X.
This results in the string pulling on boat X with a force of F.
This will also result in a reaction force, causing boat X to pull back on the string with force -F.
This is a very different situation than the one we have been discussing here.
No, it isn't.
It is the exact same situation, showing boat X and boat Y are pulling on the string with the same force.
SINCE BOAT X IS NOT APPLYING THE FORCE A, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME EVENT.
Yes we are.
I am pointing out that that force A is the same force as force B.
BUT WE HAVE TWO FORCES AT WORK: A AND B.
No, you don't.
You have the same force.
THEN WE HAVE TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, NO VIOLATION AT ALL.
But you don't.
You don't have any pairs in your delusional system.
Instead you have:
One force between X and Y.
Another force between X and Y which you are claiming is an entirely different force.
A force between X and S.
A force between Y and S.
There is no pair in there.
The only thing that could be the pair is the first 2, between X and Y, but that would require A to be equal but opposite B.
But you are adamant that it isn't the case and that A and B are different.
But that means you have no pairs.
Instead you have 4 completely unpaired forces.
BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y, ON THE ROPE AS YOU SAY, WITH FORCE A.
AT THAT VERY INSTANT, WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION PAIR AT WORK ON BOAT X.
BOAT X IS PULLING THE ROPE WITH FORCE A, THE ROPE IS PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE A.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!
Is X pulling on the rope, or is it pulling on Y?
If it is pulling on Y, then the reaction pair is Y pulling on X.
If it is pulling on the rope, then it isn't pulling on Y and thus the only force pulling on Y is the rope.
Like I said, you can't have it both ways.
If boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, how in the world is the string pulling back with force A?
Because Boat y isn't pulling on boat x.
Boat y is pulling on the string. That string then pulls on Y with a force of B.
Boat X is also pulling on the string, with a force of A, and the string is pulling on boat Y with a force of X.
That means the actual reaction pairs are:
X pulling on S with A.
S pulling back on X with B.
Y pulling on S with B.
S pulling back on Y with A.
That means A=-B.
That is the only way to make it work.
Otherwise, you get action/reaction pairs, such that (just considering X and S):
X pulling on S with A.
S pulling back on X with -A.
S pulling on X with B.
X pulling back on S with -B.
But that would mean X isn't pulling with A, it is pulling with A-B.
The string pulling back with force A is THE REACTION FORCE TO THE ACTION OF BOAT X (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) EXERTING THE FORCE ON THE ROPE, FORCE A.
And thus it isn't pulling on boat y, it is just pulling on the rope.
FORCE B IS A DIFFERENT FORCE.
Due to how tension in a string works, it is the same force.
The rope/string will be subjected to two different forces: A and B.
Sure, one force from each end, creating tension, which requires both to be the same, as the string isn't moving.
They cannot be the same.
It has to follow a relation such that A=-B
Certainly boat x will thrust forward BASED ON THE ACTION OF BOTH FORCES AT WORK.
But the only force acting on boat x is the rope pulling on it with a force of -A.
Y is pulling on the rope, not X.
Boat y is pulling on the rope, but also boat x is exerting an anchored force at boat x to also thrust forward.
Yes, boat y is pulling on the rope, not x.
The only thing pulling on x is the rope.
-
None of these are action/reaction pairs.
But they are, just as described before.
You mean as baselessly asserted before.
Action reaction pairs always follow this form:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.
This can also be expressed in the form of:
An action/reaction pair exists between A and B, where A is applying a force of F to B.
That is not what is happening in your sets.
If you think you have action reaction pairs, state explicitly what the force associated with it is, and what entities the pair acts upon.
You cannot have the action/reaction pair involving 3 entities.
Completely wrong.
No. Completely right. I am showing what the actual action/reaction pairs would be for your claimed 4 forces, as they are not action/reaction pairs.
jack, you really think playing games with me will work?
Neither of us is playing games.
You are spouting pure bullshit that anyone with a basic knowledge of how physics work could easily point out as bullshit.
I am pointing out why it is bullshit and you are just repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again.
YOU COUNTED ONE FORCE TWICE IN YOUR UNFORTUNATE EXAMPLE.
No. I pointed out that is exactly what you are doing.
You are merely doubling up your forces.
That is why you are getting this double forces of your stupidity BS, because you are counting the forces twice. Because you are treating A and B as separate forces.
I even pointed that out for you, stating quite explicitly that you are merely doubling up the forces (or tripling them).
Of course, this means the rest of your message is total waste of time.
You mean it goes into too much detail showing exactly why you are wrong and you can't think of some childish bullshit to come up with to try and pretend you are right.
-
jack, your tag team partners have arrived.
I'm not anyones "tag-team partner" it's just that you are trying to debunk Newtons laws, which people usually don't like.
-
Here is the other way to do it from your 4 forces:
The first one:
X applies A to Y.
But this isn't what is happening.
This is 2 separate forces:
1 - X applies A to S.
2 - S applies A to Y.
Similarly for your second:
3 - Y applies B to S.
4 - S applies B to X.
So the complete list of your 6 (not 4) forces are:
1 - X applies A to S.
2 - S applies A to Y.
3 - Y applies B to S.
4 - S applies B to X.
5 - S applies -A to X.
6 - S applies -B to Y.
And we can group them into action/reaction pairs:
1 - X applies A to S.
5 - S applies -A to X.
3 - Y applies B to S.
6 - S applies -B to Y.
2 - S applies A to Y.
4 - S applies B to X.
Notice how 2 and 4 aren't paired up?
You left out their pair.
The pair of 2 is 7 - Y applies -A to S.
The pair of 4 is 8 - X applies -B to A.
This now gives these forces:
1 - X applies A to S.
5 - S applies -A to X.
3 - Y applies B to S.
6 - S applies -B to Y.
2 - S applies A to Y.
7 - Y applies -A to S.
4 - S applies B to X.
8 - X applies -A to S.
This is where your double forces BS comes from.
Notice how X isn't pulling on the string with force A, but is pulling on the string with force A-B?
So no, your entire argument is wrong.
-
Or, as you are completely unable to defend your pile of crap, you try and point out what is wrong with mine:
X applies F to S.
S applies -F to X.
S applies F to Y.
Y applies -F to X.
Note this set:
X applies F to S.
S applies F to Y.
So X is applying F to Y, through S.
Similarly, Y is applying -F to X through S.
What action or reaction force am I missing?
We have X applying a force of F to Y, and we have Y applying a force of -F to X.
So no force missing there.
Each force is also paired up.
Either in the simplified view ignoring the string or in the more complex view, where the string is treated explicitly.
What is missing? What is wrong?
Don't just assert another force exists, explain what is wrong with this, as both X is pulling on Y, and Y is pulling on X, matching what is observed in reality.
-
jack, you are making big mistakes. In the few past hours, on a regular basis.
Now we need the reaction pairs:
S applies -A to X.
Y applies -A to Y.
Thus Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -A, which you claim is B, and you claim is not -A.
There is no need to invoke a different force.
FORCE B IS ADDITIONAL TO THE ACTION/REACTION PAIR YOU DESCRIBED.
ON THE SAME ROPE.
Boat x will thrust forward from the two forces applied on it: force B from boat y and the fact that the man is pulling by using force A (the anchored force in boat x).
And that force will be the same force that force X is pulling on the string with, i.e. -A.
This is because the only force Y applies will be that through the string, which has the reaction force of X pulling back on the string.
Thus whatever force Y pulls on the string with, X will pull back on the string with.
Congratulations.
You have just described HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
You keep forgetting that boat x IS ALSO APPLYING FORCE A ON THE SAME ROPE.
BOAT WILL APPLY THE PULLING FORCE B.
You keep equating FORCES A AND B to get out of your quandary.
Force B is -A, acting on the same rope, being the same force.
FORCE B IS APPLIED BY BOAT Y.
FORCE A IS APPLIED BY BOAT X.
TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.
NOT THE SAME.
There are 2 pairs because there are 2 boats and 2 ends of the string.
One pair occurs between boat x and the string.
Another pair occurs between boat y and the string.
X pulling on S with A.
S pulling back on X with B.
Y pulling on S with B.
S pulling back on Y with A.
That means A=-B.
WRONG.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
See how simple it is?
X pulling on S with A.
S pulling back on X with -A.
S pulling on X with B.
X pulling back on S with -B.
But that would mean X isn't pulling with A, it is pulling with A-B.
jack, are you trying to confuse your readers intentionally?
BOAT Y IS PULLING THE ROPE WITH FORCE B.
THE ROPE IS PULLING BACK ON BOAY WITH THE SAME FORCE B.
Try again.
But the only force acting on boat x is the rope pulling on it with a force of -A.
Y is pulling on the rope, not X.
TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: THE ANCHORED FORCE WHICH DOES THE PULLING, FORCE A, AND ADDITIONALLY THE PULLING FROM THE ROPE EXERTED BY BOAT Y, FORCE B.
The two boats on lake, linked by that same rope, will move exactly as described above: boat x, as an example, will thrust forward due to the application of these two forces.
-
jack, I really feel sorry for you: desperation time has really set in.
The pair of 2 is 7 - Y applies -A to S.
The pair of 4 is 8 - X applies -B to A.
I alreadly told you that you do not know how to count.
You have counted 7 and 8 already.
They are forces 5 and 6 from your list.
You got anymore of these?
What you are missing is this.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
See how simple it is?
-
Now, since this thread is actually about the distances in the universe, here is the Sirius-Earth distance in terms of the acceleration of the rate of axial precession:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032
-
Wtf is a grounded glass screen?
Nobody grounds isolators!
Sandy, you are mad as a march hare!
-
jack, you are making big mistakes. In the few past hours, on a regular basis.
No. I am correcting your mistakes.
Big Difference.
FORCE B IS ADDITIONAL TO THE ACTION/REACTION PAIR YOU DESCRIBED.
No, it isn't.
You stated that force B is what Y is pulling on the rope with, but by using the above, we see that Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -A.
Thus -A=B.
No need for any extra BS like you want to invoke.
Boat x will thrust forward from the two forces applied on it: force B from boat y
But there is no force from boat y. There is just the force from the rope.
Congratulations.
You have just described HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
No. I have described all the forces involved. You just want to double them.
You keep equating FORCES A AND B to get out of your quandary.
No. I keep equating them because that is what reality shows.
Force B is -A, acting on the same rope, being the same force.
FORCE B IS APPLIED BY BOAT Y.
FORCE A IS APPLIED BY BOAT X.
Yes, both applied to the rope, to create tension in the rope, which based upon the laws of mechanics necessitates that they are equal and opposite.
If you have a rope under tension T, then that means one side is applying a force of T and the other side is applying a force of -T.
That is the only way to have a rope under tension. If the forces are not equal, then the rope moves.
What that means is that A=-B.
TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.
NOT THE SAME.
You keep asserting that, but other than with that baseless assertion, you can't explain it at all, especially after I showed that if you do try and treat them separately, then boat X is pulling on the rope with more than force A, even though you claim that it is pulling with force A. That makes no sense at all.
You are literally trying to say that pulling on object with a rope is physically impossible.
You are denying physical reality and the personal observations of billions of people.
You aren't saying that there understanding is wrong, you are saying that what they are doing or observing is physically impossible.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
See how simple it is?
Not simple at all. You are saying it in an intentionally confusing way to obscure what is happening.
You have also doubled it.
Notice how you have this:
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B.
Why did you say it twice in a slightly different way?
Why not do it the more simple way of saying it to make it more obvious that you are literally counting the force twice, like this:
Y pulls S with B.
S pulls back with -B.
Y pulls S with B.
S pulls back with -B.
Or are you trying to be intentionally vague and not stating what boat Y is pulling to pretend it is pulling X instead of the string? (I know this sentence is ambiguous, but it works either way, is it the string pulling X, or is Y pulling the string? BOTH).
jack, are you trying to confuse your readers intentionally?
No. I'm pointing out the problem with what you are saying.
BOAT Y IS PULLING THE ROPE WITH FORCE B.
THE ROPE IS PULLING BACK ON BOAY WITH THE SAME FORCE B.
So does this force apply to boat X or not?
If it does, this requires the string (the only thing linking the boats) to be pulling on X with a force of B, but this then requires X to pull back on the string with -B.
This means boat X must pull on the string with a force of A-B, not A like you claim.
The two boats on lake, linked by that same rope, will move exactly as described above: boat x, as an example, will thrust forward due to the application of these two forces.
No. They will move as I described, based upon the single force/pair between the rope and each individual boat.
Boat X will be moved by the force -F (or -A=B) that the string is exerting on it, with the other member of the pair being it applying F (or A or -B) to the rope.
jack, I really feel sorry for you: desperation time has really set in.
The pair of 2 is 7 - Y applies -A to S.
The pair of 4 is 8 - X applies -B to A.
I alreadly told you that you do not know how to count.
You have counted 7 and 8 already.
They are forces 5 and 6 from your list.
Do you not understand? That is exactly the point.
You are counting things multiple times.
This is what gives rise to your doubling of forces. You are counting them multiple times. I am showing that you are.
So no, I know how to count. I am pointing out that you don't.
What you are missing is this.
I'm not missing anything.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
See how simple it is?
Again, you are saying it in an intentionally confusing way.
You have literally stated basically the same thing twice.
Each time is basically this: (but the second time you said the last 2 first, and you always leave out what it applies to).
X applies A to S.
S applies -A to X.
Y applies B to S.
S applies -B to Y.
Notice how you aren't having X applying A to Y, or Y applying B to X?
Notice how now the string experiences a net force of A+B?
But in order for the string to not move you need that net force to be 0?
i.e. A+B=0, thus B=-A?
Thus your 4 forces become:
X applies A to S.
S applies -A to X.
Y applies -A to S.
S applies A to Y.
Just like what I said they were? (Except I used F, not A).
Now, since this thread is actually about the distances in the universe, here is the Sirius-Earth distance in terms of the acceleration of the rate of axial precession:
This issue is also about gravity.
While Rabinox wants you to do this, I would rather we finish with your total ignorance of forces first.
-
Now then, how about you try stating your action-reaction pairs explicitly.
Do this in one of 3 ways, like I have done, e.g:
X applies A to S
S applies -A to X
or:
X pulls on S with A.
S pulls back on X with -A.
Or stating what the pair is between and the force, e.g.:
an action-reaction pair exists between X and S such that X applies A to S.
Can you do that? Make a simple list showing all forces involved?
-
Now, since this thread is actually about the distances in the universe.
Yes, "this thread is actually about the distances in the universe" so will you finally tell me the
Distances to the sun, moon, planets and stars.
That seems completely relevant and on-topic,
but if you don't know just tells us, instead of hiding behind a wall of no comment.
-
Now then, how about you try stating your action-reaction pairs explicitly.
Do this in one of 3 ways, like I have done, e.g:
X applies A to S
S applies -A to X
or:
X pulls on S with A.
S pulls back on X with -A.
Or stating what the pair is between and the force, e.g.:
an action-reaction pair exists between X and S such that X applies A to S.
Can you do that? Make a simple list showing all forces involved?
FBD is best.
-
jack, your messages have turned into an alphabet soup.
You have already used about half of the letters there.
It won't help you.
You still do not understand that the simple experiment with the two boats linked by a rope WILL PRODUCE TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED TO BALANCE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
The same thing will happen in the Earth-Moon system: not only would these planets start to move toward each other, exactly as in the two boats example, but also we would again have twice the force needed to balance the orbital forces.
No. I have described all the forces involved. You just want to double them.
It is not that I want to do so, THEY WILL DOUBLE: the two boats system will produce TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED TO BALANCE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
You stated that force B is what Y is pulling on the rope with, but by using the above, we see that Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -A.
Thus -A=B.
Is this how you try to justify in your mind the obvious defiance of Newtonian mechanics observed here?
Please read again.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
THE FORCES BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSERTIONS.
Having tried the trick with the accelerations (which you dropped pretty quickly having realized that it won't work with me), now you are trying a new one: the total forces on the rope itself.
But it won't work either.
Yes, both applied to the rope, to create tension in the rope, which based upon the laws of mechanics necessitates that they are equal and opposite.
If you have a rope under tension T, then that means one side is applying a force of T and the other side is applying a force of -T.
That is the only way to have a rope under tension. If the forces are not equal, then the rope moves.
What that means is that A=-B.
You still don't get it.
YOU WILL HAVE TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED, WHICH DO BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY.
If it does, this requires the string (the only thing linking the boats) to be pulling on X with a force of B, but this then requires X to pull back on the string with -B.
This means boat X must pull on the string with a force of A-B, not A like you claim.
You are still very confused.
Please read again.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
The forces balance out perfectly.
You are counting things multiple times.
But this is exactly what is happening in reality: there will be TWICE the forces needed to justify Newtonian mechanics.
That is why it is called the double forces of gravitational attraction paradox.
Here are all the action-reaction pairs explicitly:
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
You still do not understand that the simple experiment with the two boats linked by a rope WILL PRODUCE TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED TO BALANCE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
The same thing will happen in the Earth-Moon system: not only would these planets start to move toward each other, exactly as in the two boats example, but also we would again have twice the force needed to balance the orbital forces.
-
jack, your messages have turned into an alphabet soup.
You have already used about half of the letters there.
It won't help you.
You still do not understand that the simple experiment with the two boats linked by a rope WILL PRODUCE TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED TO BALANCE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
The same thing will happen in the Earth-Moon system: not only would these planets start to move toward each other, exactly as in the two boats example, but also we would again have twice the force needed to balance the orbital forces.
Incorrect! Here's something simpler.
(http://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2F92f%2F92f72521-8c41-417e-b054-ee6aa957dbb1%2FphpPq0Jih.png)
As requested in the diagram, please calculate the tension in each rope and in addition the force each weight applies to the respective rope.
I wlli give you next text in my next post, be be warned it might contain some equations and numbers.
-
Since weight is a measurement of force haven't you already given the answer?
It's w.
-
Since weight is a measurement of force haven't you already given the answer?
It's w.
Don't confuse poor Sandokhan. He'll go through pages and get 2 x n x wge Newtons, where 1 ≤ n ≤ 3, or something.
-
rabinoz... do you really think that tricks like this are going to work with me?
Your problem was taken from the pages of University Physics with Modern Physics (Young and Freedman).
IT IS NOT THE SAME PROBLEM.
It adds the weight of objects to the situation.
The two boats connected by a rope is much simpler by comparison.
You are going to have explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox based on that situation.
And obviously you cannot.
-
rabinoz... do you really think that tricks like this are going to work with me?
Your problem was taken from the pages of University Physics with Modern Physics (Young and Freedman).
So?IT IS NOT THE SAME PROBLEM.
It adds the weight of objects to the situation.
So? What is the difference between a force applied be a weight and the force applied by a boat?The two boats connected by a rope is much simpler by comparison.
You are going to have explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox based on that situation.
And obviously you cannot.
I agree that I cannot explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox based on that situation
because there is no double forces of attractive gravitation paradox!
OK, do you prefer a man, a wall and an elephant?
In the first diagram.
What force is the man allying to the rope,
what tension is in the left part of the rope
what tension is in the right part of the rope and
what force is the rope applying to the wall?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZsSocfbPbxvSwY9qIaz5H7aszPOpVoEKwW-1vTT7-Q3nheKXqOA)
In the second diagram.
What force is the man allying to the rope,
what tension is in the left part of the rope,
what tension is in the right part of the rope and
what force is the elephant applying to the rope?
Maybe after you struggle to understand "a man, a wall and an elephant" we might progress to little boats .
-
I'm just going to skip all your pathetic insults and repetitions, except where you are lying about yourself as well
You still do not understand that the simple experiment with the two boats linked by a rope WILL PRODUCE TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED TO BALANCE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
I understand it quite well. You are yet to show any problem with my understanding.
The same thing will happen in the Earth-Moon system: not only would these planets start to move toward each other, exactly as in the two boats example, but also we would again have twice the force needed to balance the orbital forces.
Yes, the same thing will happen, you will blatantly lie about what the forces are to pretend there is a doubling.
They accelerate towards each other. That is what an orbit is.
In reality, we would have the single force, as predicted by an accurate, honest analysis rather than you BS.
It is not that I want to do so, THEY WILL DOUBLE: the two boats system will produce TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED TO BALANCE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
No, they won't.
Is this how you try to justify in your mind the obvious defiance of Newtonian mechanics observed here?
No. This is how I justify the Newtonian mechanics which is happening which you have no honest refutation of.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
Why repeat the pairs?
Why say it in such a vague way?
Do you accept that the pairs you are stating is this:
X applies A to S.
S applies -A to X as a reaction.
Y applies B to S.
S applies -B to Y as a reaction?
If not, state clearly what each pair is, what entities they act upon and what force it is, akin to the several examples I provided.
THE FORCES BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSERTIONS.
No. They only balance if my conclusion is correct.
The net force on the string is A+B.
In reality, the net force is 0. It isn't moving. That only works if A+B=0, i.e. A=-B.
If that isn't the case, then tell me what you think the net force is on the string, and why, stating each contribution to it using only the forces you claim exist from your action/reaction pairs.
Also note in the list you gave, the only force acting on X is the string pulling back on it. There is no force from Y pulling on X.
Having tried the trick with the accelerations (which you dropped pretty quickly having realized that it won't work with me), now you are trying a new one: the total forces on the rope itself.
You mean having shown why you were completely wrong with BS claims about that mechanics text, I know proceed to show you another way how you are completely wrong?
But it won't work either.
It sure does seem like that. The truth never seems to work on you. You just keep on repeating the same bullshit.
What is the problem?
Are you too stupid or ignorant to understand, or do you just not give a damn about the truth?
You still don't get it.
YOU WILL HAVE TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED, WHICH DO BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY.
No. I get it perfectly. You do not have twice the force needed. It balances because A=-B.
You are still very confused.
Please read again.
How about instead of insulting me and repeating the same refuted BS you actually try and justify your bullshit or point out what is actually wrong with what I am saying, rather than just baselessly asserting it?
But this is exactly what is happening in reality: there will be TWICE the forces needed to justify Newtonian mechanics.
That is why it is called the double forces of gravitational attraction paradox.
No. That isn't what is happening in reality. In reality, there is just a single force.
It seems to just be you with your delusional analysis that thinks there will be a doubling. That is why it isn't a paradox.
Here are all the action-reaction pairs explicitly:
And rather than state them explicitly, you just copy and paste the same refuted BS.
Try again.
Present them like I asked, with 2 entities in the set. Separating each set by a line, and if you want by presenting the action/reaction pair on 2 lines; stating the force in each.
Not this combined bullshit where you are stating basically the same thing twice, and what you say matches what you are objecting to.
IT IS NOT THE SAME PROBLEM.
It adds the weight of objects to the situation.
It is effectively the same problem, except instead of the 2 objects accelerating towards one another, the force is used to overcome gravity.
But you still have the same tension on the rope and so on.
The two boats connected by a rope is much simpler by comparison.
Yet it seems too complex for you. Perhaps we should start with something simpler, like just pulling on a rope with nothing attached.
You are going to have explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox based on that situation.
And obviously you cannot.
We have. We showed why you were completely wrong and you are yet to refute it. All you can do is repeat the same childish garbage.
-
Now, as you don't seem to be able to understand it, fill in the blanks below (copying it as many times as necessary) to show all your action/reaction pairs (I'll even be nice and set it up as pulling so you can undestand):
_ pulls on _ with force _
_ pulls back on _ with force _
As an example:
X pulls on S with force A
S pulls back on X with force -A
Do you think you can do that?
Or do I need to find some way to make it even simpler?
-
They accelerate towards each other. That is what an orbit is.
You still don't get it.
Just like in the two boats pulling on a rope example, both the Earth and the Moon SHOULD START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, VISIBLY.
But under the RE scenario, no such thing is allowed to happen.
This alone shows the fallacies of orbital mechanics based on an incorrect application of the third law.
It doesn't get any simpler than this (your alphabet soup is useless).
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
Extremely simple to understand.
TOTAL, PERFECT BALANCE.
A FULFILLMENT OF THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED.
No. They only balance if my conclusion is correct.
The net force on the string is A+B.
In reality, the net force is 0. It isn't moving. That only works if A+B=0, i.e. A=-B.
If that isn't the case, then tell me what you think the net force is on the string, and why, stating each contribution to it using only the forces you claim exist from your action/reaction pairs.
Also note in the list you gave, the only force acting on X is the string pulling back on it. There is no force from Y pulling on X.
You still don't seem to understand that all the forces balance out completely and perfectly in the correct model, WHICH DOES FEATURE TWICE THE FORCES OF YOUR MODEL, JUST AS IT SHOULD.
Perhaps now you will understand.
Please read carefully.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
A total debunking of your comments.
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
Boat X will move towards boat Y based on the application of these TWO FORCES.
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
Extremely simple to understand.
-
They accelerate towards each other. That is what an orbit is.
You still don't get it.
Just like in the two boats pulling on a rope example, both the Earth and the Moon SHOULD START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, VISIBLY.
But under the RE scenario, no such thing is allowed to happen.
This alone shows the fallacies of orbital mechanics based on an incorrect application of the third law.
It doesn't get any simpler than this (your alphabet soup is useless).
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
Extremely simple to understand.
TOTAL, PERFECT BALANCE.
A FULFILLMENT OF THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED.
No. They only balance if my conclusion is correct.
The net force on the string is A+B.
In reality, the net force is 0. It isn't moving. That only works if A+B=0, i.e. A=-B.
If that isn't the case, then tell me what you think the net force is on the string, and why, stating each contribution to it using only the forces you claim exist from your action/reaction pairs.
Also note in the list you gave, the only force acting on X is the string pulling back on it. There is no force from Y pulling on X.
You still don't seem to understand that all the forces balance out completely and perfectly in the correct model, WHICH DOES FEATURE TWICE THE FORCES OF YOUR MODEL, JUST AS IT SHOULD.
Perhaps now you will understand.
Please read carefully.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
A total debunking of your comments.
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
Boat X will move towards boat Y based on the application of these TWO FORCES.
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
Extremely simple to understand.
This is also easy to understand....the earth is a sphere, you can forget about arguing about boats...
http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/
-
Pretty cool! No need for any FE projections here...
http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/
What I wonder is why do people skate around this and get involved in long tedious arguments when the answer is here. I know many of you will hate this but the truth is the truth no matter how much you scream hoax and foul.
-
They accelerate towards each other. That is what an orbit is.
You still don't get it.
Just like in the two boats pulling on a rope example, both the Earth and the Moon SHOULD START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, VISIBLY.
Please explain why
the Earth and the Moon SHOULD START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, VISIBLY.
When all the force does is provide the centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.
Easy.
-
Just like in the two boats pulling on a rope example, both the Earth and the Moon SHOULD START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, VISIBLY.
Lets get your ignorance of the boats and ropes out of the way before going into something more complex.
It doesn't get any simpler than this (your alphabet soup is useless).
It isn't soup, it is simply explaining what is happening in a nice simple way. It can't get much simpler than that.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Do it like I asked, don't just repeat the same crap.
If you can't put it in the format I asked for it shows you do not understand what you are saying, or what I am saying, so can't actually object to it.
If you like, you can be more explicit, e.g. rahter than X, say boat X. Rather than S say the string.
e.g.:
Boat X pulls on the string with force A.
The string pulls back on boat X with force -A.
Can you express your action/reaction pairs in a form like that?
If you can't it shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Separate them clearly into their pairs, don't try adding a bunch together.
For each pair, clearly indicate what the entities are and what the force is.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
This is not a pair.
You also don't make it clear what is happening in one key part.
What is BOAT Y pulling on here with force B? Is it pulling on boat X or the string?
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
That is basically the same as what you said before. Why repeat it?
TOTAL, PERFECT BALANCE.
Yes, perfect balance when A=-B, resulting in no net force on the string, with each boat only applying a force to the string and the string being all that applies the force to the boats.
A FULFILLMENT OF THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED.
No, just the force needed, no doubling at all.
You still don't seem to understand that all the forces balance out completely and perfectly in the correct model, WHICH DOES FEATURE TWICE THE FORCES OF YOUR MODEL, JUST AS IT SHOULD.
No, the correct model features the same forces of my model, as my model is the correct one.
Your completely unbalanced model does not work, and instead completely violates the laws of motion.
Perhaps now you will understand.
I already understood, long before you started spouting your nonsense to me.
A total debunking of your comments.
Repeating the same refuted bullshit, especially when you are completely unable to clearly indicate what each pair is, does not debunk me at all.
Boat X will move towards boat Y based on the application of these TWO FORCES.
But if it is balanced, only one force is acting on boat X, that of the string.
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
But the only force between boat X and the string is the reaction force of boat X pulling on the string. So no, there aren't those 2 forces, just one, the reaction force.
Extremely simple to understand.
Yes, your mistake is quite easy to understand and point out. Why can't you understand it?
-
Please explain why
the Earth and the Moon SHOULD START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, VISIBLY.
Sure.
The analogy between the two boats on a lake pulled by a rope and the Earth-Moon system is perfect.
In fact, here is modern science explaning this system:
Gravity is a force.
Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.
That makes gravity the centripetal force.
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)
Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583
Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
Then, just like in the example with the two boats, we should see VISIBLY the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.
It is that simple.
Precise calculations here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400
-
You have already used half of the letters of the English alphabet.
Totally useless.
You are unable to explain a very simple situation.
Two boats on a lake, connected by a rope, which is being pulled.
Boat x will move toward boat y based on TWO FORCES.
What is BOAT Y pulling on here with force B? Is it pulling on boat X or the string?
A very deep question.
It is pulling both.
No, just the force needed, no doubling at all.
BUT THERE ARE TWO FORCES INVOLVED.
DOUBLE THE FORCES OF THE WRONG APPLICATION OF THE THIRD LAW.
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
Extremely simple to understand.
But if it is balanced, only one force is acting on boat X, that of the string.
See how deviously you are trying to deceive your readers?
Here is how the two pairs work out.
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.
Extremely simple to understand.
TOTAL, PERFECT BALANCE.
A FULFILLMENT OF THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED.
Boat X will move toward boat Y exactly due to these two forces, exactly what we would see in real life situation.
-
You have already used half of the letters of the English alphabet.
Totally useless.
Your equation = Totally useless.
A lot of letters
Totally useless = RHS QED
-
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
If "Boat x is pulling on the string with force A" the tension in the rope is "force A". It can't be anything else.
Boat y is pulling on the string with force B.
But the tension on the rope must be the same along the whole length of the rope, so the tension on the rope is "force A".
So "force B" must be the same as "force B".
Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force B. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat x with force A.[/size]
No, they are all the same force. It is so simple to understand.
Extremely simple to understand.
TOTAL, PERFECT BALANCE.
A FULFILLMENT OF THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED.
Boat X will move toward boat Y exactly due to these two forces, exactly what we would see in real life situation.
Both boats will move toward each other, pulled by the one force, "force A",
They are all the same force and equal to "force A". End of story.
There is no "DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX".
Sometimes I think that there is a conceptual problem in understanding Newton''s Third Law.
This leads some people to think the the action force and reaction force are separate forces.
Every force can be looked on as "having two ends".
You can call the ends action and reaction but they are just the two ends of the same force.
Gravitational attraction is always between a pair of masses.
The force the earth exerts on the moon is just one "end" of the gravitational attraction of the earth-moon pair of masse's and
the force the moon exerts on the earth is the other one "end" of the same force.
There is another way of looking at (Newtonisn) gravitation and that is in terms of gravitational fields.
This can be convenient if one object is so large that its gravitation dominates over others in its neighbourhood.
The earth-moon pair do not quite fulfil this with the earth being about 81 times more massive than the moon, but it's still a useful approximation.
-
The analogy between the two boats on a lake pulled by a rope and the Earth-Moon system is perfect.
No it isn't, because you start with the boats stationary. In the Earth-moon system, they are moving sideways as well.
But like I said, lets wait until you understand the boats and string.
You are unable to explain a very simple situation.
No. I explained it quite simply, stating what forces are involved.
You repeatedly assert that there are more, but are unable to explain it in any simple honest way.
Boat x will move toward boat y based on TWO FORCES.
Then state what all the action/reaction pairs are. You seem to be completely incapable of doing that in any way that backs up your insane claims.
What is BOAT Y pulling on here with force B? Is it pulling on boat X or the string?
A very deep question.
It is pulling both.
No it isn't.
Not in reality and not in any action/reaction pair.
Either boat Y is directly pulling on boat X, or boat Y is pulling on the string and the string is pulling on boat X.
You can't have it both ways, and that is the cause of your problem. You try to have it both ways, which results in your double counting.
Like I said, list all the action/reaction pairs, or admit you can't.
Here is how the two pairs work out.
And yet again, you fail to provide it in any meaningful way which clearly identifies each action/reaction pair, the entities the pair acts upon and the force involved.
Why is that? Are you incapable of doing so, or do you realise that doing so would your show your mistakes to the world?
A FULFILLMENT OF THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED.
Yes, because you are counting them twice, not because they exist twice in reality.
-
Now then, are you going to provide a list of the action/reaction pairs involved like I have done to accurately and honestly analyse the situation, or are you going to continue your dishonest BS?
Or do you just not understand how I have said it and you want me to spell it out with more words?
-
Here is the way with more words, formatted like you have (but with the missing details. I will even highlight them in red for you):
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force -B.
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Thus they can be rewritten as:
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
And there we have it, 4 forces, 2 action/reaction pairs, and all perfectly balanced, all without any BS doubling of forces.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Can you point out anything wrong with that?
-
Considering that Sandy is a proud ignorant in physics, why do you try to discuss with him?
It's a waste of time! The poor Sandy is totally loony...
-
Can you point out anything wrong with that?
Sure.
You shouldn't have posted it in the first place.
Just take a look at what you had the audacity to write.
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
A terrible blunder: you have just described HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED ON THE TWO BOATS X AND Y.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT Y (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT X (FORCE A).
How in the world can you make such silly mistakes?
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
TWO FORCES ACTING RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
DOUBLE THE FORCES NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX.
All you have done is to show your utter misunderstanding of the example.
The rest of your poorly written message amounts to nothing really.
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/4SZxcPTtlGAZa/200w.webp#1-grid3)
-
Can you point out anything wrong with that?
Sure.
You shouldn't have posted it in the first place.
So just insults, no problem at all.
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
A terrible blunder: you have just described HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED ON THE TWO BOATS X AND Y.
If you think that is the case then point out exactly what you think each action/reaction pair is, as from what I can tell, that matches what you are saying.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
But you don't say boat Y is pulling X with force B. You say it is pulling the string.
See, this is why I have told you to list your action/reaction pairs.
It gets rid of this childish nonsense.
Tell me exactly what your action/reaction pairs are, including what entities they are acting between and what force is involved.
Not this vague crap.
How in the world can you make such silly mistakes?
I come to the correct answer by honestly and rationally analysing the situation.
You just throw reason and sanity out the window and can't even honestly respond to a simple request.
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
Again, list the action/reaction pairs.
TWO FORCES ACTING RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
So how many forces in total? 2? 4? 8? 12?
DOUBLE THE FORCES NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
Yes, because you are counting them twice.
THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED THE DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX.
Except as it is just based upon your ignorance/dishonesty it is only a problem in your mind, not reality.
All you have done is to show your utter misunderstanding of the example.
No. You have repeatedly lied about the example to pretend there is a doubling of forces. You are yet to justify that baseless, bullshit claim.
You can't even simply list the action/reaction pairs.
The rest of your poorly written message amounts to nothing really.
i.e. you can't refute it, even with childish bullshit so you just insult me and pretend that's fine.
-
Now, for once in your life can you do what has been asked of you?
Provide the action/reaction pairs in an explicit form where you clearly highlight what the 2 entities are in each case and what force is between each, separating each pair with a line break at lest.
For example (key parts highlighted in red):
Boat x is pulling on the rope with force A.
Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
Notice how each time I am specifying the 2 entities and the force?
This is in contrast to your one:
Boat x is pulling on the string with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back with force A. AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
You seem to be presenting this as a single action/reaction pair, even though 4 forces are involved.
To make it worse, you have this part:
BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force B.
You don't sate what boat Y is pulling. This is so you can pretend it is x instead of the rope.
-
Sorry i don't want to derail the topic i started, but i want to chime in.
Globers seem to have accepted that the cosmos as proposed in the current hypothetical model is extremely vast.
The speed of light seems extremely slow for interstellar spacetravel in the current model.
I am curious though, setting all the startrek ''inventions'' to take hypothetical shortcuts aside, is there anyone of you that could possibly beieve aliens from another part of the gallaxy could somehow have develloped hyper technical means to visit earth ?
I ask this, because we can establish beforehand if any claim could ever meet the criteria we have set for the boundaries of ''organic'' spacetravel.
I know they will claim ''life'' elsewhere in the universe at some point in the near future, but is there anything rational that could explain the possibilities of aliens actually visiting us from a far away place ?
-
Here, I will even be nice and get you started, so all you need to do is fill in the blank, and again, highlighted (and with the string/rope convention corrected so each time it says rope, and correcting the sign of the forces due to the reaction being equal BUT OPPOSITE), and removing the unneccesary "AT THE SAME TIME" part, and changing things from caps to lower sentence case and removing the "on" and "back" to make it consistent, and to make the action/reaction pair consistent, removing the "Reaction" label, and yes, there is a reason for each, every difference you make is to try and make the action/reaction pairs that you are counting twice look difference.):
Boat x is pulling the rope with force A.
The rope is pulling ____________ with force A.
Boat y is pulling ____________ with force B.
The rope is pulling boat y with force -B.
Boat y is pulling the rope with force B.
The rope is pulling ____________ with force -B.
Boat x is pulling ____________ with force A.
The rope is pulling boat x with force -A.
Do you notice how in 4 of the cases (one for each pair) you have left an entity out? That is so you can pretend these are different forces, be vague about what they are acting upon and thus double them.
A rational person could fill it the blank based upon how action/reaction pairs work. But you object to that.
For example, with your first pair, as the action is boat x pulling on the rope, the reaction will be the rope pulling on boat x.
Similarly, for the last one, as the reaction is the rope pulling on boat x, the action will be boat x pulling on the rope.
But now lets compare the first and last pair:
Boat x is pulling the rope with force A.
The rope is pulling boat x with force A.
Boat x is pulling the rope with force A.
The rope is pulling boat x with force -A.
Notice how they look quite similar?
That is because when you remove all the crap you put in there to make them superficially appear different and you explicitly state what the entities involved are, they are identical.
So yes, you have counted twice.
The same applies to the second and 3rd cases, they are the same pair.
So the 2 pairs you actually have, with the blanks filled in like a rational person would become:
Boat x is pulling the rope with force A.
The rope is pulling boat x with force A.
Boat y is pulling the rope with force B.
The rope is pulling boat y with force -B.
Just like what I said.
But you object to that.
So how about you state exactly what the action reaction pairs are?
All you need to do is fill in the blanks from this:
[color=red]Boat x[/color] is pulling [color=red]the rope[/color] with [color=red]force A[/color].
[color=red]The rope[/color] is pulling [color=red]____________[/color] with [color=red]force A[/color].
[color=red]Boat y[/color] is pulling [color=red]____________[/color] with [color=red]force B[/color].
[color=red]The rope[/color] is pulling [color=red]boat y[/color] with [color=red]force -B[/color].
[color=red]Boat y[/color] is pulling [color=red]the rope[/color] with [color=red]force B[/color].
[color=red]The rope[/color] is pulling [color=red]____________[/color] with [color=red]force -B[/color].
[color=red]Boat x[/color] is pulling [color=red]____________[/color] with [color=red]force A[/color].
[color=red]The rope[/color] is pulling [color=red]boat x[/color] with [color=red]force -A[/color].
Think you can manage that?
-
Sorry i don't want to derail the topic i started, but i want to chime in.
Globers seem to have accepted that the cosmos as proposed in the current hypothetical model is extremely vast.
The speed of light seems extremely slow for interstellar spacetravel in the current model.
I am curious though, setting all the startrek ''inventions'' to take hypothetical shortcuts aside, is there anyone of you that could possibly beieve aliens from another part of the gallaxy could somehow have develloped hyper technical means to visit earth ?
I ask this, because we can establish beforehand if any claim could ever meet the criteria we have set for the boundaries of ''organic'' spacetravel.
I know they will claim ''life'' elsewhere in the universe at some point in the near future, but is there anything rational that could explain the possibilities of aliens actually visiting us from a far away place ?
There is a quite simple way. A generational ship.
That is where effectively a small colony goes off on the ship and lives on that ship, as it travels vast distances, presumably near the speed of light.
-
Time is relative. If you were travelling at the speed of light for example, point A to point B would be on top of each other. You would 'arrive' at your destination the moment you left. Of course for everyone else not on your ship, the 'light years' would have passed.
-
Sorry i don't want to derail the topic i started, but i want to chime in.
Globers seem to have accepted that the cosmos as proposed in the current hypothetical model is extremely vast.
The speed of light seems extremely slow for interstellar spacetravel in the current model.
I am curious though, setting all the startrek ''inventions'' to take hypothetical shortcuts aside, is there anyone of you that could possibly beieve aliens from another part of the gallaxy could somehow have develloped hyper technical means to visit earth ?
I ask this, because we can establish beforehand if any claim could ever meet the criteria we have set for the boundaries of ''organic'' spacetravel.
I know they will claim ''life'' elsewhere in the universe at some point in the near future, but is there anything rational that could explain the possibilities of aliens actually visiting us from a far away place ?
There is a quite simple way. A generational ship.
That is where effectively a small colony goes off on the ship and lives on that ship, as it travels vast distances, presumably near the speed of light.
Or just wormholes, we think its possible for an advanced enough civilization.
I totally believe that there are other races with this technology.
Infinite universe means an infinite possibility of other life in the universe.
-
Sorry i don't want to derail the topic i started, but i want to chime in.
Globers seem to have accepted that the cosmos as proposed in the current hypothetical model is extremely vast.
The speed of light seems extremely slow for interstellar spacetravel in the current model.
Firstly, if the heliocentric model of the solar system is accepted, then the distances to the nearer stars can be measured by parallax to quite good accuracy, and at greatly reduced accuracy (more like an estimate) to about 500 light years. ESA's Hipparcos satellite, unrestricted by the Earth's orbit or its atmosphere, spent three and a half years measuring star positions with unprecedented accuracy. Hipparcos allowed astronomers to measure the parallaxes of 120 000 stars, up to 500 light years (about 150 parsecs) from the Sun.
More in ESA, Educational Support, STELLAR DISTANCES, STELLAR PARALLAX (http://sci.esa.int/education/35616-stellar-distances/?fbodylongid=1661)
So, it is certainly true to say that the "speed of light seems extremely slow for interstellar spacetravel in the current model".
No argument there!
I am curious though, setting all the startrek ''inventions'' to take hypothetical shortcuts aside, is there anyone of you that could possibly beieve aliens from another part of the gallaxy could somehow have develloped hyper technical means to visit earth ?
I see no possibility with our current understanding of "space", but I've been wrong so many times in the past with my ideas of what is and is not possible,
that all I can say is: Who knows?
I'm old enough to have been sceptical enough to think that from my :P vast knowledge of electronics :P that :-[ transistors were impossible :-[! But, that was when I was young enough to know that I knew everything!
Now, I am afraid I have to agree with old Albert, "The more I learn, the more I realise that I don't know".
I ask this, because we can establish beforehand if any claim could ever meet the criteria we have set for the boundaries of ''organic'' spacetravel.
I am afraid that I do not see how "we can establish beforehand" and most past attempts to predict future advances have been woefully wrong.
I know they will claim ''life'' elsewhere in the universe at some point in the near future, but is there anything rational that could explain the possibilities of aliens actually visiting us from a far away place ?
How do you "know they will claim 'life' elsewhere"?
I don't know, but asserting things like
"they will claim 'life' elsewhere in the universe at some point in the near future."
is certainly no evidence against current cosmology and less still against the currently accepted heliocentric solar system.
-
-
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Thus they can be rewritten as:
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
You do not know how to count forces.
In a very simple example.
Just take a look at how your RE mind is justifying your mistakes.
First, you do not understand that there ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
AND TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y.
Very simple to understand, but not for you it seems.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
What an unbelievable dexterity with which you pull of out the hat a -A and then proceed to REPLACE B WITH -A.
UNBELIEVABLE.
You have already exhausted each and every possibility here.
You have used half of the letters of the alphabet creating every combination/permutation possible of the rope, string, boat x, boat y.
To no avail.
You cannot explain a very simple fact.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT Y (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT X (FORCE A).
Make sure your read these words carefully, because the people are tired of you.
And your useless messages.
Clue: learn how to read and properly count the forces on boat X.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
TWO FORCES ACTING RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
DOUBLE THE FORCES NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
Again.
Boat X is pulling with force A the rope/boat Y.
The rope will react with force A.
Boat X will actually thrust forward from this force (and also force B).
At the same time boat Y IS ALSO PULLING WITH FORCE B on the rope/boat X.
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
The rope will react with force B, which means boat Y will also thrust forward from this force B, (and also force A).
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT Y.
You can deny all you want, but your equations do not add up to anything: just take a look at how easy it is for me to debunk your each message.
A TOTAL PERFECT BALANCE.
ALL THE FORCES BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY.
BUT THEY ARE TWICE THE NUMBER NEEDED IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT Y (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT X (FORCE A).
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
TWO FORCES ACTING RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
-
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Thus they can be rewritten as:
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
You do not know how to count forces.
In a very simple example.
Just take a look at how your RE mind is justifying your mistakes.
First, you do not understand that there ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
AND TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y.
Very simple to understand, but not for you it seems.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
What an unbelievable dexterity with which you pull of out the hat a -A and then proceed to REPLACE B WITH -A.
UNBELIEVABLE.
You have already exhausted each and every possibility here.
You have used half of the letters of the alphabet creating every combination/permutation possible of the rope, string, boat x, boat y.
To no avail.
You cannot explain a very simple fact.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT Y (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT X (FORCE A).
Make sure your read these words carefully, because the people are tired of you.
And your useless messages.
Clue: learn how to read and properly count the forces on boat X.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
TWO FORCES ACTING RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
DOUBLE THE FORCES NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
Again.
Boat X is pulling with force A the rope/boat Y.
The rope will react with force A.
Boat X will actually thrust forward from this force (and also force B).
At the same time boat Y IS ALSO PULLING WITH FORCE B on the rope/boat X.
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
The rope will react with force B, which means boat Y will also thrust forward from this force B, (and also force A).
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT Y.
You can deny all you want, but your equations do not add up to anything: just take a look at how easy it is for me to debunk your each message.
A TOTAL PERFECT BALANCE.
ALL THE FORCES BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY.
BUT THEY ARE TWICE THE NUMBER NEEDED IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT Y (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT X (FORCE A).
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
TWO FORCES ACTING RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
Have you got a sticky keyboard? I think your having problems with your caps lock key again.
-
DOUBLE THE FORCES NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
Have you got a sticky keyboard? I think you're having problems with your caps lock key again.
No, it's his ctrl-V that's stuck. It's been that way for years.
-
By the amount of sense it all makes I think the real problem is his cat randomly walking all over the keys.
-
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.[/i]
Copying and pasting like that removes the key formatting, such as where I have crossed out B.
You do not know how to count forces.
No, that would be you, that seems to continually double them rather than just counting them once.
In a very simple example.
Yet even with it being so simple, you still get it wrong.
You can't even do something as simple as clearly identify the action/reaction pairs.
First, you do not understand that there ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
That is because there isn't.
There is a single force, that of the rope pulling on boat x.
What an unbelievable dexterity with which you pull of out the hat a -A and then proceed to REPLACE B WITH -A.
UNBELIEVABLE.
You mean how I explain quite clearly that B must equal -A, where you are unable to refute it at all?
It is quite believable, at least if you which to believe reality instead your delusional bullshit.
You have already exhausted each and every possibility here.
And with each one, I completely refuted you, pointing out how your analysis was wrong.
And all you can do in response is spout crap.
You cannot explain a very simple fact.
No, I can explain the facts.
I can also explain why you are full of shit, as I have done so repeatedly. You are yet to refute anything or be able to justify your nonsense in any rational way.
THERE ARE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X: BOTH THE MAN PULLING IN BOAT X (THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X) AND THE PULLING FROM BOAT Y (FORCE B).
No. There is not.
There is a single force.
The man pulling in boat x is not acting on boat x. It is acting on the rope. This force, along with the person in boat y creates tension on the rope.
The only force acting on boat x is that from the rope. Yes, the person in boat y is pulling on the rope creating tension in it, but the only force pulling on boat x is the rope.
If you think there are 2 forces then do what I have asked repeatedly. Clearly state what each action/reaction pair is, including the force involved and the entities involved.
You continually not doing this indicates you likely know you are full of shit and just don't give a damn, or that you truly have no idea what you are talking about.
Which is it?
Make sure your read these words carefully, because the people are tired of you.
No. I'm sure we are all getting tired of your useless childish bullshit.
Yes, boat Y is pulling on boat X (through the rope/string), BUT ALSO BOAT X ITSELF (THE MAN DOING THE PULLING) IS APPLYING A PULLING FORCE ON THE ROPE AT THE SAME TIME.
Yes, which is the person pulling back on the string. Notice how it is applying a force to the string/rope, not to the boat?
Perhaps you should learn to identify things before trying to count them?
Again.
Like I said, clearly state the action/reaction pairs. Not this vauge crap.
Boat X is pulling with force A the rope/boat Y.
The rope will react with force A.
Boat X will actually thrust forward from this force (and also force B).
At the same time boat Y IS ALSO PULLING WITH FORCE B on the rope/boat X.
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
No. Not 2 forces on boat x. You are counting the same force twice.
You have the force of the rope pulling on X, which you say is A.
And you have the force of the rope pulling on X which you say is B.
It is the same force.
You can't even decide if it is pulling the rope or the other boat.
You can deny all you want, but your equations do not add up to anything: just take a look at how easy it is for me to debunk your each message.
But you are yet to debunk a thing.
So far all you have done is say I am wrong and repeat the same refuted bullshit.
Yet each time you do so, I debunk it.
You can't even do something as simple as provide the action/reaction pairs in a entirely unambiguous way.
A TOTAL PERFECT BALANCE.
ALL THE FORCES BALANCE OUT PERFECTLY.
But they don't. You can't even decide what is pulling what.
BUT THEY ARE TWICE THE NUMBER NEEDED IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
Because you are counting them twice, or counting the wrong force.
Now then, can you do like I asked?
Provide the action/reaction pairs in a way which clearly identifies the entities the pair is acting between and the associated force and its direction.
I will continue to ask for this until you provide it or until you grow tired of being refuted and flee.
-
By the amount of sense it all makes I think the real problem is his cat randomly walking all over the keys.
No, it's more than that.
The cross-correlation coefficient between selected posts is 1 - δ, where δ approaches 0.
And the probability of this happening from his cat walking on the keys is roughly δn, where n+1 is the number of his posts examined.
I've no idea what all that means, but I hope it sounds impressive.
But talking of cats and random keys, what about:
Kitten on the Keys by Zez Confrey (newer version) | Cory Hall, pianist-composer
-
In a real life situation, both boats, X and Y, will start to move toward each other.
Based on two simple forces.
It is not just boat Y that is pulling on the rope, and implicitly on boat X, BUT ALSO the man in boat X that is doing the pulling.
What we would see is boat X moving toward boat Y (and reciprocally, of course), VISIBLY, as a result of the application of those two forces (we are talking here about boat X).
Action-reaction pairs
Boat X is pulling with force A the rope/boat Y.
The rope will react with force A.
Boat X will actually thrust forward from this force (and also force B).
At the same time boat Y IS ALSO PULLING WITH FORCE B on the rope/boat X.
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT X.
The rope will react with force B, which means boat Y will also thrust forward from this force B, (and also force A).
TWO FORCES RIGHT THERE ON BOAT Y.
These are the action-reaction pairs, clearly described, on the two boats/rope.
Very simple.
The rope/string will transmit two simultaneous forces: for boat X, as an example, while the man is pulling with force A (and thus the rope will react with force A as well), boat Y will also apply A SEPARATE FORCE, force B.
Two different forces.
They cannot be mixed with one another.
This is the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.
Boat X will receive two forces through that rope.
Two forces which do balance out perfectly.
Then, we have a huge problem regarding the Earth-Moon system.
Just like in the example with the two boats, we should see VISIBLY the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.
It is that simple.
Alphabet soups, endless permutations/combinations of letters will not change one basic fact: there are two forces acting on boat X (and respectively, on boat Y).
Boat X will thrust forward as a result of these two forces.
Exactly what we see in a real life situation.
In a real life situation boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.
Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.
Forces A and B, are DIFFERENT, of different magnitude, they cannot be mixed with one another as the RE are obviously trying to do in order to escape the dramatic consequences: a simple two boat, one rope example will create double the forces required by Newtonian mechanics.
-
What do the other FE think of this very simple way to debunk Newtonian mechanics, the doubles forces of attractive gravitation paradox?
What is your opinion, your take, on the two boat/one rope, example?
Now, it is very easy for you to claim victory, based on a very simple situation, because the RE cannot deny that boat X will be acted upon by two separate/different forces.
-
Now, it is very easy for you to claim victory, based on a very simple situation, because the RE cannot deny that boat X will be acted upon by two separate/different forces.
Through one rope.
-
Through one rope.
Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?
The analogy between the two boats on a lake pulled by a rope and the Earth-Moon system is perfect.
In fact, here is modern science explaning this system:
Gravity is a force.
Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.
That makes gravity the centripetal force.
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Now, ball = earth
you = sun
tension in the string = gravity
Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)
Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583
Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.
Then, just like in the example with the two boats, we should see VISIBLY the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.
Precise calculations here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400
None of the RE can escape this question:
If the two boats pulling the rope do start to move toward one another, and the Earth Moon system is described as being connected by a string, as amply shown above (quotes taken from mainstream science), why do not the Earth and the Moon start to also move toward each other?
-
What do the other FE think of this very simple way to debunk Newtonian mechanics, the doubles forces of attractive gravitation paradox?
What is your opinion, your take, on the two boat/one rope, example?
Now, it is very easy for you to claim victory, based on a very simple situation, because the RE cannot deny that boat X will be acted upon by two separate/different forces.
FE think! "It does not compute".
Are you serious? Two separate forces of different magnitudes in the one rope is quite ridiculous!
If boat A pulls on the rope with force Fa, then the tension in the rope all along is Fa and boat B must also be pulling on the rope with Fa. It cannot be anything else.
-
Through one rope.
Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?
Because the gravitational force provides the required centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.
-
If boat A pulls on the rope with force Fa, then the tension in the rope all along is Fa and boat B must also be pulling on the rope with Fa. It cannot be anything else.
Brilliant.
It is only that boat Y is pulling with force B: a force of different magnitude than force A.
They simply cannot be confused/mixed up.
Boat X will thrust forward based ON TWO FORCES.
Exactly what we see in a real life situation.
In a real life situation boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.
Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.
Forces A and B, are DIFFERENT, of different magnitude, they cannot be mixed with one another as the RE are obviously trying to do in order to escape the dramatic consequences: a simple two boat, one rope example will create double the forces required by Newtonian mechanics.
Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?
-
Because the gravitational force provides the required centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.
You haven't done your homework on the subject.
Here are the precise calculations:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double5_zpsnae9mdr8.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double6_zpsuzu7wyba.jpg)
Just like in the example with the two boats connected by one rope, we should also see the Earth and Moon move toward each other.
-
What do the other FE think of this very simple way to debunk Newtonian mechanics, the doubles forces of attractive gravitation paradox?
What is your opinion, your take, on the two boats/one rope, example?
Now, it is very easy for you to claim victory, based on a very simple situation, because the RE cannot deny that boat X will be acted upon by two separate/different forces.
Again, here is your chance to claim victory, in a very easy manner.
What is your opinion on the two boats/one rope example?
-
My compliments to you sandokhan, with your very thoughtfull posts !!
-
Because the gravitational force provides the required centripetal force to keep the moon in orbit.
You haven't done your homework on the subject.
Here are the precise calculations:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double5_zpsnae9mdr8.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double6_zpsuzu7wyba.jpg)
Just like in the example with the two boats connected by one rope, we should also see the Earth and Moon move toward each other.
do the calculation with a ball that you spin around you,
you will see that there is only one force and not as you do that you double it, that is simply wrong.
your assumption to double the forces is wrong, every engineer knows that.
-
Not the same example/situation.
The boats/rafts (or the Earth/Moon pair) are free to move toward each other.
Now ask yourself this simple question.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
If you have those two boats on a lake, boats X and Y, and boat X is pulling with force A, while boat Y is pulling with force B, what forces are exerted on boat X?
Boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.
Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.
-
Not the same example/situation.
The boats/rafts (or the Earth/Moon pair) are free to move toward each other.
Now ask yourself this simple question.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
If you have those two boats on a lake, boats X and Y, and boat X is pulling with force A, while boat Y is pulling with force B, what forces are exerted on boat X?
Boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.
Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.
did you do this kind of experimentation where you measured the force in the rope and the force that is necessary to move a boat in water?
please provide real evidence and not only you mindplay.
because what you come up as an idea in your head is irrelevant.
-
You dodged the simple question.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
No mindplay.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
-
You dodged the simple question.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
No mindplay.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.
The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."
the force that is acting on the boat is the force that we can measure in the rope, thats all.
and that also what your linked text says, nothing about doubling up forces
-
You dodged the question again.
No wonder, given the fact that the answer will defy Newtonian mechanics.
How will boat X thrust forward? Based on which forces?
What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?
Does boat X move forward as if nobody is pulling there at point X with force A? Just because boat Y is pulling with force B?
And if not, it is obvious that there will be TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
The man doing the pulling on the rope with force A, and at the same time boat X will be pulled by boat Y with force B.
That is what you see in a real life situation.
-
You dodged the question again.
No wonder, given the fact that the answer will defy Newtonian mechanics.
wrong
How will boat X thrust forward? Based on which forces?
it get pulled forward by the same force that is in the rope, it does not madder if the rope get pulled from the boat or from a other place (boat, ship or whatever)
What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?
the force that is transferred by the rope
Does boat X move forward as if nobody is pulling there at point X with force A? Just because boat Y is pulling with force B?
if there is a pull from a outside source at the rope by the value of b the connection point at the boat has the same force
And if not, it is obvious that there will be TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
as i said, one force
The man doing the pulling on the rope with force A, and at the same time boat X will be pulled by boat Y with force B.
That is what you see in a real life situation.
yes there is only one force pulling the boat, that is measurable in the rope.
do a real experiment.
-
You dodged the question for a third time.
Nor are you making yourself very well understood.
What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?
Does force B exerted by boat Y equal force A exerted by boat X to start with? Are the two men doing the pulling applying the SAME FORCE, or not? And if not, do you agree that force A does not equal force B?
-
You dodged the question for a third time.
Nor are you making yourself very well understood.
What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?
Does force B exerted by boat Y equal force A exerted by boat X to start with? Are the two men doing the pulling applying the SAME FORCE, or not? And if not, do you agree that force A does not equal force B?
force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.
if a man from point A is pulling with force A it does not madder if on point B is a man holding the rope with force B (=A) or it is tied to a anchor point.
basic mechanical understanding.
-
You haven't thought things through just like your other friends, now have you?
The two forces A and B ARE NOT EQUAL TO START WITH.
They are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
Yet you have reached the conclusion that they are equal, which they cannot be.
Proof by contradiction that your analysis is catastrophically wrong.
Something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
Boat X is pulling on the rope and boat Y. The reaction force is the rope pulling on boat X, it thrusts forward. But boat Y is also pulling on boat X WITH A DIFFERENT FORCE B TO START WITH which does not equal force A.
-
You haven't thought things through just like your other friends, now have you?
The two forces A and B ARE NOT EQUAL TO START WITH.
They are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
Yet you have reached the conclusion that they are equal, which they cannot be.
Proof by contradiction that your analysis is catastrophically wrong.
Something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
Boat X is pulling on the rope and boat Y. The reaction force is the rope pulling on boat X, it thrusts forward. But boat Y is also pulling on boat X WITH A DIFFERENT FORCE B TO START WITH which does not equal force A.
prove your claim.
do an experiment and show us the 2 different forces.
you can try to make a lot up in your mind, but if we shall believe you, you have to show real stuff.
-
I have just offered you a proof by contradiction that your analysis (and that of your RE friends) is catastrophically wrong.
It could not be more wrong.
Here is what you wrote.
force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.
But they are not equal to start with.
Boat Y will apply force B which is different than the force A applied by boat X.
They are anything but equal.
Something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
-
I have just offered you a proof by contradiction that your analysis (and that of your RE friends) is catastrophically wrong.
It could not be more wrong.
Here is what you wrote.
force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.
But they are not equal to start with.
Boat Y will apply force B which is different than the force A applied by boat X.
They are anything but equal.
Something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
you write they are different, but that is only what you do.
you never proven it.
if you write it or in china a bag of rice tips, its the same.
show us prove of your claim. show us the two different forces at the connection point of the rope at point A and point B.
-
I have just offered you a proof by contradiction that your analysis (and that of your RE friends) is catastrophically wrong.
It could not be more wrong.
Here is what you wrote.
force A is the same as force B because the one is the reaction force of the other.
But they are not equal to start with.
Boat Y will apply force B which is different than the force A applied by boat X.
They are anything but equal.
Something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
you write they are different, but that is only what you do.
you never proven it.
if you write it or in china a bag of rice tips, its the same.
show us prove of your claim. show us the two different forces at the connection point of the rope at point A and point B.
I would really like to see Sandokhan show rather than assert that Force A and Force B can be of different magnitude yet acting on the same section of rope as well, lol. Perhaps he could reveal this wisdom in an episode of Roadrunner using ACME rope and their highly advanced Looney Tune mechanics.
-
you write they are different, but that is only what you do.
you never proven it.
I would really like to see Sandokhan show rather than assert that Force A and Force B can be of different magnitude yet acting on the same section of rope as well, lol.
But I have.
Or better said, your friend jack has, in a most unfortunate way for the RE.
Here is the way with more words, formatted like you have (but with the missing details. I will even highlight them in red for you):
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force -B.
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Thus they can be rewritten as:
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
And there we have it, 4 forces, 2 action/reaction pairs, and all perfectly balanced, all without any BS doubling of forces.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Can you point out anything wrong with that?
He explicitly says that A = B.
But the very hypothesis of the example/situation states that force A (exerted by boat X) and force B (applied by boat Y) ARE NOT EQUAL.
The men doing the pulling in the two different boats have different strenghts, the forces applied will be different in magnitude.
A does not equal B.
Yet, the "analysis" shown above signed jack (yes, you can blame him for this), says that A = B.
You have just been shown a proof by contradiction.
The supposed state of the art RE analysis of the example leads to the most disastrous contradiction possible.
Therefore, something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
Remember, the analysis done above is the standard/official line. Yet, in the case of two boats pulling on a rope, it fails in a most catastrophic way.
Take a look at what jack has done:
Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
It doesn't get any better than this. He has just equated A with B, when by hypothesis A does not equal B.
-
…
But the very hypothesis of the example/situation states that force A (exerted by boat X) and force B (applied by boat Y) ARE NOT EQUAL.
The men doing the pulling in the two different boats have different strenghts, the forces applied will be different in magnitude.
A does not equal B.
….
JackBlack’s reasoning is correct and makes the example possible (a realistic scenario) unlike your example.
If the magnitude of A does not equal B then the example is impossible and/or you are no longer referring to what is termed a force.
If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).
The rope will never experience a force larger than the weaker man’s strength even though the other man would be able to pull harder if supplied with an equal reaction (ex. another man just as strong or stronger than himself).
If the weaker man is pulling as hard as he can then the stronger man is pulling only as hard because he is providing the equal and opposite reaction to the force.
The weaker man is unable to provide the necessary reaction for a stronger force than he is able to exert.
At no time does the rope experience more than a single magnitude of tension simultaneously. The forces applied to the rope will be the exact same throughout and limited by the weaker man.
This is why your premise that Force A and Force B being of different magnitude is simply wrong and contrived.
-
Wrong.
The two men are not standing on land (no friction).
Or have you forgotten that?
The two boats X and Y will start moving toward each other.
You haven't done your homework on this have you now?
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Just like the Earth and the Moon, since the two systems are practically equivalent, as described by the quotes I provided (gravity = string).
-
Wrong.
The two men are not standing on land (no friction).
do you really claim that if you standing on land your feet have no friction to the ground you are standing on?
Or have you forgotten that?
The two boats X and Y will start moving toward each other.
You haven't done your homework on this have you now?
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Just like the Earth and the Moon, since the two systems are practically equivalent, as described by the quotes I provided (gravity = string).
and that the boats meet each other in the middle even proofs that the force that is acting on each other is the same.
if you have a boat and a ship they will not meet in the middle. they will meet at a point close to the ship because the force that acting on the boat can move the light boat easier as the heavy ship.
if you would do an examination you will find out that it also will prove that the force is the same.
you have to understand that your idea in your head is wrong. test it out do some research if you do not believe people that know more about this topic than you do.
I am calculation forces on the daily basis, i am an Engineer and have to calculate lifting equipment.
And i can assure you that the formulas are all correct and work.
What is your experience with the real world, did you do even real calculations and had to test them?
-
Nice picking at the straws.
But these tricks do not work with me.
Your first question makes no sense at all.
No two boats can meet exactly in the middle since the force applied by the two men will necessarily be different in magnitude (just like in the Earth - Moon system).
if you would do an examination you will find out that it also will prove that the force is the same.
You have a short memory.
Your friend Jack has ALREADY done such an "examination", remember?
It leads to the most disastrous contradiction of them all.
The application of the third law is what comes into question.
There are two forces acting on boat X.
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
-
Wrong.
The two men are not standing on land (no friction).
Or have you forgotten that?
Can you please show me where I implied or even suggested that two men are standing on land in this example? A quotation would help. Besides, I was assuming frictionless environment for the boat example although I don't see how it is relevant anyways. Please stop trying to misunderstand me and other folks replying to you.
The two boats X and Y will start moving toward each other.
Of course they will.
You haven't done your homework on this have you now?
Sure, there is always more homework to do. In understanding mechanics you appear to have a long way to go before catching up to other folks on this very thread.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
I don't see a problem with this explanation although it isn't very explicit in talking about forces.
If you think it demonstrates something contrary to what I have said could you please explicitly state what you think it is?
I don't see in any way this is saying that Force A and Force B are different in magnitude if you think it show this.
Depending on the sizes (mass) of the boats relative to each they may accelerate at different rates due to the force exerted upon them.
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Agreed for the boat scenario.
Just like the Earth and the Moon, since the two systems are practically equivalent, as described by the quotes I provided (gravity = string).
Wrong, the moon and earth don't meet because the moon is orbiting the earth at some orbital speed unlike the boat scenario.
-
Nice picking at the straws.
But these tricks do not work with me.
Your first question makes no sense at all.
No two boats can meet exactly in the middle since the force applied by the two men will necessarily be different in magnitude (just like in the Earth - Moon system).
if you would do an examination you will find out that it also will prove that the force is the same.
You have a short memory.
Your friend Jack has ALREADY done such an "examination", remember?
It leads to the most disastrous contradiction of them all.
The application of the third law is what comes into question.
There are two forces acting on boat X.
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
nice how you avoid to mention the comment about you claim with the friction.
ok you admit that you done non real examination yourself.
first you make claims that you do not proof
that you quote something from jack, (do you now agree with jack or why do you quote him as a source for your claim)
i only take from your avoiding to do real experiments that you know that you are wrong.
how about my question about your experience with calculating forces and testing your calculations?
-
You do not remember the content of your own messages?
If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).
On the lake no such thing would happen.
Only on land.
I don't see in any way this is saying that Force A and Force B are different in magnitude if you think it show this.
By hypothesis, the two forces are DIFFERENT, boat X will pull with force A which is different in magnitude than force B (applied by boat Y).
And of course you have your friend jack to thank him for his brilliant analysis where he equated A and B reaching a most stupendous contradiction.
Wrong, the moon and earth don't meet because the moon is orbiting the earth at some orbital speed unlike the boat scenario.
Not anymore.
Your friend jack, using his analysis, has managed to demonstrate that the Earth and the Moon will meet, since his equations lead to the most blatant contradiction.
By the way... here are the numbers on the Earth - Moon system.
You lose.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905037#msg1905037
how about my question about your experience with calculating forces and testing your calculations?
I have already done my calculations.
The RE have already done their calculations: they lead to a most obvious contradiction.
TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE RE AND FE:
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
-
You do not remember the content of your own messages?
If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).
On the lake no such thing would happen.
Only on land.
also on a lake that would happen
[quote
I don't see in any way this is saying that Force A and Force B are different in magnitude if you think it show this.
By hypothesis, the two forces are DIFFERENT, boat X will pull with force A which is different in magnitude than force B (applied by boat Y).
And of course you have your friend jack to thank him for his brilliant analysis where he equated A and B reaching a most stupendous contradiction.
[/quote]
its a hypothesis and this hypothesis is wrong
or proof the hypothesis be correct with an experiment
Wrong, the moon and earth don't meet because the moon is orbiting the earth at some orbital speed unlike the boat scenario.
Not anymore.
Your friend jack, using his analysis, has managed to demonstrate that the Earth and the Moon will meet, since his equations lead to the most blatant contradiction.
By the way... here are the numbers on the Earth - Moon system.
You lose.
the earth - moon system is not the same as a boat - ship with rope on a lake system.
the centrifugal force is not taken in account.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905037#msg1905037
how about my question about your experience with calculating forces and testing your calculations?
I have already done my calculations.
The RE have already done their calculations: they lead to a most obvious contradiction.
TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE RE AND FE:
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
i say the same force.
now it up to you to proof me wrong with an experiment.
if you are really believe in your claim than do the test.
i bet you will not do it.
-
i say the same force.
now it up to you to proof me wrong with an experiment.
if you are really believe in your claim than do the test.
It can't be the same force.
You are forgetting that your friend here jack has done the unthinkable: to actually screw things up for the RE permanently.
He used THE SAME FORCES and he reached the worst contradiction of them all.
It doesn't work.
TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE RE AND FE:
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
Here let me help you.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
What then is the net force on boat Y?
What is the net force on the rope?
-
I have to do all of your homework.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
i say the same force.
now it up to you to proof me wrong with an experiment.
if you are really believe in your claim than do the test.
It can't be the same force.
You are forgetting that your friend here jack has done the unthinkable: to actually screw things up for the RE permanently.
He used THE SAME FORCES and he reached the worst contradiction of them all.
It doesn't work.
TWO QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE RE AND FE:
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
Here let me help you.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
What then is the net force on boat Y?
What is the net force on the rope?
you are still only claiming stuff.
proof it.
as i said, on that you write it doesn't make it a prove.
-
It is not just boat Y that is pulling on the rope, and implicitly on boat X, BUT ALSO the man in boat X that is doing the pulling.
Yes, man in boat x is also pulling. That is how action/reaction pairs work.
Action-reaction pairs
Boat X is pulling with force A the rope/boat Y.
This is not part of a pair.
That is trying to apply a force to 2 different things.
Decide what X is pulling on, is it the rope or boat Y. You can't have both.
The rope will react with force A.
So is boat X pulling on the rope instead of boat Y?
As if it was boat Y, it should be boat Y pulling back.
The rest of your "pairs" are the same, not pairs at all.
These are the action-reaction pairs, clearly described, on the two boats/rope.
No they are not.
You are listing 2 receiving entities in the action part. That isn't how forces work.
If you want to have the rope transmit the force, that is fine, but then don't have boat x acting directly on boat y, instead have it act on the rope and in turn have the rope act on y.
Very simple.
So why do you still fail to provide the pairs?
The rope/string will transmit two simultaneous forces: for boat X, as an example, while the man is pulling with force A (and thus the rope will react with force A as well), boat Y will also apply A SEPARATE FORCE, force B.
Two different forces.
They cannot be mixed with one another.
No. They have to be the same, as that is how tension works.
A string under tension will pull on both ends with that tension, and whatever is attached to those ends pulls back with that tension.
Then, we have a huge problem regarding the Earth-Moon system.
Again, wait until you understand this problem before moving on to anything more complex, and there will be a step between these boats and the Earth-Moon system.
Alphabet soups, endless permutations/combinations of letters will not change one basic fact: there are two forces acting on boat X (and respectively, on boat Y).
I know it wont change it, because that isn't the fact.
The fact is there is a single force acting on boat X, that of the rope pulling on it.
In a real life situation boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.
Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.
[/quote]
As an action/reaction pair.
The man pulling in boat X is the reaction to the man pulling in boat Y.
The man pulling in boat X doesn't move boat X as that isn't applying a force to boat X.
Forces A and B, are DIFFERENT, of different magnitude, they cannot be mixed with one another as the RE are obviously trying to do in order to escape the dramatic consequences: a simple two boat, one rope example will create double the forces required by Newtonian mechanics.
No they aren't.
They are equal but opposite, just like what is required for an action/reaction pair.
You are trying to invent a problem which simply doesn't exist.
-
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
By contrast/comparison, here is the catastrophic RE analysis:
Here is the way with more words, formatted like you have (but with the missing details. I will even highlight them in red for you):
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE B. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force -B.
These are the 2 action/reaction pairs involved.
Boat x is pulling on the string, and so is boat y.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Thus they can be rewritten as:
Boat x is pulling on the string rope with force A. Reaction: the rope is pulling back on boat x with force -A.
AT THE SAME TIME, BOAT Y IS PULLING on the rope WITH FORCE -AB. Reaction: the rope is pulling boat y with force AB.
And there we have it, 4 forces, 2 action/reaction pairs, and all perfectly balanced, all without any BS doubling of forces.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Can you point out anything wrong with that?
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
The RE analysis has lead to the worst contradiction possible, where the errors come in full view: A has to be equated to B, when in reality A does not equal B.
The correct FE equations are:
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
I have to do all of your homework.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
You claim that the force in the rope is 0?
That would mean that the rope can be very thin even not existing.
Wow you are way of from the reality.
Keep on living in you imaginary world, but stop claiming this kind of Bullshit as true, somebody even could believe you.
-
You seem to be having a problem with prepositions.
You claim that the force in the rope is 0?
I used the preposition "on", not "in".
-
Through one rope.
Why then do not both the Earth and Moon start moving toward each other, just like in the two boats connected by a rope example?
Because they are moving sideways.
The force doesn't cause them to move towards one another, it causes them to accelerate towards one another, which results in a curved path through space, i.e. an orbit.
But like I said, deal with the simple situation until you can understand it. Then move on to more complex ones.
The analogy between the two boats on a lake pulled by a rope and the Earth-Moon system is perfect.
...
Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.
Notice the difference?
If not, when you finally understand the boat problem, we can move on to this and see if you can understand the difference then.
If boat A pulls on the rope with force Fa, then the tension in the rope all along is Fa and boat B must also be pulling on the rope with Fa. It cannot be anything else.
Brilliant.
It is only that boat Y is pulling with force B: a force of different magnitude than force A.
No. That is a physically impossible situation.
Boat Y needs to be pulling on the rope with a force equal and opposite that of boat X.
That is how tension in ropes work.
If the rope is pulling on boat Y with a force of A, then there needs to be a reaction force to complete the action/reaction pair of boat Y pulling back on the rope with force -A.
But boat Y is pulling on the rope with a force of B.
So boat Y is pulling on the rope with a force of B, and boat Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -A. But this is the same force.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -A=B.
How will boat X thrust forward? Based on which forces?
What are the forces acting on boat X through the rope itself?
That would be the tension in the rope, which I have described as F or -F, and you have described as A and B.
Boat X is pulling on the rope with force F=A=-B.
The rope is pulling back with a force of -F=-A=B.
That is the only force pulling boat X.
If any other force in the string pulled boat X then boat X would need to pull back on the string with more than just that force.
Does boat X move forward as if nobody is pulling there at point X with force A? Just because boat Y is pulling with force B?
Do you mean as in if boat x was just tied to the rope so the boat pulls back with its reaction force or do you mean if no force was applied to the rope by boat x or anything on boat x at all?
If the latter, then no, as there is then no force acting on boat x.
Remember, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
In order for anything to pull on X, X needs to pull back.
And if not, it is obvious that there will be TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
No. It is obvious that there is an action/reaction pair for boat X.
The man doing the pulling on the rope with force A, and at the same time boat X will be pulled by boat Y with force B.
And the man in boat X doing the pulling isn't pulling on boat X thus that force is not acting on boat X and thus that force will not move boat X.
Does force B exerted by boat Y equal force A exerted by boat X to start with? Are the two men doing the pulling applying the SAME FORCE, or not? And if not, do you agree that force A does not equal force B?
Potentially not at the start, but once the situation is set up with tension in the rope, then yes, they are applying the same force.
If they weren't, the rope would fly out of one of their hands.
The two forces A and B ARE NOT EQUAL TO START WITH.
They are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
Yet you have reached the conclusion that they are equal, which they cannot be.
Proof by contradiction that your analysis is catastrophically wrong.
No. You have baselessly assumed that they cannot be equal (but opposite), when they must be.
This is not a proof by contradiction that we are wrong. It is a proof by contradiction that you are wrong.
They are of identical magnitude and opposite in sign, as backed up by Newton's third law, for ever action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
If they were not equal but opposite, then the rope would fly out of one of their hands and move entirely towards the other, severing the connection.
Or better said, your friend jack has, in a most unfortunate way for the RE.
You mean where I clearly demonstrated that they were the same force? That A=-B?
But the very hypothesis of the example/situation states that force A (exerted by boat X) and force B (applied by boat Y) ARE NOT EQUAL.
No. It isn't.
This example is merely 2 boats pulling themselves together with a force.
It is only in your delusional fantasy land (which has been disproven numerous times), that they are difference forces.
We have shown that they MUST be equal.
A does not equal B.
Yet, the "analysis" shown above signed jack (yes, you can blame him for this), says that A = B.
You have just been shown a proof by contradiction.
Not quite. You claimed |A|!=|B|.
I then analysed the situation, showing clearly that A=-B, and thus |A|=|B|.
So yes, this is a proof by contradiction.
It shows that your claim is wrong. It shows that |A|=|B|, that the 2 forces are equal (in magnitude, but opposite in sign), and that your baseless assumption that they are different is completely wrong.
So no, it doesn't disprove mechanics.
It shows that in this situation force A and force B have to be equal but opposite.
Therefore, something is missing.
What is missing is the fact that there ARE TWO FORCES acting on boat X.
No, what is missing is the fact that you are completely wrong and refuse to admit it and have no way to rationally defend your BS to try to show you aren't wrong.
Remember, the analysis done above is the standard/official line. Yet, in the case of two boats pulling on a rope, it fails in a most catastrophic way.
No. It works perfectly, showing that you are completely wrong.
It doesn't get any better than this. He has just equated A with B, when by hypothesis A does not equal B.
Yes, I am showing your hypothesis is wrong.
Is this too hard for you to understand?
Do you not know how a proof by contradiction works?
Here is a brief summary:
Assume statement !S is true.
Do logical/mathematical analysis on !S.
Reach a contradiction.
Thus !S is false.
Thus S is true.
(You can also make the assumption at a later point).
I did the same (well technically, I didn't make the assumption but it can be made as there are 2 variables).
Assume the 2 forces are different in magnitude (i.e. not equal).
Do logical/mathematical analysis.
Arrive at conclusion that 2 forces are equal in magnitude.
Thus have reached a contradiction.
Thus the assumption (that the 2 forces are different in magnitude) is false.
Thus the negation of that assumption is true, i.e. the 2 forces are equal in magnitude.
What don't you understand about that?
Your first question makes no sense at all.
No two boats can meet exactly in the middle since the force applied by the two men will necessarily be different in magnitude (just like in the Earth - Moon system).
Yet the claim clearly states that 2 boats of the same size meet in the middle.
And your analysis clearly shows the forces acting in the case of the Earth moon system are equal.
Your friend Jack has ALREADY done such an "examination", remember?
It leads to the most disastrous contradiction of them all.
It is only disastrous for you as it shows you to be wrong.
The application of the third law is what comes into question.
There are two forces acting on boat X.
What is the net force on boat X?
What is the net force on boat Y?
No. There is a single force acting on each.
For boat X the net force is -A=B.
For boat Y the net force is A=-B.
They are equal but opposite. Just like you would expect for the third law.
Yet you are completely incapable of doing such an analysis, as you are incapable of showing the action/reaction pairs.
If the men are of different strength then the maximum amount of pulling force on the rope will be limited by the weaker man.
Beyond this limit the weaker man will no longer be able to hold onto the rope (assuming he is holding it only by his hands).
On the lake no such thing would happen.
Only on land.
No, it happens anywhere there is resistance to his motion.
On the lake, he needs to transmit the force to the boat.
If he isn't strong enough, he will either be pulled off the boat, or the rope will be pulled out of his hands.
Even if he was just sitting there in a friction-less vacuum, he still has his own inertia resisting the motion.
If he is only capable of applying a force of 1000 N to the rope, and the other person pulls with a force of 2000 N, then the rope will fly out of his hands because of his own inertia, because he is not capable of using his hands to transmit that 2000 N of force to his body.
By hypothesis, the two forces are DIFFERENT, boat X will pull with force A which is different in magnitude than force B (applied by boat Y).
And of course you have your friend jack to thank him for his brilliant analysis where he equated A and B reaching a most stupendous contradiction.
No, not a most stupendous contradiction.
A rational, analytical, mathematical contradiction of your hypothesis to show your hypothesis is wrong, and show that the 2 forces are equal in magnitude.
Your friend jack, using his analysis, has managed to demonstrate that the Earth and the Moon will meet, since his equations lead to the most blatant contradiction.
No. My analysis only shows a contradiction of your claim. It doesn't contradict a correct analysis of the situation, something you are yet to do.
Regardless, that doesn't address the key issue raised against your claim that they should move towards each other.
By the way... here are the numbers on the Earth - Moon system.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905037#msg1905037
I may not be a genius, but those last 2 numbers, (the force on the moon, 2.1096E+19 kgf, and the force on Earth, 2.1096E+19 kgf) look very similar. Some would even say they are THE SAME.
That sure seems to go against your BS claim that they can't be.
So good job refuting yourself, yet again.
The RE have already done their calculations: they lead to a most obvious contradiction.
Again, they only contradict your claim, showing your claim is false. They do not contradict the reality of the situation.
He used THE SAME FORCES and he reached the worst contradiction of them all.
No. I showed they were equal but opposite.
Without the assumption that they are not equal but opposite, there is no contradiction.
If you think there is a contradiction in my analysis without the assumption that A and B are different in magnitude, please show it.
So far the only contradiction you have come up with is that I showed that A=-B, while you said |A|!=|B|. But that isn't me contradicting myself, that is me showing you are wrong.
It doesn't work.
Yes, it doesn't work with your baseless assumption.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
And where does this force come from? The rope? I can't see anywhere else it can come from.
So that means that the rope is pulling on X with a force of -A+B.
But as per Newton's third law, that means boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A like you claim.
So which is it?
Is X pulling on the rope (and thus boat Y) with a force of A, or a force of A-B?
See, this is why you get your "double forces" BS, because you are literally counting the forces twice.
This also counts as a proof by contradiction, but rather than contradicting our assumption and analysis, you have contradicted your own, showing that your assumption and/or analysis is wrong.
Your conclusion, that X pulls on the rope with a force of A-B, contradicts your assumption that A pulls on the rope with a force of A (and similar goes for boat Y), so it shows your analysis or assumption was wrong.
You can correct your analysis, like I did, but that would still show your assumption that |A|!=|B| is wrong.
Or you can correct your analysis and have X pull on the rope with a force of A-B, but then your assumption that the 2 pull with forces of different magnitudes is still wrong.
I have to do all of your homework.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
You mean the homework I already did for you and showed you were completely wrong, in several different ways?
Lets simplify things a bit, rather than using A and B, lets use another force, call it F, where F=A-B.
This means:
The net force on boat X will be: -F
The net force on boat Y will be: F
The net force on the string will be [F] - [F]
Notice how that is exactly what I said was happening?
Notice how you have just shown that I was completely right?
Just in case you don't, lets analyse it a bit more:
The net force on boat X will be: -F
This means the rope is pulling on boat X with a force of -F, and thus X is pulling on the rope with a force of F (not A like you claim).
The net force on boat Y will be: F
This means the rope is pulling on boat X with a force of F, and thus Y is pulling on the rope with a force of -F (not B like you claim).
The net force on the string will be [F] - [F]
This is composed of the already discussed forces, X pulling with a force of F, and Y pulling with a force of -F.
Notice how X and Y are pulling with forces F and -F respectively? Not A and B like you claim?
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Yes, because you have counted them twice.
When you count every force twice, it will still balance.
However, now instead of X pulling on the rope with A like you claimed, it is pulling on the rope with A-B.
The other way of saying it is that you are pretending X is only pulling on the rope with half the force X is actually pulling on the rope.
By contrast/comparison, here is the catastrophic RE analysis:
You mean the accurate one, which shows the reality of the situation, where instead of X pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, it pulls on the rope with a force of A like you originally claimed, and that Y pulls on the rope with a force that is equal and opposite, which your conclusion still showed?
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Yes, your hypothesis where that those 2 forces were not equal in magnitude.
I showed that that is wrong, and that A=-B.
What's your refutation of that conclusion? Basically this:
"NO!!! I SAID THEY WERE DIFFERENT!!! BELIEVE ME!!! YOU'RE WRONG!!!!"
The RE analysis has lead to the worst contradiction possible, where the errors come in full view: A has to be equated to B, when in reality A does not equal B.
No. The RE analysis only contradicts your assumption that the magnitude of A and B are different. Without that baseless assumption it works fine.
It shows that A=-B. You are yet to show that your baseless assumption is true.
The correct FE equations are:
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
Which contradicts your claim that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, instead you have it pulling on the rope with a force of A-B.
-
I have to do all of your homework.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
You claim that the force in the rope is 0?
That would mean that the rope can be very thin even not existing.
Wow you are way of from the reality.
Keep on living in you imaginary world, but stop claiming this kind of Bullshit as true, somebody even could believe you.
The net force on the rope, not the tension in the rope.
This means the rope isn't moving towards either boat.
-
And Sandy, just for you, a shorter version, just going based on the key points:
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Simplifying these by using F, where F=A-B:
The net force on boat X will be: -F
The net force on boat Y will be: F
The net force on the string will be [F] - [F]
Thus, in this situation, X is being pulled by the string with a force of -F, thus to complete the action/reaction pair, X must be pulling on the string with a force of F.
Similarly, Y is being pulled by the string with a force of F, and thus must be pulling on the string with a force of -F.
Thus the net force on the string would be F-F, which matches the above.
Notice how X is pulling with a force of F, which is equal but opposite the force from Y (-F), just like I claimed before, and going directly against what you repeatedly asserted?
Also notice how X is pulling with a force of F=A-B, not a force of A like you repeatedly asserted?
Notice how you have contradicted yourself twice?
In what the force X is pulling on the string with, and with the forces from X and Y being different or equal in magnitude.
In both cases your analysis shows your initial assumption/claim was wrong, and in both cases it fully supports me.
Good job refuting yourself.
-
I have to do all of your homework.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Hey I can do that to. Let's add force c,d,e, and f which have different magnitude than a.
The net force on boat X will be: -a+b-c+d-e+f
The net force on boat Y will be: a-b+c-d+e-f
The net force on the rope will be: (-a+b-c+d-e+f)+(a-b+c-d+e-f) = 0
All the forces balance out perfectly
But they include 6 TIMES "THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system", whatever that means, lol.
Since there is no physical significance of breaking what is a single tension (pulling) force acting on the rope into a,b,c,d,e, and f:
let a-b+c-d+e-f = A
The net force on Boat X will be : -A
The net force on Boat Y will be : A
The net force on the rope will be: A-A=0
All forces balance out perfectly
But they include only what is needed and only what is physically significant
Now what is this nonsense about "TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED"?
-
jack, you have lost big in this thread.
You are not even capable of thinking clearly.
You really need some help.
Here is how jack's twisted logic works:
You have baselessly assumed that they cannot be equal (but opposite), when they must be.
jack, the truth is starring you in the face: forces A and B are of different magnitude. Not the same.
This thread has turned into a complete defeat for you.
Have you lost it totally?
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE TO START WITH.
Different men, different strengths, different force of pulling.
How in the world can you write something like this?
They are not equal, get it straight through your head.
Otherwise, people here are going to believe that you are not all there.
You mean where I clearly demonstrated that they were the same force? That A=-B?
Using your twisted logic, you reached the worst kind of contradiction: where your conclusion drastically violates the hypothesis of the problem.
It doesn't get any worse than this.
I then analysed the situation, showing clearly that A=-B, and thus |A|=|B|.
So yes, this is a proof by contradiction.
It shows that your claim is wrong. It shows that |A|=|B|, that the 2 forces are equal (in magnitude, but opposite in sign), and that your baseless assumption that they are different is completely wrong.
jack, you have lost touch with reality since you are unable to accept defeat.
Do you realize how wrong you are?
How can A = B when the two forces are of different magnitude to start with?
A does not equal B.
But to you it is no problem at all.
I did the same (well technically, I didn't make the assumption but it can be made as there are 2 variables).
Assume the 2 forces are different in magnitude (i.e. not equal).
Do logical/mathematical analysis.
Arrive at conclusion that 2 forces are equal in magnitude.
I told you that you most definitely have lost touch with the real world.
The hypothesis is most directly true: FORCES A AND B ARE NOT EQUAL.
You used the wrong net force on boat X to start with.
In your twisted little logic, then you proceeded to substitute at will, until you reached the conclusion that A = B.
You couldn't be more wrong!
Your analysis shows that the RE way of doing things is totally wrong.
Here are the correct equations, where we take into account the TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X RESPECTIVELY ON BOAT Y:
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
So that means that the rope is pulling on X with a force of -A+B.
But as per Newton's third law, that means boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A like you claim.
So which is it?
Is X pulling on the rope (and thus boat Y) with a force of A, or a force of A-B?
You have totally lost touch with reality, jack.
It is that simple.
I always claimed that there are TWO FORCES acting on boat X: -A AND B.
ALWAYS.
For boat X the net force is -A=B.
For boat Y the net force is A=-B.
They are equal but opposite. Just like you would expect for the third law.
They cannot be equal since by the very hypothesis, A does not equal B.
Since you have reached the wrong conclusion, something is very wrong with your analysis: you did not count the net force on boat X right.
But I did.
I do not have to substitute anything to get the final result.
Everything works out fine.
The net force on boat X will be: -F
The net force on boat Y will be: F
The net force on the string will be [F] - [F]
I'm sorry, you had it your way, with the F force: you reached a most direct contradiction of the hypothesis itself.
Here is how your analysis went.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Using your way, YOU REACHED A CONTRADICTION which violates the hypothesis, that forces A and B are not equal.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE TO START WITH.
Only my analysis takes this crucial fact into account.
I do not have to make substitutions to reach a direct conclusion.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A]
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
The net force on boat X will be: -a+b-c+d-e+f
It does not work out like that.
There are only two forces acting on boat X: -A AND B.
No other forces. Period.
-
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE TO START WITH.
It is not possible for this to be true. If they are pulling on the same rope they are each pulling with the tension in the rope.
If the rope is assumed massless, then the tension in the rope is exactly the same at each point in the rope, including the ends.
Different men, different strengths, different force of pulling.
Yes, "Different men, different strengths", different capsbilities but not necessarily "different forces of pulling".
Just because one man is capable of pulling 700 N and the other capable of pulling only 500 N, does not that they pull those forces all times.
Consider the top diagram with man A, the "weaker one", pulling the rope attached to a wall. Obviously he can apply his full strength of 500 N.
The tension in the rope is 500 N as is the force on the wall.
(http://www.mwit.ac.th/~physicslab/applet_04/physics_classroom/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a12.gif)
Now, in the lower diagram, try as he might, man A cannot pull more than 500 N, as that is his limit.
As before, the tension in the rope is 500 N as is the force applied to man B, the strong man.
The equal and opposite reaction force to the tension in the rope at the right hand end is still 500 N.
Even though man B is capable of pulling 700 N, he cannot do that here without over-exerting man A!
The tension in the rope is limited to the lesser of the capabilities of the two men.
But when you get to the earth-moon system, it's not even a matter of two forces of different strengths.
The moon-earth gravitational force is simply Fm-E = (G x mm x ME)/d2
There are no two forces of different strengths.
PS I certainly hope that you never try to design a suspending bridge.
-
rabinoz, you are not helping the RE faction.
Not at all.
Not even if those two men in boats X and Y were twins, their applied forces could not be the same.
Force A is different, totally different than force B.
They cannot be the same.
Not at all. Not ever.
Different men, different forces applied to the rope.
It is that simple.
Then you have a huge problem, since the twisted RE analysis leads to a most direct contradiction.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Using only a single force on boat X, we reach the worst kind of contradiction.
A does NOT equal B, by hypothesis. Those two forces are not of the same magnitude.
Yet, by using the RE's own analysis we reach a direct contradiction.
As I have said from the very start, boat X and respectively boat Y, will be acted upon by TWO FORCES:
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
But when you get to the earth-moon system, it's not even a matter of two forces of different strengths.
But it is a matter of having the double number of forces.
Remember this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905030#msg1905030
Boat X has two forces acting upon it: -A and B.
So will the Earth.
So will the Moon.
Within the "attraction" concepts:
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
-
Leave my buddy Newton alone.
(https://s27.postimg.org/890pjjfkz/19060057dc47764109b3c1f88477cde1.jpg)
-
rabinoz, you are not helping the RE faction.
Not at all.
Not even if those two men in boats X and Y were twins, their applied forces could not be the same.
Force A is different, totally different than force B.
They cannot be the same.
Not at all. Not ever.
Different men, different forces applied to the rope.
It is that simple.
Then you have a huge problem, since the twisted RE analysis leads to a most direct contradiction.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Using only a single force on boat X, we reach the worst kind of contradiction.
A does NOT equal B, by hypothesis. Those two forces are not of the same magnitude.
Yet, by using the RE's own analysis we reach a direct contradiction.
As I have said from the very start, boat X and respectively boat Y, will be acted upon by TWO FORCES:
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
But when you get to the earth-moon system, it's not even a matter of two forces of different strengths.
But it is a matter of having the double number of forces.
Remember this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905030#msg1905030
Boat X has two forces acting upon it: -A and B.
So will the Earth.
So will the Moon.
Within the "attraction" concepts:
From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
I tried reading your post. I really did, but it was just full of nonsensical rubbish and assumptions it became too hard! Can you dumb it down in a succinct formula? Much like Newton's Laws, lets call them Sandokhan's Laws. What are the basic principles of whatever it was you were just talking about?
-
rabinoz, you are not helping the RE faction.
So says the smartest man in the world who can't understand a simple physics problem!
Not even if those two men in boats X and Y were twins, their applied forces could not be the same.
Force A is different, totally different than force B.
They cannot be the same.
Not at all. Not ever.
Different men, different forces applied to the rope.
No, never!
If the rope is assumed massless, then the tension in it is the same all along its length.
Any nett force would accelerate the rope, but since it is supposedly massless, that acceleration would be infinite.
And Einstein wrote of the infinite: | (https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1429114964p2/9810.jpg) | .... |
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” |
― Albert Einstein
So, please explain in less than 10 pages how it can be any different.
Or read Physics Stack Exchange, Nature of tension in a massless rope. (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138563/nature-of-tension-in-a-massless-rope?rq=1)
And, no I did not bother looking that up before earlier posts - all I looked for was suitable diagrams.
-
Newton's third law is fine.
No problem.
It has to be applied correctly to the two boats pulled by a rope situation.
The RE had the chance to make their case.
It turned out to be a total disaster.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
A total catastrophe.
Forces A and B are of a different magnitude, in fact they could never be equal at all.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
In the correct FE analysis, the TWO FORCES acting on boat X are included perfectly and correctly.
The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.
A perfect demonstration that there are indeed two forces acting on boat X, respectively on boat Y: the equations work out in total balance, no wild substitutions are to be made, no contradiction is to be reached at all.
-
Forces A and B are of a different magnitude, in fact they could never be equal at all.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
Please show on a diagram what you are talking about and what the tension in the rope is.
The way you describe it makes no sense at all.
-
jack, you have lost big in this thread.
You are not even capable of thinking clearly.
You really need some help.
I have continually refuted you. Why don't you cut out the pathetic insults, it clearly isn't working.
Here is how jack's twisted logic works:
You have baselessly assumed that they cannot be equal (but opposite), when they must be.
No, that is how my completely sane logic works, as well as the logic of pretty much everyone.
You are claiming/assuming they are of different magnitude. You have no basis for this claim.
As such, it is a baseless assumption.
What is twisted there?
jack, the truth is starring you in the face: forces A and B are of different magnitude. Not the same.
Repeating the same baseless assumption won't magically make it true.
The truth is right there staring you in the face, a truth you have somewhat acknowledged multiple times by quoting my proof that A=-B.
The forces are equal but opposite, just like you would expect for an action/reaction pair.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE TO START WITH.
PROVE IT!!!
Different men, different strengths, different force of pulling.
Sure, they can have different strengths, that doesn't mean the force will necessarily be different.
A strong person can lift up a 1L bottle of water without applying a giganewton of force.
Similarly, someone with greater strength can apply less force to pull the rope.
The weaker person will be the limiting factor, where if they can't provide/channel enough force, the rope will fly out of their hand or they will fly off the boat.
How in the world can you write something like this?
BECAUSE IT IS TRUE!!!
They are not equal, get it straight through your head.
THEN PROVE THEY AREN'T.
So far all you have done is assert they aren't.
You mean where I clearly demonstrated that they were the same force? That A=-B?
Using your twisted logic, you reached the worst kind of contradiction: where your conclusion drastically violates the hypothesis of the problem.
No. I reached one of the best kinds of conclusions, a conclusion which completely solves the problem, with no paradox or contradiction.
The only thing I contradicted was your baseless assumption.
All that means is your assumption was wrong.
The actual "hypothesis" of the situation was that there were 2 people in 2 boats.
The one in boat X is pulling on a rope with force A.
The one in boat Y is pulling on the same rope with force B.
There are no other entities around to influence the situation.
Based upon this, A=-B, as I showed repeatedly.
It only contradicts your baseless claim, thus it is only catastrophic for you.
It doesn't get any worse than this.
Somewhat correct. It can't get much worse for you. Especially after you basically refuted yourself.
jack, you have lost touch with reality since you are unable to accept defeat.
I'll make you a deal, you actually defeat me, and I will accept defeat.
So far you have just repeatedly gotten your ass handed to you. I'm not the one being defeated here.
Do you realize how wrong you are?
For this specific situation?
Somewhere between 0 and 1%.
Do you realise how wrong you are?
Around 90-100%
How can A = B when the two forces are of different magnitude to start with?
That is the whole point, they aren't different in magnitude. How about you stop baselessly claiming that.
That is where a key part of your BS analysis of this problem comes from, your baseless assumption.
A does not equal B.
That is right. A=-B. Notice the MINUS!!!
They are equal but opposite.
But to you it is no problem at all.
Yes, because I discarded your bullshit, baseless claim.
Why should your baseless claim be a problem for me?
The hypothesis is most directly true: FORCES A AND B ARE NOT EQUAL.
No. It is most definitely false, as shown by my proof by contradiction.
There is no escaping that.
You also effectively disproved it with your analysis, showing that X doesn't pull with A, but with A-B, which is also equal but opposite to what Y pulls with, so the real force is equal but opposite, completely contradict your baseless claim.
So no, your baseless claim is not true, in any way.
You used the wrong net force on boat X to start with.
No. I used the correct one.
You used the wrong, claiming that it is magically experiencing a force of -A+B, while it is only providing a force of A, a complete defiance of Newton's laws of motion and objective reality.
In your twisted little logic, then you proceeded to substitute at will, until you reached the conclusion that A = B.
Yes, I substitute to have a single force of X pulling on the rope rather than 2, to accurately show how much force X is pulling on the rope with, and then I get A=-B, exactly as you would expect from an honest, rational analysis.
You couldn't be more wrong!
Stop just asserting bullshit.
If you think I am wrong point out exactly what I did wrong, quoting what I said, correcting it explicitly (by effectively copying and pasting what I said but with correction) and then explain why.
Your analysis shows that the RE way of doing things is totally wrong.
No. My analysis shows that your method is completely wrong, because it will reach a contradiction (or several), and a correct method does not produce double the force.
Here are the correct equations, where we take into account the TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X RESPECTIVELY ON BOAT Y:
Then it is incorrect, as there is only a single force acting on boat X, the force of the rope pulling boat X in reaction to boat X pulling the rope. There is no other force. There cannot be any other force.
The only entity capable of acting on X is the rope.
Any force the rope applies to X must be matched in an action/reaction pair by X applying a force to the rope.
As such, if boat X applies a force of A to to the rope, then the rope applies a force of -A to boat X. There is no possibility for any other force.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
And all that force must come from the rope pulling on boat X.
This means there is an action-reaction pair between boat X and the rope such that:
boat X applies a force of A-B to the rope, and
the rope applies a force of -A+B to boat X.
This means boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A like you claim.
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
Again, provided by the rope.
Just like the above, this means boat Y will be applying a force to the rope of B-A, not B like you claim.
Also note that this is -(A-B). This means the force boat Y is applying to the rope is equal but opposite the force boat X is applying to the rope, i.e. boat X and boat Y are pulling the rope with forces that are equal in magnitude, not different in magnitude like you claim.
Thus, not only are you contradicting yourself (your baseless claim that the forces are different), you are also contradicting the very basis of the hypothesis/situation you are trying to model.
You have totally lost touch with reality, jack.
It is that simple.
Yes, my analysis is that simple, yet you still either don't understand it or are unwilling to admit you were wrong.
I always claimed that there are TWO FORCES acting on boat X: -A AND B.
Yes, you repeatedly baselessly asserted that, without any rational backing.
I repeatedly pointed out that you were wrong, and that in reality A=-B, thus it is the same force.
Since you have reached the wrong conclusion, something is very wrong with your analysis: you did not count the net force on boat X right.
No. I reached the correct conclusion, based upon an accurately, rational, honest analysis of the situation, free from baseless claims about it (like |A|!=|B|).
My conclusion and reasoning was also entirely consistent, both internally (i.e. with itself) and with the situation, unlike yours which contradicts both.
But I did.
No. You didn't.
You counted the same force twice, resulting in you falsely concluding that the force is double what you expect.
Using your way, YOU REACHED A CONTRADICTION which violates the hypothesis, that forces A and B are not equal.
Again, that isn't the hypothesis, that is your baseless claim.
The hypothesis is that boat X pulls with a force of A, and boat Y pulls with a force of B. There is no requirement for them to be different. An honest, rational analysis concludes that A=-B.
Your analysis requires A=B=0, which still contradicts your claim that they are different.
Only my analysis takes this crucial fact into account.
It isn't a fact. It is pure bullshit.
It contradicts reality.
Even your analysis contradicted it.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
No. A single force does. -A=B.
They are the same force.
If you like, you can represent this force as -F, and then break it apart into -A+B, but then X still applies a force of F to the rope, not A.
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
No. They don't. Not with your dishonest bullshit.
You claim X pulls on the rope with a force of A, yet if the rope is pulling on boat X with a force of -A+B, boat X MUST pull on the rope with a force of A-B. There is no way around that. So no, it doesn't balance.
You are missing a term of -B in the force X applies to the rope (or you have an extra term of +B in the force the rope applies).
Similarly you are missing a term of -A in the force Y applies to the rope.
So no, it doesn't balance.
In order for it to balance you need -A=-A+B, and you need -B=-B+A.
Does that look balanced to you?
Just in case you can't tell, you can simplify it by adding A or B to both sides.
This gives you:
0=B and 0=A
The only way to balance that is if A=B=0 (which again goes against your claim), but that would mean there is no force being applied.
So no, it isn't balanced.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Yes, because you are counting them twice/only counting half.
It does not work out like that.
That's right. It doesn't. So why do you think your way does?
There are only two forces acting on boat X: -A AND B.
No. There is only a single force acting on boat X. -A=B.
No other forces. Period.
That's right. No other forces, just -A=B.
-
Sandy, do us a favour and fill in the blanks;
The net force on boat X (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat X is pulling the rope with a force of ___
The net force on boat Y (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat Y is pulling the rope with a force of ___
Thus the net force on the rope is ___+___=___
Can you do that?
Don't try doing any bullshit or rewriting it yourself.
Copy that list exactly as it is, and replace the ___ with values.
You can use your A and B and + and - and brackets and so on.
-
I tried reading your post. I really did, but it was just full of nonsensical rubbish and assumptions it became too hard! Can you dumb it down in a succinct formula? Much like Newton's Laws, lets call them Sandokhan's Laws. What are the basic principles of whatever it was you were just talking about?
Basically it goes something like this:
For every action (at least in the directions Sandy decides) there is a double but opposite reaction.
-
jack, you need medical help.
Urgently.
You are unable to digest your total loss.
PROVE IT!!!
The proof is in the pulling.
The man in boat X will pull on the rope with force A.
There is no way that a second person, in boat Y, will be able to pull WITH THE EXACT SAME FORCE.
It won't happen, it cannot happen.
The man in boat Y will pull on the rope with force B.
Two different forces, of a different magnitude.
Having no clue as to how to correctly apply Newton's third law to this problem, you proceeded as follows:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Your final result is this: the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B.
Your final result could not be more wrong.
More disastrous.
But to you it is not a problem.
Which means you urgently need some help.
Using your own analysis, you reached the conclusion that A and B are the same forces.
By the very hypothesis, these two forces are of a different magnitude.
They are different forces, not to be confused with one another.
It is all over for you jack.
Your analysis led to a catastrophic contradiction for the RE, thanks to you.
My analysis is very simple, and for the first time, it takes into account the TWO FORCES ACTING ON EACH BOAT.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
This means boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A like you claim.
Are you well jack?
I never claimed it was just A.
I always claimed that there two forces acting on boat X.
You cannot have A=-B, since this conclusion contradicts the hypothesis: we have two different forces to start with.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE: the two men doing the pulling with apply a different force each, not the same.
Your bumbling analysis led to a humongous contradiction.
That means your analysis based on a single force acting on boat X is wrong.
My analysis on the other hand is perfect.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
-
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE TO START WITH.
sandokhan, I usually enjoy your posts, but you are making an ass of yourself.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
You have to debunk Newtons third law before continuing your argument.
Edit.
jack, you need medical help.
Urgently.
You are unable to digest your total loss.
What? Because he is for all intents an purposes beating you with a big stick in the corner, you call him mentally ill?
Why do people do this?
-
d1, please follow the technical details very closely.
I am not disputing Newton's third law, as you wrongly accused me of doing.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Exactly.
Precisely.
There are two forces acting on boat X: the man doing the pulling himself, and the pulling from boat Y: they occur at the same time.
That is why they have to be taken into account.
Here is the analysis provided by jack.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Based on his analysis, he reached the conclusion that A = -B.
The man in boat X will pull on the rope with force A.
There is no way that a second person, in boat Y, will be able to pull WITH THE EXACT SAME FORCE.
It won't happen, it cannot happen.
The man in boat Y will pull on the rope with force B.
Two different forces, of a different magnitude.
He has defeated himself, using his own bumbling analysis.
It seems you are incapable, d1, of following this discussion, for you have reached the wrong conclusion also.
Using his own analysis, your RE friend reached the conclusion that A and B are the same forces.
By the very hypothesis, these two forces are of a different magnitude.
They are different forces, not to be confused with one another.
Can you understand this much?
Now, here is my correct analysis, taking into consideration BOTH FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, AND THE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y:
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
jackblack is a classic case of cognitive dissonance: he cannot digest his own loss.
FORCES A AND BY ARE OF A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE TO START WITH: OUR OWN HYPOTHESIS.
HIS BUMBLING ANALYSIS LED TO HIS CONCLUSION THAT A = -B.
A TOTAL CONTRADICTION.
What is going on with your own mind d1, to actually make a post where claim that someone else is winning?
If A DOES NOT EQUAL B to start with, and he reached the conclusion that A = - B, and to him this is not a problem, does he need medical help or not?
-
You are unable to digest your total loss.
It is pretty hard to digest something which doesn't exist.
I haven't received a loss at all here.
PROVE IT!!!
The proof is in the pulling.
The man in boat X will pull on the rope with force A.
There is no way that a second person, in boat Y, will be able to pull WITH THE EXACT SAME FORCE.
It won't happen, it cannot happen.
So rather than prove it, you just baselessly assert it. Good job.
Now care to try for some actual proof?
Newtons third law indicates that if you have 2 people pulling a rope creating tension in the rope, they must be pulling on the rope with equal but opposite forces. Otherwise the rope will fly out of one of their hands.
So reality indicates that not only can they, they MUST pull with equal but opposite force.
Two different forces, of a different magnitude.
Yes, that is the baseless claim you are yet to prove.
Having no clue as to how to correctly apply Newton's third law to this problem, you proceeded as follows:
No. By correctly applying Newton's third law, something you seem incapable of doing.
Your final result is this: the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B.
Your final result could not be more wrong.
No. My final result couldn't be more correct, as that is the correct answer to this problem.
But to you it is not a problem.
Again, that is because I didn't baselessly assume pure bullshit like you did.
I am fine with the 2 forces being equal, because there is NOTHING preventing them from being equal and that is the correct answer.
Which means you urgently need some help.
No, which means I can honestly and accurately analyse a situation rather than discarded the correct answer because of preconceived bullshit.
By the very hypothesis, these two forces are of a different magnitude.
No. By your baseless claim, which you are yet to back up in any way.
The hypothesis was merely that boat X was pulling with force A, and boat Y was pulling with force B.
My analysis is entirely consistent with that.
Your analysis isn't, at least not when using the 3rd law.
Your analysis led to a catastrophic contradiction for the RE, thanks to you.
Again, it only contradicts your baseless claim.
On the other hand, your analysis completely contradicts the hypothesis and your claim.
My analysis is very simple, and for the first time, it takes into account the TWO FORCES ACTING ON EACH BOAT.
You mean it counts the same force twice.
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
No. They don't.
I never claimed it was just A.
[/quote]
So with what force is X pulling on the rope?
That means your analysis based on a single force acting on boat X is wrong.
No. It means it doesn't go based upon your baseless bullshit.
My analysis on the other hand is perfect.
Except that it counts the forces twice.
-
Like I asked before:
Fill in the blanks:
The net force on boat X (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat X is pulling the rope with a force of ___
The net force on boat Y (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat Y is pulling the rope with a force of ___
Thus the net force on the rope is ___+___=___
Think you can manage that?
-
Newtons third law indicates that if you have 2 people pulling a rope creating tension in the rope, they must be pulling on the rope with equal but opposite forces. Otherwise the rope will fly out of one of their hands.
Yes.
Of course.
Now, here is my correct analysis, taking into consideration BOTH FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, AND THE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y:
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
Now, here is your own analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Based on own analysis, you reached the conclusion that A = -B.
The man in boat X will pull on the rope with force A.
There is no way that a second person, in boat Y, will be able to pull WITH THE EXACT SAME FORCE.
It won't happen, it cannot happen.
The man in boat Y will pull on the rope with force B.
Two different forces, of a different magnitude.
Forces A and B are of a different magnitude, in fact they could never be equal at all.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
It is your very own analysis that has defeated you jack.
You are history here.
You have claimed that the absolute value of force A equals the absolute value of force B.
In total contradiction to the hypothesis, which states that forces A and B are not the same.
My analysis, which does take into account ALL OF THE FORCES, suffers from no such contradictions.
Here it is:
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
-
Sandokhan I forgot to ask you when you replied to my threat a few months ago (it's a little too late to reply in that one I think) do you have any of your own written works on FE?
-
Newtons third law indicates that if you have 2 people pulling a rope creating tension in the rope, they must be pulling on the rope with equal but opposite forces. Otherwise the rope will fly out of one of their hands.
Yes.
Of course.
Thus, whatever force X is pulling on the rope with, which you have described as A, is equal but opposite whatever Y is pulling on the rope with, which you have called B.
Thus A=-B.
QED.
Good job refuting yourself again.
Now, here is my correct analysis, taking into consideration BOTH FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, AND THE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT Y:
Enough of repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again.
Fill in the blanks:
The net force on boat X (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat X is pulling the rope with a force of ___
The net force on boat Y (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat Y is pulling the rope with a force of ___
Thus the net force on the rope is ___+___=___
Until you do that, your analysis is pure bullshit.
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Sure, the ones you have shown balance, but you leave out other forces, such as the force X is pulling on the rope with, i.e. A.
In order for it to balance, that must be equal but opposite to the force the rope is pulling on the boat with, i.e. you need this equality to hold:
-A=-A+B.
Do you really think that is balanced?
That is also why you get twice the force. You double it/ignore half of it.
No wild substitutions, no contradictions to be reached.
Except when analysed according to Newton's third law, you do have a contradiction.
If the net force on X from the rope is -A+B, then X needs to apply a force of A-B to the rope, not the A you claim.
If the force X applies to the rope is A-B, and the force Y applies is B-A, then they are equal and opposite, contradicting your baseless assumption.
So yes, you do have contradictions.
Based on own analysis, you reached the conclusion that A = -B.
Yes. Based upon my analysis I reached a conclusion consistent with reality.
There is no way that a second person, in boat Y, will be able to pull WITH THE EXACT SAME FORCE.
Due to how forces work, there is. The person doesn't even need to be a person.
An inanimate object is capable of doing it.
Two different forces, of a different magnitude.
PROVE IT OR STOP REPEATING THE SAME REFUTED BULLSHIT!
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
No. Not the very hypothesis. Your baseless claim.
It is your very own analysis that has defeated you jack.
No. I didn't make the baseless claim that |A|!=|B|. That was you.
My analysis defeated you, not me.
But don't worry, I'm not alone. Your analysis defeated yourself as well.
-
Based upon my analysis I reached a conclusion consistent with reality.
You reached the conclusion that A = -B.
But this contradicts the hypothesis: forces A and B are of a different magnitude.
How is that consistent with reality?
Two men, located on boats X and Y, will not pull with the same force, this is a basic fact of science.
Their strengths are different, the resulting forces will be different of course.
This is reality.
The forces applied to boats X and Y will be different.
This is the basic hypothesis.
Yet, your analysis led to a most blatant contradiction.
Here it is.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
A total disaster for the RE, courtesy of jackblack.
Since the hypothesis states that A and B are different, not of the same magnitude, to reach a conclusion where A = B, means you now have a total contradiction.
That is, your analysis is worthless.
I have offered each and every equation pertaining to the balance of forces on the boats.
Here they are.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
My analysis leads to no contradictions at all: everything works out naturally and beautifully.
Your analysis by contrast led to a contradiction: the most basic of them all.
The hypothesis says that forces A and B are of different magnitude.
No two persons can pull with the VERY SAME EXACT STRENGTH.
Of course the pulling forces applied will be of a different magnitude.
Yet, your analysis reached the following conclusion: A = -B.
Totally contradicting the hypothesis.
Your analysis is worthless.
My analysis on the other hand, suffers from no such contradictions.
It includes the two basic forces acting on boat X, as an example: -A and B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
There is nothing else to discuss here.
-
Based upon my analysis I reached a conclusion consistent with reality.
You reached the conclusion that A = -B.
But this contradicts the hypothesis: forces A and B are of a different magnitude.
How is that consistent with reality?
Two men, located on boats X and Y, will not pull with the same force, this is a basic fact of science.
Their strengths are different, the resulting forces will be different of course.
This is reality.
...
you are wrong.
if your claim is the reality, please provide us with real evidence.
show us with measuring devices that the force is different at the point of the two people.
you still only claim stuff but you never showed any evidence.
all you are writing here is made up in your head, and you made it up that way to fit your believes.
-
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
A total match. A perfect match.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
-
Newtons third law indicates that if you have 2 people pulling a rope creating tension in the rope, they must be pulling on the rope with equal but opposite forces. Otherwise the rope will fly out of one of their hands.
Yes.
Of course.
Thus, whatever force X is pulling on the rope with, which you have described as A, is equal but opposite whatever Y is pulling on the rope with, which you have called B.
Thus A=-B.
QED.
Good job refuting yourself again.
But don't worry, I'm not alone. Your analysis defeated yourself as well.
and
Based upon my analysis I reached a conclusion consistent with ::) reality. ::)
you are wrong.
if your claim is the reality, please provide us with real evidence.
Jack and Canadabear, something to ponder while you are "debating" with sandokhan.
It does pay to learn a bit about (the mentality of) your "opponent".
Just look at a minute bit of where his reality takes him!
FET is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.
The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.
The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).
Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.
From: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « on: July 14, 2009, 11:59:41 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg746616#msg746616)
I'm afraid that sandokhan and reality simply have never been introduced.
It's another case of: | (http://izquotes.com/images/adam-savage.jpg) | |
“I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
―Adam Savage From: izQuotes (http://izquotes.com/quote/163198)
|
Have fun!
-
rabinoz, wake up.
GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY
According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics, the ones in question here, the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.
I am going to prove to you that no such thing ever happened, thus showing the utter fallacy of the differential equation approach to understanding orbital mechanics.
You also seem to forget that just as Einstein fudged his Mercury equation to fit the results, so the conspirators who invented the RE differential equations of motion had to modify drastically not only the masses of the planets and the Sun, but also their corresponding distances from Earth, in order to, at least, offer accurate results for a time span not extending beyond some three hundred years.
Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.
A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.
Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.
Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:
“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”
Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.
So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.
Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.
G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?
This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.
1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.
2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.
3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since
1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.
It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!
Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.
With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.
Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.
Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.
G. Nosovky:
The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.
The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.
Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.
Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.
The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.
Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.
The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.
The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.
However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.
We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.
But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.
Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:
Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.
Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.
Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).
The conclusions are as follows:
No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.
In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.
EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR
It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.
What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:
Matthew Vlastar:
“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).
Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.
I have just proven to you that the spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.
Gauss' Easter formula proves immediately the colossal errors inherent in the present day calculations based on the faulty RE equations of orbital mechanics.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674108#msg1674108
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674662#msg1674662
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504
Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).
Here is the basic summary/proofs that the Gauss Easter formula proves that the calculation performed by the RE equations of orbital mechanics for the vernal equinox is completely false and erroneous:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.msg1747779#msg1747779
-
Based upon my analysis I reached a conclusion consistent with reality.
You reached the conclusion that A = -B.
But this contradicts the hypothesis: forces A and B are of a different magnitude.
Again, that was never the hypothesis. That was your baseless claim, something you are yet to prove.
How is that consistent with reality?
See Newtons third law.
Two men, located on boats X and Y, will not pull with the same force, this is a basic fact of science.
Their strengths are different, the resulting forces will be different of course.
No, it won't.
See Newton's third law.
The simple analysis is to remove the rope entirely and have the men pull on each other.
As per Newton's third law, the action and opposite reaction are equal in magnitude, thus the same force.
Just because one is stronger doesn't mean they can't apply less force than they are capable of doing so. If the weaker one's limit is exceeded they can no longer hold the rope.
The forces applied to boats X and Y will be different.
This is the basic hypothesis.
No. The basic hypothesis is that boat X applies a force of A and boat Y applies a force of B. There is no requirement for them to be different.
Yet, your analysis led to a most blatant contradiction.
It only contradicted your baseless claim.
I have offered each and every equation pertaining to the balance of forces on the boats.
No you haven't. You continually refused to provide clear ones which show the problem with your analysis.
Again, fill in the blanks (if you can):
The net force on boat X (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat X is pulling the rope with a force of ___
The net force on boat Y (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat Y is pulling the rope with a force of ___
Thus the net force on the rope is ___+___=___
What are you afraid of?
Are you unable to fulfil this simple request or do you know it will show you to be completely wrong?
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
The simplest measuring device is a spring scale, which works regardless of which way it is oriented. It is based upon tension.
So you can just hook that up between 2 people, and guess what, it has a reading, which is the force each person is applying.
It isn't the limit of your strength which is the key here, it is what is currently being applied.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Not when trying to pull a random object, but when pulling against each other, they can, and it happens quite frequently.
rabinoz, wake up.
GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY
Don't try and derail the thread. We are sticking to your ignorance of simple physics until that is dealt with with you either proving us wrong (and no your baseless assertions are not proof we are wrong), or you accepting you are wrong.
Again, fill in the blanks (if you can):
The net force on boat X (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat X is pulling the rope with a force of ___
The net force on boat Y (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat Y is pulling the rope with a force of ___
Thus the net force on the rope is ___+___=___
-
Each and every equation as it pertains to the balance of forces in the example with the two boats X and Y being pulled toward each other, on a lake, has been posted already, remember?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1905280#msg1905280
Here they are again.
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Each request made regarding the balance of forces is met immediately by perusing my equations.
Everything is in plain sight.
The forces applied to boats X and Y will be different.
This is the basic hypothesis.
Yet, your analysis led to a most blatant contradiction.
Here it is.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Since the hypothesis states that A and B are different, not of the same magnitude, to reach a conclusion where A = B, means you now have a total contradiction.
That is, your analysis is worthless.
Here is the most absurd requirement of the RE's own analysis: a perfect match.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
The RE's analysis of the two boats on a lake moving toward each other, linked by a rope, FAILED DISASTROUSLY.
At the same time, MY ANALYSIS PROVED TO BE A TOTAL SUCCESS.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT X: -A AND B.
TWO FORCES ACT ON BOAT Y: -B AND A.
The net force on the rope will be:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All of the forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
A total match. A perfect match.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
where did i say that a pull i do at one given moment is the same as on a different moment or even the highest strength i am able of?
you have really to learn stuff and understand reality.
take your finger out of your ears and take the blindfold of.
i am wondering what you do for living and if you are the same way in your job.
-
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Can you explain what this statement is supposed to mean?
-
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
It leads to a contradiction.
Useless.
Worthless.
FE correct analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
Exquisite.
Wonderful.
-
to go back to the original topic.
sandy seems to claims that there is no gravitation existing.
he tries to proof it with a explanation that based on the earth-moon system.
sandy claims that the earth-moon system is like a boat and a ship on a lake.
he says that the gravitational force is like a rope between the earth and the moon.
sandy also claims that the force that pulls the ship and the boat together is twice the force each side pulls at the rope.
he also claims that each side pulls with a different force.
his conclusion is:
the force between earth and moon is twice the gravitational force between the two objects (taken from the boat-ship system)
than the gravitational force gets calculated from the earth-moon system and compared with the calculated moon centrifugal force.
sandy comes to it, that the gravitational force between earth and moon is equal the moon centrifugal force.
but as he thinks he has to double the gravitational force between earth and moon, he concludes that the moon should move towards the earth.
and as we know that this is not happen, he claims that gravitation is not existend.
now the question is: why does sandy do it this way to "proof" that gravitation is not real?
its very simple: he does a complicated way to put in a few false claims to cover them up.
he knows that he does this false claims.
thats the way he always argues, he makes his "explanations" sound very complicated to appear smart and that he knows a lot of things.
i must say he is a kind of smart to do his arguing that way.
but if he is kind of smart, why can he not see the reality?
-
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
My Shape-Of-The-Earth analysis for my example has similar capability but since it is not nearly as prestigous an example can only handle the case where six.5 forces are perfectly matched down to around the 99er'th+i of a fraction of a 2.248E4 lbf*dyne/Newton.
In my example the superfluous hypothesis is there are six.5 forces a,b,c,d,e, and 3/2f of different magnitude (but they could also be the same after I write my silly "mechanics" equations).
The net force on boat X will be: -a+b-c+d-e+3/2f
The net force on boat Y will be: a-b+c-d+e-3/2f
The net force on the rope will be: (-a+b-c+d-e+3/2f)+(a-b+c-d+e-3/2f) = 0
-
You need to learn how to properly apply the third law to our example.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
You need to learn how to properly apply the third law to our example.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
you can repeat it as often as you like, but it does not make it correct.
you are wrong, and i believe you know it.
-
The above analysis is totally correct.
No question about it.
It leads to no contradictions at all.
The net force on the string is zero.
All forces properly accounted for.
Let us now compare the RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
From the very start it leads to a contradiction.
Useless.
Worthless.
-
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
You have provided no real world physical explanation for how Force A and Force B can be of different magnitude while acting on the same rope. All you have done is repeatedly assert that they are different and it is a basic requirement of the problem (fantasy Sandokhan physics). Similarly, in my more sophisticated fantasy example I have not explained this either. In the real world Force A and Force B must sum to equal the tension in the rope. Because of this we may simplify such nonsense as Force A and "different" Force B into a single axial force in the rope.
Besides your fantasy example is boring, my fantasy example is at least 3.25 times more sophisticated than yours as it can deal with even more contrived forces, something your example is unable to do. Your FE example is no match for the sophistication of my far superior Shape-Of-The-Earth example which can also take into account coefficients.
In my example the superfluous hypothesis is there are six.5 forces a,b,c,d,e, and 3/2f of different magnitude (but they could also be the same after I write my silly "mechanics" equations).
The net force on boat X will be: -a+b-c+d-e+3/2f
The net force on boat Y will be: a-b+c-d+e-3/2f
The net force on the rope will be: (-a+b-c+d-e+3/2f)+(a-b+c-d+e-3/2f) = 0
-
So many As and Bs here it looks like a Swedish pop quartet from the 70s and 80s with a foxy blonde singer!
There's no way I'm reading back through all that lot, but would it help to think that it doesn't matter on which boats the 2 men actually are? They can be on different boats or on the same one (with the rope tied to the other and both pulling on the other end). Sure they can pull with different forces, the "attraction" force between the boats will clearly be the sum of their 2 forces. The rope is being stretched by the same force.
If they were on land with heels dug in as a tug of war they won't move until the force overcomes the static friction of one of them.
The inward acceleration of the boats will be reduced somewhat because of the friction of the water but the principle is the same.
2 spacemen are going to accelerate towards each other with their respective accelerations given by f=ma.
Not sure what the relevance is to the moon-earth system. The moon and earth are rotating around each other. The attractive force is given by newton's law of gravitation. For circular motion the inward centripetal force required (always at right angles to the direction of motion) is F=mv^2 divided by the radius r.
Edit
I think what I'm saying here is wrong!!! See later.
-
Somewhere along the line between the two boats cut the line and insert a force measuring device.(Scale) Continue with the experiment as before. Is the measuring device giving one measurement or multiple measurements? Feel free to similarly install another measuring device at the "A" end and yet another at the "B" end. Will they give different results or are they measuring the same thing the first one was measuring?
Just for kicks add another two at the 1/4 and 3/4 points. If you have more devices start adding them in randomly. What results do you think you will get?
-
The above analysis is totally correct.
No question about it.
It leads to no contradictions at all.
The net force on the string is zero.
All forces properly accounted for.
Let us now compare the RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
From the very start it leads to a contradiction.
Useless.
Worthless.
This is only a contradiction if both the hypothesis and the analysis are correct. If one of them is incorrect there's no contradiction anymore.
Now, to the problem. If I understood correctly, there are 2 boats with one man on each. The men are pulling on a rope that's in no way attached to the boats. Consider the rope massless and that there's no friction with the water.
Given that my understanding of the problem is correct (tell me if I'm mistaken) and there's no action at a distance, I would like to ask sandokhan what are the objects or persons capable of exerting some type of force on the rope and how would they do it.
-
rabinoz, wake up.
GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY
Oops, I triggered another memory dump. So sorry.
Is there anyone any good at finding bugs in an AI program from this sort of thing?
And, I suppose that according to pages and pages of . . . . . . . ., you can prove that I was born yesterday!
No, I wasn't born yesterday.
-
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
The tension on the string at from boat x is A.
The tension on the string at from boat y is B.
But the tension in a massless string os be every the same.
Hence A = B and there is no contradiction.
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1557550.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/old%20advert)
It's shimple
-
Each and every equation as it pertains to the balance of forces in the example with the two boats X and Y being pulled toward each other, on a lake, has been posted already, remember?
And you continually post it in a vague manner to avoid pointing out your problem.
You are yet to explicitly post the action/reaction pairs which make it clear with what force X is pulling on the rope and with what force the rope is pulling on X.
Either answer that question, telling us explicitly what force the rope applies to X and what force X applies to the rope, or fill in the blanks:
Again, fill in the blanks (if you can):
The net force on boat X (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat X is pulling the rope with a force of ___
The net force on boat Y (which is applied by the rope) is ___
Thus, boat Y is pulling the rope with a force of ___
Thus the net force on the rope is ___+___=___
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
Do you accept that this force is delivered purely by the string/rope?
i.e. the rope is applying a force of -A+B onto boat X? (regardless of if that is part of an action/reaction)
Each request made regarding the balance of forces is met immediately by perusing my equations.
SO you accept that you are only counting half the force/counting the forces twice?
If I use your equations, I get that the force X is applying to the rope is A-B, not A like you claim, not A like the situation requires.
As such, you go directly against the hypothesis of the situation.
The forces applied to boats X and Y will be different.
Yet you have clearly shown that they are equal but opposite.
The force you have applied to X=-A+B
The force you have applied to Y=-B+A=-(-A+B)
So they are different in sign, but equal in magnitude.
This is the basic hypothesis.
No. It is your baseless claim which even you contradict.
The basic hypothesis is that boat X applies a force of A to the rope and boat Y applies a force of B to the rope.
There is no requirement for them to be different, and in reality, they mus be equal but opposite. It is only your baseless claim that they must be different.
You completely defy that hypothesis.
Your analysis leads to X pulling the rope with a force of A-B, not A.
It also leads to Y pulling the rope with a force of B-A, which is equal but opposite the force from X.
So not only do you actually contradict the hypothesis of X pulling with A and Y pulling with B, resulting in a doubling/halving of the forces, you also conclude that each boat pulls with an equal but opposite force, contradicting your baseless claim.
That is, your analysis is worthless.
No. My analysis shows that your baseless claim is wrong, as does yours.
That is how a proof by contradiction works.
The only thing assumed in that argument is that |A|!=|B|
As such, a contradiction reached shows that that assumption is false.
If you think it shows something else is false or wrong, then you need to explicitly state what is wrong.
Quote the line in my reasoning which is wrong and explain what is wrong with it.
Stop just complaining that I am showing your baseless bullshit to be wrong and thus deeming I must be wrong.
Here is the most absurd requirement of the RE's own analysis: a perfect match.
Yes, as required by Newton's third law. For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
This is simply how forces work.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements.
But it does, as you require the force from X to be A-B, and the force from Y to be -(A-B).
A PERFECT MATCH.
Otherwise, you have it unbalanced, where for example, an action reaction pair exists between X and the rope, where X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, but the rope is pulling back with a force of -A+B.
So which is it?
Do you have a perfect match, with X and Y pulling on the rope with forces which are equal but opposite, and no doubling of forces, or do you have unbalanced action reaction pairs, with X pulling with A and the rope pulling with -A+B?
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
Because that difference is physically impossible, so no, it isn't a failure of the theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
If they are pulling a rope to tension it, they can, quite easily, and based upon how reality works, they must.
At the same time, MY ANALYSIS PROVED TO BE A TOTAL SUCCESS.
No. Your's was a total failure, where you are literally just doubling the forces/not counting half, or leaving it completely unbalanced.
You need to learn how to properly apply the third law to our example.
No. That would be you.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Thus the rope MUST be pulling boat X with a force of -A, and thus the net force on boat X MUST be -A.
If the rope is pulling with a different force, say -A+B, then X must be pulling the rope with a force equal but opposite to that, e.g. A-B.
There is no other way around it.
An action-reaction pair must exist between the rope and boat X, such that boat X applies a force of F and the rope applies a force of -F.
This rope is the only source of force acting on boat X.
Thus if X is pulling with a force of F, the rope must be pulling with a force of -F, and thus the net force on X is -F.
You cannot have it any other way.
So you need to decide what this F is.
Is it A, like the hypothesis claims?
Or is it A-B, like your analysis claims?
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
No. By Netwon's third law, the force acting on boat X MUST by -A.
The force the rope is applying, form boat Y pulling on it tensioning it, is B. This means B=-A.
If the rope is applying a force of -A+B to X, then X MUST be pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A.
So is the man applying a force of A, which means the rope must apply a force of -A, or is the rope applying a force of -A+B, which means the man must be applying a force of A-B?
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
So you accept that the man in the boat is not pulling on the rope with force A, instead he is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B.
This directly contradicts the hypothesis that X is pulling on the rope with A. It also directly contradicts your claim that the force applied by each 2 men must be equal but opposite.
This is the situation you are now describing:
Boat X is pulling on the rope with force A-B.
The rope is pulling on boat X with force -(A-B).
The rope is pulling on boat Y with force A-B.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope with force -(A-B).
Notice how in each case the force is either A-B or -(A-B).
Notice how that means the magnitude of all forces involved are equal?
Notice how this makes defining them as A and B useless and that you may as well just define it as F?
If you do, you get this:
Boat X is pulling on the rope with force F.
The rope is pulling on boat X with force -F.
The rope is pulling on boat Y with force F.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope with force -F.
This analysis perfectly matches mine.
The difference is you have each boat pulling with a force of magnitude F=A-B, mine has the magnitude of the force being A=-B.
My analysis matches the situation where boat X is pulling on the rope with force A. Your one needs that hypothesis to be changed to force F.
But when you note that change to the hypothesis, the list of forces becomes the same.
Boat X and Y are pulling on the rope with a force which is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Yes, because you are doubling them.
Rather than have X pull with a force of A=-B, you are having it pull with a force of A-B=2A, yet still pretending it is only pulling with a force of A.
That is why you end up with twice the force needed.
The above analysis is totally correct.
No question about it.
It leads to no contradictions at all.
It leads to the exact same contradictions as my analysis, and more.
It still has the contradiction of your baseless claim.
You claim X and Y are pulling with different forces (which are different in magnitude).
But your analysis leads to X pulling with a force of A-B, and Y pulling with a force of -(A-B)=B-A.
Thus the 2 forces are equal in magnitude, directly contradicting your claim.
But it has other far worse contradictions.
The situation was X is pulling with a force of A.
But you have X pulling with a force of A-B.
Similarly, Y is meant to be pulling with a force of B.
Instead you have it pulling with a force of -(A-B)=B-A.
So that is 2 contradictions right there.
The only way to avoid the contradiction is if A=B=0, in which case neither is pulling.
All forces properly accounted for.
No. Forces doubled, accounted for twice.
Let us now compare the RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
From the very start it leads to a contradiction.
Nope. No contradiction at all.
The only thing it "contradicts" is your baseless claim, a claim we were pointing out as bullshit from the start.
We don't need to match your baseless claim.
Point out where the error is or admit it is your claim about it which is the error.
-
So many As and Bs here it looks like a Swedish pop quartet from the 70s and 80s with a foxy blonde singer!
There's no way I'm reading back through all that lot, but would it help to think that it doesn't matter on which boats the 2 men actually are? They can be on different boats or on the same one (with the rope tied to the other and both pulling on the other end). Sure they can pull with different forces, the "attraction" force between the boats will clearly be the sum of their 2 forces. The rope is being stretched by the same force.
If they were on land with heels dug in as a tug of war they won't move until the force overcomes the static friction of one of them.
The inward acceleration of the boats will be reduced somewhat because of the friction of the water but the principle is the same.
2 spacemen are going to accelerate towards each other with their respective accelerations given by f=ma.
Not sure what the relevance is to the moon-earth system. The moon and earth are rotating around each other. The attractive force is given by newton's law of gravitation. For circular motion the inward centripetal force required (always at right angles to the direction of motion) is F=mv^2 divided by the radius r.
Not quite.
If they are in the same boat, both pulling on the same rope, keeping it under tension, to pull the other boat to them, the the net force on the boat they are in will be equal in magnitude to the sum of the force they are applying.
However, if they are in different boats, pulling on the same rope, keeping the rope under tension, then the force they exert will be what is keeping the rope under tension, which necessitates that their forces are equal but opposite, and it means that the boats move towards each other with a force equal in magnitude to the force 1 man is applying.
What doesn't matter is if it is a man in the boat pulling on the rope, or the rope is just tied to the boat.
As long as there is tension in the string, it results in the boats being pulled together with a force equal in magnitude to that tension.
-
The RE had their opportunity to give it their best shot.
But they came up with this.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
The faulty analysis leads directly to a contradiction.
The hypothesis is that forces A and B cannot and are not equal.
The RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
Here then is the correct analysis, taking into consideration all of the forces at work, everything works out beautifully.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
There is nothing to be added to this discussion: both sides have made their cases.
I fully trust the intelligence of my readers to decide for themselves which analysis is the correct one.
Is it the one that leads to the contradiction of the basic hypothesis (which states that forces A and B are not and cannot be equal), or is it the one that leads to no contradiction at all, in fact to a perfect result, and which does use all of the forces listed above at work on the two boats?
-
The RE had their opportunity to give it their best shot.
But they came up with this.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
The faulty analysis leads directly to a contradiction.
The hypothesis is that forces A and B cannot and are not equal.
The RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
Here then is the correct analysis, taking into consideration all of the forces at work, everything works out beautifully.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
There is nothing to be added to this discussion: both sides have made their cases.
I fully trust the intelligence of my readers to decide for themselves which analysis is the correct one.
Is it the one that leads to the contradiction of the basic hypothesis that forces A and B are not and cannot be equal, or is it the one that leads to no contradiction at all, and which does use all of the forces listed above at work on the two boats?
All this playing with ropes is wasting time when you should be working on the perpetual energy machine you said you have designed. I think you should forget about simple mechanics as it's obviously not your thing as it can all be solved using a simple triangle of forces diagram. Simple for most folk but a bit above your level. Let us know how you are getting on with your machine. Apparently Jack Black is being awarded a gold medal for both patience and perseverance. I think we have a tin star for you for effort.
-
Clearly you seem unable (either due to not knowing/understanding or lack of honesty) to respond to such a long post, so I will keep it simple, asking a question at a time:
Do you accept that all force actin on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Yes or no?
-
Not quite.
If they are in the same boat, both pulling on the same rope, keeping it under tension, to pull the other boat to them, the the net force on the boat they are in will be equal in magnitude to the sum of the force they are applying.
However, if they are in different boats, pulling on the same rope, keeping the rope under tension, then the force they exert will be what is keeping the rope under tension, which necessitates that their forces are equal but opposite, and it means that the boats move towards each other with a force equal in magnitude to the force 1 man is applying.
What doesn't matter is if it is a man in the boat pulling on the rope, or the rope is just tied to the boat.
As long as there is tension in the string, it results in the boats being pulled together with a force equal in magnitude to that tension.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. If chap Y is hanging onto the rope then by definition he has to be applying/resisting the same magnitude of force as chap X is applying in order to hang on, (exactly as if the rope was tied to a railing). The reverse is the same.
-
All this playing with ropes is wasting time when you should be working on the perpetual energy machine you said you have designed. I think you should forget about simple mechanics as it's obviously not your thing as it can all be solved using a simple triangle of forces diagram. Simple for most folk but a bit above your level. Let us know how you are getting on with your machine. Apparently Jack Black is being awarded a gold medal for both patience and perseverance. I think we have a tin star for you for effort.
I believe Sandy did not build anything. With his knowledge (or better the lack of it) he can not build anything.
-
Know your opponent #2
More of the wonderful Sandokhanian logic:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Again, read how the angular size of Mars is completely wrong...
The Resolution of Mars (http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/The-resolution-of-Mars,4)
Just read his reference and see why it claims that the statement
"that Mars was 72,000,000 km away from us, and that it subtended an angle of 19.4 – 20 arcseconds"
cannot be true.
Yes, the reference claims, as Rowbotham does, that because the angular resolution of the human eye is about one minute of arc, that we should only see objects that have an angular size of more than one minute of arc.
But this study, At What Distance Can the Human Eye Detect a Candle Flame? (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1507/1507.06270.pdf), indicates that a candle flame can be seen at a distance of at least 1.6 miles (2,576 metres).
At 1.6 miles the angular size of a 0.5" (1.27 cm) candle flame is only about one second of arc.
I'll leave it to someone else to figure out why Sandokhan's claim of how the angular size of Mars is completely wrong...
is, like so many of his claims complete bunkum!
-
Do you accept that all force actin on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Here is a wonderful opportunity to expose the fatal flaw in the RE analysis of the two boats on a lake pulling toward each other, using a very specific example.
Boat X, man pulling with a force of 100N (force A)
Boat Y, man pulling with a force of 150N (force B)
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -100N.
The net force on boat y is -150N.
The net force on the string is 100N + 150N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 100N
B = 150N
There is no way that 100N + 150N = 0.
There is no way that 150N = -100N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -100N + 150N
The net force on boat Y will be: -150N + 100N
The net force on the string will be [100N - 150N] + [150N - 100N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[100N - 150N] + [150N - 100N] = -50N + 50N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
As the two men pull SIMULTANEOUSLY, two forces will be exerted on boat X at once: -A and B.
There is nothing to be added to this discussion: both sides have made their cases.
I fully trust the intelligence of my readers to decide for themselves which analysis is the correct one.
Is it the one that leads to the contradiction of the basic hypothesis (which states that forces A and B are not and cannot be equal), or is it the one that leads to no contradiction at all, and which does use all of the forces listed above at work on the two boats?
-
I am sorry for derailing this quality thread.
Rhubarb.
-
This has been great, even if I don't know how this thread has morphed into the physics of "tug of war"!
It's very easy to get tension problems wrong - I did earlier! It's forced me to make a coffee and re-visit some "O" Level physics. (UK reference - yes I am that old!). My daughter is just starting to do this stuff at school so I need to get my sh1t together. I found a good resource here http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/the-force-of-tension/ (http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/the-force-of-tension/) that covers most aspects of the examples given earlier. There are loads of articles and youtube tutorials knocking around with nostalgic problems and spring-balance experiments. Great stuff.
Sandokhan. I love your posts, but you're like my wife, often wrong but never in doubt! If you've found a flaw in Newton's laws then publish quick and book a ticket to Oslo for your Nobel prize.
-
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
So you can't even answer a simple question.
Here is a wonderful opportunity to expose the fatal flaw in the RE analysis of the two boats on a lake pulling toward each other, using a very specific example.
Boat X, man pulling with a force of 100N (force A)
Boat Y, man pulling with a force of 150N (force B)
By using an impossible situation. Good job.
Now answer the question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Yes or no.
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
Because you are ignoring the direction, unless you are saying that boat and boat y are pulling on the string in the same direction?
There is nothing to be added to this discussion: both sides have made their cases.
Yes, and you have failed miserably, as shown by your inability to answer any simple questions or fill in the blanks.
Answer the question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Yes or no.
Is it the one that leads to the contradiction of the basic hypothesis (which states that forces A and B are not and cannot be equal), or is it the one that leads to no contradiction at all, and which does use all of the forces listed above at work on the two boats?
You mean is it the one that rejects that baseless assumption of yours and solves the problem with X pulling with a force of A, solves the problem and has no contradictions; or the one that baseless assumes that force A and B are not equal, only to either find out that X is actually pulling with a force of A-B, not A, and that Y is pulling with an equal an opposite force, contradicting the assumption made and the situation itself. I sure know which one I would go for (it isn't yours).
-
you're like my wife, often wrong but never in doubt!
(https://s13.postimg.org/661tfym93/gallery_1531_24_1406394372_2578.jpg)
-
Do you accept that all force actin on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Here is a wonderful opportunity to expose the fatal flaw in the RE analysis of the two boats on a lake pulling toward each other, using a very specific example.
Boat X, man pulling with a force of 100N (force A)
Boat Y, man pulling with a force of 150N (force B)
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -100N.
The net force on boat y is -150N.
The net force on the string is 100N + 150N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 100N
B = 150N
There is no way that 100N + 150N = 0.
There is no way that 150N = -100N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -100N + 150N
The net force on boat Y will be: -150N + 100N
The net force on the string will be [100N - 150N] + [150N - 100N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[100N - 150N] + [150N - 100N] = -50N + 50N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
As the two men pull SIMULTANEOUSLY, two forces will be exerted on boat X at once: -A and B.
There is nothing to be added to this discussion: both sides have made their cases.
I fully trust the intelligence of my readers to decide for themselves which analysis is the correct one.
Is it the one that leads to the contradiction of the basic hypothesis (which states that forces A and B are not and cannot be equal), or is it the one that leads to no contradiction at all, and which does use all of the forces listed above at work on the two boats?
Better take a curse in mechanical engineering.
You are absolute wrong
-
Do you accept that all force actin on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Here is a wonderful opportunity to expose the fatal flaw in the RE analysis of the two boats on a lake pulling toward each other, using a very specific example.
Boat X, man pulling with a force of 100N (force A)
Boat Y, man pulling with a force of 150N (force B)
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -100N.
The net force on boat y is -150N.
The net force on the string is 100N + 150N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
The system that you present cannot be in equilibrium. That is the "contradiction".
The string simply transfers a force, so the situation you propose it simply impossible.
If everything were massless the end result would be infinite acceleration.
The way to analyse the system is to place a test mass, M in the middle of the string.
The nett force on this mass is then 50 N, so it acelerates at 50/M m/s2.
Now, the original system has zero mass,
so it is easy to see the as M approaches zero, the acceleration approaches infinity.
In other words the originally proposed system is impossible.
What this means is simply that the force in the string in limited to that of the "weaker" boatman, and both boatmen pull with a force of 100 N.
When I get time, I'll try to draw some diagrams to explain this more clearly for the kiddies that cannot see this.
-
Also, this is an official defeater of Sandokhan badge.
(https://s22.postimg.org/qlljkztu9/defeaterofsandokhan.jpg)
So far, Rockseverywhere and JackBlack can have it.
-
By using an impossible situation.
Two men pulling each with a force of 100N, respectively 150N, is not an impossible situation, it is reality which strikes down the RE conjured up analysis.
Then, those two men in the boats will be jackblack and disputeone.
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
Of course they will meet not in the middle, but somewhere along the line of the rope.
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -200N.
The net force on boat y is -140N.
The net force on the string is 200N + 140N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
As the two men pull SIMULTANEOUSLY, two forces will be exerted on boat X at once: -A and B.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
The RE equation leads to this contradiction:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
On the other hand, the correct FE analysis leads to the solution:
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
By using an impossible situation.
Two men pulling each with a force of 100N, respectively 150N, is not an impossible situation, it is reality which strikes down the RE conjured up analysis.
No. It is a completely impossible situation conjured up by you to reject reality.
If you think it is a possible situation, answer my question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
Of course they will meet not in the middle, but somewhere along the line of the rope.
Nope. The rope gets pulled out of disputeone's hand as he wasn't applying enough force to hold it.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
Yes, that the situation CANNOT OCCUR IN REALITY.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
And the analysis shows that there is a net force on the string, requiring it to move.
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
That's right, because it isn't a possible situation.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
That's right. But liars using the wrong equation or putting in numbers from impossible situations do.
Now answer my question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
-
Also, did you notice how your answer produces less force:
Retarded analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
And what does this work out to be:
Net force on X=-200+140=-60 N.
Net force on Y=-140+200=60N.
Do you notice how you end up with equal but opposite net forces, such that if they were of the same mass they would meet in the middle?
But perhaps more importantly, you end up with a net force on X less than the force either of the 2 boats is applying.
So you don't have a double forces of bullshit paradox. You have a missing forces of bullshit bullshit.
-
Also, this is an official defeater of Sandokhan badge.
(https://s22.postimg.org/qlljkztu9/defeaterofsandokhan.jpg)
So far, Rockseverywhere and JackBlack can have it.
Thank's for the badge. I shall wear it proudly. ;D
-
If anyone missed it there's a good explanation of tension here
http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/the-force-of-tension/ (http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/the-force-of-tension/)
-
Desperation time.
For the RE.
Do you notice how you end up with equal but opposite net forces, such that if they were of the same mass they would meet in the middle?
The equally observed net forces, as they should be, means the rope never moves.
No, they cannot meet exactly in the middle, as the forces applied are different:
https://books.google.ro/books?id=hAL9BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=newton+third+law+force+diagrams+boats+pulling+rope&source=bl&ots=l9uj1MyjB4&sig=quFSCNsnoAa0F069q7fBnykNm_0&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU7IDr69XTAhVBLZoKHTtiC6EQ6AEIcjAM#v=onepage&q=newton%20third%20law%20force%20diagrams%20boats%20pulling%20rope&f=false
Applied Mechanics, page 41
Also remember this:
"It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway."
But perhaps more importantly, you end up with a net force on X less than the force either of the 2 boats is applying.
Of course, since you are pulling one way, while disputeone is pulling the other way.
Pretty simple.
Isn't it?
Nope. The rope gets pulled out of disputeone's hand as he wasn't applying enough force to hold it.
You are not on land but on water.
The boats will start moving toward each other, the rope never moves.
And the analysis shows that there is a net force on the string, requiring it to move.
No such thing happens.
Equations do not lie.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
That's right, because it isn't a possible situation.
Any two men will pull WITH DIFFERENT FORCES.
This is reality.
Both forces A and B will be of different magnitude just as exemplified above.
Now, let us go back to the catastrophic RE analysis.
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -200N.
The net force on boat y is -140N.
The net force on the string is 200N + 140N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
By contrast, here is the perfect FE analysis which offers the correct solution.
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
But you also wondered aloud:
But perhaps more importantly, you end up with a net force on X less than the force either of the 2 boats is applying.
By understanding the last question, you will also understand the first.
Of course, since you are pulling one way, while disputeone is pulling the other way.
Pretty simple.
Isn't it?
The rope will transmit both forces, as it should.
By the way... to wear a badge when you are saying that A = -B, while the hypothesis says otherwise, in fact the opposite, is a clear case of delusional thinking,
-
Do you think you've discovered a flaw in Newton's laws?
-
By using an impossible situation.
Two men pulling each with a force of 100N, respectively 150N, is not an impossible situation, it is reality which strikes down the RE conjured up analysis.
A massless string has the same tension everywhere, including at each end.
Please explain how it could be any other way,
other than in some fictional universe what only Sandokhanian Fantasy applies.
-
Sandokhan
(http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/spring-scale-between-two-weights-measures-tension.jpg)
What do you think the spring balance will read?
-
Do you think you've discovered a flaw in Newton's laws?
The third law is fine.
The RE do not know how to properly apply forces in the two boats on a lake example.
Here is the correct FE analysis.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.
REMEMBER, EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
Here is the bumbling RE analysis by contrast.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
The weights hanging down from the table FORM A DIFFERENT SITUATION, where you bring the weight of the object into the problem.
We are dealing with two boats being pulled toward each other on a lake.
And the RE have no clue as how to correctly calculate the forces.
-
Desperation time.
For the RE.
Nope. For you. Still unable to answer this simple question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Why are you so afraid of it?
No, they cannot meet exactly in the middle, as the forces applied are different:
But the net forces on them are equal but opposite.
So they should meet in the middle if they are the same mass.
Applied Mechanics, page 41
You mean where it agrees with me, that the forces will be equal but opposite?
Also remember this:
"It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
Yes. F=ma. Or did you forget that?
That is a different acceleration/velocity, not a different force.
But perhaps more importantly, you end up with a net force on X less than the force either of the 2 boats is applying.
Of course, since you are pulling one way, while disputeone is pulling the other way.
So? That means the reaction force from me pulling will be in the same direction as the force disputeone is applying.
That means they would be in the same direction.
Pretty simple.
Yep, it is. Which is why I do understand why you can't understand it. Is it because you truly don't understand, or do you just not want to be wrong?
Nope. The rope gets pulled out of disputeone's hand as he wasn't applying enough force to hold it.
You are not on land but on water.
So. That doesn't mean he can magically hold with extra force.
The boats will start moving toward each other, the rope never moves.
Not if he is only applying 140 N of force while I apply 200 N.
Equations do not lie.
Yes, the equations don't lie, but the numbers you put in do.
The net force on the string is pretty simple: X pulls with force A, Y pulls with force B. Thus net force =A+B.
Before i go into that in more detail, you will need to answer the question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
-
Desperation time.
Not here!
We are just amazed that someone who pretends to be so smart, can't understand something so simple!
Do you notice how you end up with equal but opposite net forces, such that if they were of the same mass they would meet in the middle?
The equally observed net forces, as they should be, means the rope never moves.
No, they cannot meet exactly in the middle, as the forces applied are different:
https://books.google.ro/books?id=hAL9BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=newton+third+law+force+diagrams+boats+pulling+rope&source=bl&ots=l9uj1MyjB4&sig=quFSCNsnoAa0F069q7fBnykNm_0&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU7IDr69XTAhVBLZoKHTtiC6EQ6AEIcjAM#v=onepage&q=newton%20third%20law%20force%20diagrams%20boats%20pulling%20rope&f=false
Applied Mechanics, page 41
Go and read you own reference!
"In a few words: as you pull boat B, boat B pulls you with an equal and opposite force."
And it makes no difference if a man is holding the rope in boat B or if is tied to a cleat!
The forces on the boats are exactly equal! They are each equal in magnitude to the tension in the rope,
which has to be the same throughout the whole length of the rope.
You can wriggle and squirn as much as you like, but it will change nothing! You are wrong.
And there is likewise no double force paradox.
-
The weights hanging down from the table FORM A DIFFERENT SITUATION, where you bring the weight of the object into the problem.
Actually no, it's a "rope" being pulled horizontally at both ends with forces of 100N. The weights and pulleys are just there to create the horizontal forces. It has everything to do with the tension force in the rope and therefore the force(s) applied to your 2 boats. So what do you think the scale will read? 200N, 100N, 50N, or zero?
(http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/spring-scale-between-two-weights-measures-tension.jpg)
-
Since you have no valid arguments on your side, you are down now to word games and tricks.
These do not work with me.
The rope never moves: the net force applied to the rope equals zero.
The Applied Mechanics treatise agrees with me:
"You will find that both boats move toward each other, and will eventually meet at some point between them. They move through distances inversely related to their weights."
The textbook does NOT agree with you.
Another clear sign of delusional thinking on your part.
It says: AS YOU PULL BOAT B, BOAT B PULLS YOU WITH AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE.
Exactly.
So? That means the reaction force from me pulling will be in the same direction as the force disputeone is applying.
That means they would be in the same direction.
BUT YOU ARE ALSO PULLING ALONG, AT THE SAME TIME AS DISPUTEONE, AND THE REACTION FORCE FROM DISPUTEONE PULLING WILL BE IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE FORCE YOU ARE APPLYING.
Now you get it?
You have just offered your readers another proud "jackblack" moment where he answers his own questions, such as this:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
So? That means the reaction force from me pulling will be in the same direction as the force disputeone is applying.
That means they would be in the same direction.
BUT YOU ARE ALSO PULLING ALONG, AT THE SAME TIME AS DISPUTEONE, AND THE REACTION FORCE FROM DISPUTEONE PULLING WILL BE IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE FORCE YOU ARE APPLYING.
The rope will apply a reaction force to disputeone's boat.
But, at the very same time, you are also pulling on the same rope with a different force, exactly as you described above.
It is only that you forgot to apply the same analysis to the other side of the rope.
The net force on the string is pretty simple: X pulls with force A, Y pulls with force B. Thus net force =A+B.
Let's see what happens using your analysis/logic.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
The forces applied by you and disputeone are DIFFERENT to start with.
Now, here is the correct FE analysis.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
-
Sandokhan
Sorry to bang on mate but....
Jackblack pulls at one end with a force of 100N
Disputeone pulls the other end with a force of 100N
There is a spring balance in the middle.
This is now identical to the weights and the table image.
So, what will the balance read? 200N, 100N, 50N, 0, or something different?
This is crucial to your understanding of the force/tension in the rope.
(http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/spring-scale-between-two-weights-measures-tension.jpg)
-
The rope never moves: the net force applied to the rope equals zero.
Yes, in reality. Not in the situation you described.
Have you thought of an answer to the question yet?
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
It says: AS YOU PULL BOAT B, BOAT B PULLS YOU WITH AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE.
Yes, just like we said, which you outright rejected.
This is saying A=-B.
BUT YOU ARE ALSO PULLING ALONG, AT THE SAME TIME AS DISPUTEONE, AND THE REACTION FORCE FROM DISPUTEONE PULLING WILL BE IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE FORCE YOU ARE APPLYING.
Now you get it?
Yes. I get it. Do you?
All forces acting on me should be in the same direction, thus the net force cannot be less than them.
This shows your "analysis" is wrong.
You have just offered your readers another proud "jackblack" moment where he answers his own questions, such as this:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
This isn't me trying to find out the answer to this. I already know the answer. I want to see which part of reality your are rejecting.
It is a simple yes or no question you have continually refused to answer.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
Again, that is just your baseless claim, something you are yet to show is possible in reality.
Now, here is the correct FE analysis.
No. That is the completely incorrect and self-contradictory analysis of a situation which is physically impossible.
Now how about you answer my question (if you can):
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
-
Jackblack pulls at one end with a force of 100N
Disputeone pulls the other end with a force of 100N
No two persons can pull on a rope with identical forces, down the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Have you forgotten what the RE analysis requires?
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Do you understand basic equations?
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
It requires A PERFECT MATCH.
This is the ONLY situation to which the RE analysis applies: the only one that cannot happen in real life.
It can only describe one and only one situation: where A matches B perfectly.
The correct FE analysis applies to ALL OF THE SITUATIONS, whether A equals B, or if A does not equal B.
Now you understand?
-
It says: AS YOU PULL BOAT B, BOAT B PULLS YOU WITH AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE.
Exactly.
As you pull on disputeone, disputeone's boat will pull on you with an equal and opposite force.
BUT...
As disputeone pulls on YOU, WITH A DIFFERENT FORCE, your boat will also pull on disputeone's boat with an equal and opposite force.
Let us go back to what you wrote earlier today.
So? That means the reaction force from me pulling will be in the same direction as the force disputeone is applying.
That means they would be in the same direction.
Have you forgotten that ALSO disputeone is pulling on your boat?
And that the reaction force from him pulling will be in the same direction as the force YOU ARE APPLYING AT THE VERY SAME TIME?
So, you have just answered your own very question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
The rope will apply a reaction force to disputeone's boat.
But, at the very same time, you are also pulling on the same rope with a different force, exactly as you described above.
It is only that you forgot to apply the same analysis to the other side of the rope.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
A total match. A perfect match.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
There are no two people who can PERFECTLY match their pulling forces, down at least to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
Remember, that the RE analysis requires this: A =-B. Perfect match.
You won't get anything like this in the entire world, no matter how much you try.
By hypothesis forces A and B of a different magnitude.
The two men in the boats will be jackblack and disputeone.
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
Of course they will meet not in the middle, but somewhere along the line of the rope.
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -200N.
The net force on boat y is -140N.
The net force on the string is 200N + 140N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
As the two men pull SIMULTANEOUSLY, two forces will be exerted on boat X at once: -A and B.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
The RE equation leads to this contradiction:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
On the other hand, the correct FE analysis leads to the solution:
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
Oh FFS! ARGHHHHHHHH!
Ok, Jack's force is as near as dammit 100N, Dispute's is as near as dammit 100N. Will the balance read as near as dammit 200N, 100N, 50N, 0N, or something else? We're looking for the principle of how we're calculating the tension in the rope here. Stop dodging the question.We can get onto unequal forces afterwards.
Or, the 2 weights (W) hanging off the table are identical - i.e. nothing's moving - will the balance read 2W, W, W/2, 0, or something else?
-
Trust me Sandokhan, there is some method to my questioning. Even if you don't agree it can be done please imagine as a "thought experiment" that the 2 pulls are exactly 100N each. What would you expect to see on the balance? In other words what is the tension in the rope caused by 2 people pulling at 100N at either end?
-
No two persons can pull on a rope with identical forces, down the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
I see you are struggling with your thorough defeat.
You keep repeating this silly nonsense. It has nothing to do with your example other than to fallaciously attempt to justify your contradictory hypothesis. It's very simple Sandokhan. If there is tension in the rope due to people pulling on each end then Newton's Third Law requires that at that moment they are pulling with exactly the same force as in an action/reaction pair (forces are equal and opposite).
You keep trying to present this misleading argument (not-even-wrong) to make it sound like some kind of impossible ability is required for two people to apply an action/reaction pair on the rope (tension to a rope). This has nothing to do with people and their abilities and everything to do with Newton's Third Law. It doesn't matter if it is people or the rope is attached to the boat and being pulled by a winch attached to the other boat, for example, the requirement and reality is the same.
In your example the force would be measured as a single magnitude for the tension in the rope in this example. I can imagine why you try to keep using people in this example though as you make this misleading claim. Also there is nothing wrong, mathematically speaking, by breaking this single magnitude of force which is equal to tension in the rope into more than one value, but doing so has no physical meaning. We can easily write a=A-B (or Tension=a-b+c-d+e-3/2f) where a does mean something physically but the individual terms A and B themselves do not. A-B and your contradictory hypothesis (violates Newton's Third Law) are the tools of your deception.
However, outside the context of this example what you say can easily be true, for example, in the case that two people pull on an object where the other person is not part of an action/reaction pair. I can pull on a rope attached to a scale that is also attached to a wall. Another person can come up an attempt pulling on the same rope but it is highly unlikely they will pull with exactly the same force “down to the 100,000,00th fraction of a Newton” as I did. There could even be two different ropes attached to a wall such that we could attempt to pull on each of our respective (but different ropes) at the same time and again it is highly unlikely that we will both pull with exactly the same force. This case is very different than your boat example.
Quit trying to mislead "your" readers.
-
sound like sandys brains is broken like a record that stuck at one point, he is repeating his bullshit on and on.
-
It is very easy to debunk all of your arguments.
Let us see what jack"blameitontherope"black has come up with lately.
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
His tag team partner, sigma, is trying to use same argument, as follows:
If there is tension in the rope due to people pulling on each end then Newton's Third Law requires that at that moment they are pulling with exactly the same force as in an action/reaction pair (forces are equal and opposite).
But a rope can transmit more than one force.
It is very easy to prove this.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
Another way to put it:
If the rope was transmitting only one force, then A = B (another way of saying that the boats would meet exactly in the middle).
The converse IS ALSO TRUE: if A = B, then the rope will be transmitting only one force (or in the FE analysis case, the two mentioned forces; the correct FE analysis can handle the case where A = B easily).
If A = B, then the two boats will meet exactly in the middle.
Here is the proof.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
Let us go back to the quotes taken from both treatises on mechanics.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/bo1_zpsmuxspexe.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
If the two boats DO NOT MEET IN THE EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE, THEN THE ROPE WILL BE TRANSMITTING BOTH FORCES A AND B.
Only if force A = force B, down to the very 100,000,000,000,000th of a fraction of a Newton, then will the two boats meet in the middle, and thus only one force could have been transmitted through the rope.
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
This means BOTH FORCES A AND B, COMING from the small boat and from the large boat will be transmitted through the same rope and those forces A and B MUST BE OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE. By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not the same.
Otherwise, they would meet right in the middle.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
Another way to put it:
If the rope was transmitting only one force, then A = B (another way of saying that the boats would meet exactly in the middle).
The converse IS ALSO TRUE: if A = B, then the rope is transmitting only one force (or in the FE analysis case, the two mentioned forces; the correct FE analysis can handle the case where A = B easily).
If A = B, then the two boats will meet exactly in the middle.
Here is the proof.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
-
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
Haha. Let me help clarify for you Sandokhan.
if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one boat (not force) be large and the other boat (not force) is small, the rapidity with which each boat moves will be in proportion to its size, the large boat moving with as much less velocity as its size (mass) is greater.
A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.
This is fine and in no way supports you. You may need to do more homework on the topic of inertia as it relates to using F=m*a.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
To which this is a problem because? Your reference does state; "if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate" to which you haven't yet objected to that I recall.
In reality there would/could be varied friction on the boat with the water so it would be possible for the two boats to meet at a point not in the middle.
-
I gave the two examples from the treatises on mechanics so that everyone can see that, in the real world, the two boats will not meet exactly in the middle.
Those two examples involve a different situation than the one explored here.
In those situations, the sizes of the two boats vary greatly, and pull with different forces.
In our example, the one analyzed here, the two boats are identical, while the applied forces vary in magnitude (that is, force A and force B are not of the same magnitude).
Can you understand the difference?
Your friend jack"blameitontherope"black has tried this venue, the accelerations, but it was to no avail.
In our example, we have two identical boats, which are being pulled with different forces.
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
His tag team partner, sigma, is trying to use same argument, as follows:
If there is tension in the rope due to people pulling on each end then Newton's Third Law requires that at that moment they are pulling with exactly the same force as in an action/reaction pair (forces are equal and opposite).
But a rope can transmit more than one force.
It is very easy to prove this.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
Another way to put it:
If the rope was transmitting only one force, then A = B (another way of saying that the boats would meet exactly in the middle).
The converse IS ALSO TRUE: if A = B, then the rope will be transmitting only one force (or in the FE analysis case, the two mentioned forces; the correct FE analysis can handle the case where A = B easily).
If A = B, then the two boats will meet exactly in the middle.
Here is the proof.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
If A = B, then the two boats will meet in the middle.
Now, sigma, let me remind you of your own quote where YOU AGREE WITH ME.
Remember this?
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Agreed for the boat scenario.
You do agree that if the two identical boats pull with different forces, then THEY WILL MEET AT SOME POINT BETWEEN THEM, never exactly in the middle.
Since by the very hypothesis forces A and B are of a different magnitude, the boats will never meet exactly in the middle.
Thus TWO FORCES MUST BE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE SAME ROPE.
If only one force was being transmitted, then the two boats would meet exactly in the middle.
But they do not.
The two men in the boats will be jackblack and disputeone.
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
Of course they will meet not in the middle, but somewhere along the line of the rope.
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -200N.
The net force on boat y is -140N.
The net force on the string is 200N + 140N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
As the two men pull SIMULTANEOUSLY, two forces will be exerted on boat X at once: -A and B.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
The RE equation leads to this contradiction:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
On the other hand, the correct FE analysis leads to the solution:
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
In our example, the one analyzed here, the two boats are identical, while the applied forces vary in magnitude (that is, force A and force B are not of the same magnitude).
So just to be sure, do you think the forces experienced by the 2 boats are different?
If you do then you are fundamentally misunderstanding the idea of tension in the rope. I also believe you are misunderstanding the amount of tension in the rope which is why I keep asking you the same question. If 2 people pull on the rope with 100N each, what would a spring balance in the middle of the rope read?
Please, humour me, what do you think the gauge should read?
-
This is the ONLY situation to which the RE analysis applies: the only one that cannot happen in real life.
Close.
You are correct that this is the only situation where the correct analysis of the situation applies (that done by the REers here).
However that is the only one which CAN happen in real life.
If the forces are unbalanced it violates Newton's laws of motion so the situation is not as described.
The correct FE analysis applies to ALL OF THE SITUATIONS, whether A equals B, or if A does not equal B.
The incorrect (some would say retarded) "analysis" will apply to any situation and just go further away from it, completely contradicting itself and ending up changing the situation to one which can be real or just ignoring part of the force.
So, you have just answered your own very question:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Again, I already know the answer. I want you to explicitly answer it so you can't get away with bullshitting your way out of it by pretending you never said it.
So ANSWER THE QUESTION:
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
It is a very simple yes or no question.
Until you answer this question so we can move on to the next one further discussion of your insane refuted crap is rather pointless.
I have already pointed out what is wrong it many times, yet you just keep on repeating it.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
No. They would only meet in the middle if they had the same resistance to motion.
i.e. in our situation where we are ignoring the water, if their inertia and thus mass was the same.
Here is the analysis of that.
Lets say boat X starts at x0, and boat y at -x0 (such that the middle is at x=0).
They initially have a velocity of 0, and the only acceleration they recieve is due to the force from the rope between them.
F=ma.
Thus a=F/m.
v=a*t+v0
x=(1/2)*a*t^2+v0*t+x0.
Now putting in some to simplify it a bit (using our analysis where |F|=|A|=|B| and A=-B:
x(X) (the position of boat x)=(-A/2mX)*t^2+x0.
x(Y)=(A/2mY)*t^2-x0.
We want to look at where they meet. We do this by equating the 2 equations to find t (or t^2), and then subbing it back in, this gives:
(-A/2mX)*t^2+x0=(A/2mY)*t^2-x0
2*x0=(A/2)*(1/mY+1/mX)*t^2.
2*x0=(A/2)*(mX+mY)/(mY*mY)*t^2.
2*x0*(2/A)*(mX*mY/(mX+mY))=t^2.
t^2=4*x0*mX*mY/((mX+mY)*A)
Now subbing that back in to x(X):
x=(-A/2mX)*t^2+x0.
=(-A/2mX)*4*x0*mX*mY/((mX+mY)*A)+x0.
=x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)
If we tried putting it into x(Y):
x=(A/2mY)*t^2-x0.
=(A/2mY)*4*x0*mX*mY/((mX+mY)*A)-x0.
=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)-x0.
So now we have the position that the meet as x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)-x0.
Before you complaign that they are different:
x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)-x0
2*x0=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)+2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)
1=mX/((mX+mY)+mY/(mX+mY)
1=(mX+mY)/(mX+mY)
1=1.
So they are just different ways of saying the same thing.
The 2 numbers are equal.
Now lets try some different options.
Lets say mX=mY=m
x(X)=x0-2*x0*m/(m+m)
=x0-2*x0*m/(m*(1+1))
=x0-2*x0/2
=x0-x0
=0
(doing x(Y) will give you the same, x0-x0, or before that 2*x0/2-x0)
What if mX=m, but mY=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (insert lots more 0s)*m?
In this case mX+mY=~mY.
and mX/mY=~0. (mY/mX=~infinite).
That means:
x(X)=x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)
=~x0-2*x0*mY/(mY)
=x0-2*x0
=-x0.
Using x(Y):
x(Y)=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)-x0.
=~2*x0*mX/mY-x0.
=~0-x0.
So the boats meet at -x0, which was the position of Y.
Just like what you would expect.
What about if mX=m, and mY=2m?
Then for x(X) we have:
x(X)=x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)
=x0-2*x0*2m/(m+2m)
=x0-4*x0/(1+2)
=x0-4*x0/3
=x0*(1-4/3)
=-x0/3.
Similarly, x(Y)=-x0/3
This means that boat Y has travelled 2/3 x0, while boat X travelled 4/3 x0.
Or, boat X, which was only half as heavy as boat Y, travelled twice as far.
In fact, you can do this for any ratio, where mX=m and mY=r*m:
x(X)=x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)
=x0-2*x0*r*m/(m+r*m)
=x0-2*r*x0/(1+r)
=(1+r)*x0/(1+r)-2*r*x0/(1+r)
=((1+r)*x0-2*r*x0)/(1+r)
=(x0+r*x0-2*r*x0)/(1+r)
=(x0-r*x0)/(1+r)
x(Y)=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)-x0.
=2*x0*m/(m+r*m)-x0.
=2*x0*/(1+r)-x0.
=2*x0/(1+r)-x0*(1+r)/(1+r)
=(2*x0-x0*(1+r))/(1+r).
=(2*x0-x0-x0*r)/(1+r).
=(x0-r*x0)/(1+r).
Confirming that the 2 are the same, just expressed in slightly different ways.
Note that if r=1, it gives you 0.
If r>1, x<0 and it meets closer to Y.
If r<1 x>0 and it meets closer to X
Also note the distance X travels:
X starts at x0 and thus travels:
tX=x0-(x0-2*r*x0/(1+r))
=2*r*x0(1+r)
Boat y travels:
tY=2*x0*/(1+r)-x0-(-x0).
=2*x0*/(1+r)
Thus tX=r*tY.
So no, don't lie, our analysis works fine with boats of different sizes and where they meet.
Doing it our way we get the 2 boats moving an extent proportional to their sizes.
Doing it your way, you end up with a net force which is equal but opposite, meaning both boats still meet in the middle.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
You seem surprised that it comes up with Newton's third law and accurately analysis the situation. Why is that?
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
Only if they were the same size and no external forces were acting. And guess what? That matches reality.
You reach the same conclusion. Remember this:
On the other hand, the [in]correct FE analysis leads to the solution:
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
Notice how the net force on boat X will be -60N, and the net force on boat Y will be 60 N?
That means you have an equal but opposite force acting on the boats. Thus if they are the same size, they will meet in the middle.
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION (or tell us why you continually refuse. Is it because you have no idea, or is it because you know this line of logical questioning and reasoning will show you to be full of shit?):
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
-
Can we change the topic subject? Maybe to 'Sandokhans BS theories and how they relate to boats and ropes'
-
Considering you don't want to answer the question (either because you don't know the answer, because you know the answer will lead to you being shown to be completely wrong, or because your coding can't handle such a question), I will do so for you, making a list.
If you object, point out exactly which one you object to, what the :
1 - Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope).
The answer should be yes. If it wasn't it raises the question of what else is applying a force to X. The only entities we are considering in this problem are the 2 boats (the people are included as part of the boat) and the rope.
The only way for boat Y to transfer force is via the rope.
So the answer must be yes.
So we will call this net force -F. (this is equal to -A=B in my analysis and =-A+B in your analysis).
2 - Do you accept Newton's third law, that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction?
Again, the answer will be yes.
Your analysis has relied upon this extensively. Without it you wouldn't be able to get anywhere, as there would be no connection between the forces.
3 - Do you thus accept that there must exist an action/reaction force pair (or pairs) between boat X and the rope, such that the rope is applying a force of -F to the boat, and the boat is applying a force of F to the rope?
Again, the answer has to be yes. You accept that the rope is applying a net force of -F to the boat, and that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and thus if the rope is applying a force of -F, the boat needs to apply a force of F.
4 - Do you realise that this so far has not produced any contradiction in my analysis, as boat X is pulling with a force of A, and F=A?
Again, the answer is yes. There is no contradiction to be found here, and you weren't complaining that this is a contradiction before.
5 - Do you realise that this produces a contradiction in your analysis as you have boat X pulling on the rope with a force of A, but as per the previous questions boat X needs to be pulling with a force of F=A-B, not A. So the only way for there to not be a contradiction is if B=0. (I will bring this possibility back up later, i.e. in a few questions time).
Again, the answer has to be yes. The only way to avoid a contradiction is if A=A-B, which requires B to be 0. But for the hypothetical (completely unreal situation) you described, B=140 N, not 0.
So again, the answer will be yes (with the caveat of a few questions time considering this possibility).
6 - Do you accept that that means your analysis is wrong?
Again, the answer has to be yes. As this has a contradiction, either the situation is wrong, or your analysis is wrong.
We know that you can pull boats together. So the situation is possible (at least with generic forces A and B). So the only option left is your analysis is wrong.
7 - Do you accept that the above (or an equivalent) applies for boat Y? (the equivalent is that the force the rope applies is now F, not -F, which =A=-B in my analysis and A-B in yours, and thus to avoid the contradiction you would need A=0).
Again, the answer has to be yes, as there is nothing special about either boat. The only difference is direction and allegedly force applied. It is entirely symmetrical.
8 - Do you thus accept that in order to avoid contradiction you need A=0 and B=0?
Again, the answer has to be yes, as that is what the prior reasoning has showed. In order to balance the action-reaction pair(s) on boat X and the rope, you need A=A-B (or -A=-(A-B) and thus B=0. In order to balance the pair(s) between boat Y and the rope you need B=B-A, so A=0.
Thus the only way to avoid contradiction would be if A=B=0.
9 - Do you thus realise that the only way to avoid contradiction with your analysis is if there is no force applied?
Again, the answer has to be yes, as you have A=B=0, so no force applied.
10 - Do you thus realise your analysis must be wrong as you can have 2 boats pulled together by some force?
Again, the answer has to be yes, especially as you have quoted mechanics text books that claim this as evidence. The only way to avoid it is by claiming you can't have 2 boats pulled together by a rope, which completely contradicts reality.
11 - Regardless of the above, do you notice that this contradicts your claim that A and B are of different magnitude, as 0 is the same magnitude as 0?
Again, the answer has to be yes, unless you wish to go completely insane by claiming |0|!=|0|.
12 - Setting aside those contradictions, do you accept that the net force acting on the rope comes from the force applies to the rope by boat X and boat Y?
Again, the answer has to be yes, as that is the only other entities and thus the only entities capable of acting on the rope.
13 - Do you accept that the net force on the rope (which is presumed to be massless or of an insignificant mass compared to the boats) must equal 0?
Again, the answer has to be yes. You have used that repeatedly in your analysis and have made no objection to it, and if it wasn't, it would require the rope itself to accelerate, with an infinite rate due to its 0 mass.
14 - Do you accept that that means if X applies a force of F, Y must apply a force of -F?
Again, the answer has to be yes. This is because X applies a force of F, Y applies a force of ?? and the sum is 0. That means F + ?? = 0
The only way to solve that is for ??=-F, such that you have F-F=0. This also works if you try to set F to be 0, as then ?? needs to equal 0, making it equal to -F.
So again, the answer is yes.
15 - Do you accept that that means Y is applying a force that is equal but opposite that of X?
Again, this must be true, as you have X applying a force of F and Y applying one of -F.
They are equal but opposite.
16 - Do you accept that this is an accurate depiction of the situation:
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
The net force on boat X is -F.
The net force on boat Y is F.
The net force on the rope is F-F=0.
?
Again, the answer must be yes as that is what we have concluded from above.
17 - Do you accept that that contradicts your claim that the force applied by each can be different in magnitude?
Again, the only answer is yes as we have just concluded that they must be equal but opposite, i.e. equal in magnitude but opposite in sign.
18 - Do you accept that that means your situation of one boat pulling with a force of A and another pulling with a force of B, which is different in magnitude is impossible?
Again, the answer needs to be yes as that above reasoning has shown this.
19 - Do you accept that unlike your analysis which lead to it being impossible to bring 2 boats together with rope, this analysis just shows that the force applied by each boat must be equal in magnitude?
Again, the answer has to be yes, as that is what is shown by the above analysis.
20 - Do you accept that this means our analysis doesn't contradict observed reality, as there have been no recorded observations of 2 boats being pulled together when the forces were different?
Again, this has to be yes, as the main ways to measure force would be via a weight on a pulley, which if the weights were not equal one would rise and get jammed in the pulley and thus no longer be a measurement, or by using a spring scale/tension device, which would work equally in either direction and thus show the same force regardless of where on the rope it was (assuming the rope ends at the 2 boats).
21 - Do you accept that this means our analysis matches reality, while yours does not?
Again, the answer has to be yes. No one has ever recorded 2 boats being pulled together by unequal forces, but they have measured 2 boats being pulled together.
22 - Do you accept that this means our analysis is correct?
Again, the only answer is yes, as ours matches reality, is based upon logical reasoning and has no contradictions?
23 - Do you accept that this means there is no doubling of forces?
Again, the answer has to be yes as the net force on boat X is the force boat Y is pulling with and vice versa.
I know that there was a lot of questions. I was trying to keep them simple so if you have an objection you can clearly point out what it is.
If you have an objection with multiple questions, start with the first one that you have an objection with, we can deal with that and then move on.
-
Sandokhan you have said:
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
This means:
The net force on boat X will be: -60N
The net force on boat Y will be: 60N
The net force on the string will be: 60N-60N = 0
Net force means an imbalance in force and that this force will accelerate the body (put the boat in motion in this example) and this force has a magnitude of 60N and acting on each boat but opposite direction. Speaking of contradictions, stop denying what you keep implying yourself, lol.
Would you mind explaining and showing with analysis to your readers how the two boats will not meet in the middle?
Here I will do your homework for you given how I understand your example:
Let’s continue the analysis to reveal your contradiction(s).
Since the boats are the same size let’s give each boat a mass of 60Kg (including the man on each boat) and they start at 100 m apart with no initial velocity.
If there is a net force on boat X of -60N (-200N +140N):
a_x=F_net/m_boat = -60N/60Kg =- 1 m/s^2
There is also a net force of 60N (-140N+200N) on boat Y:
a_y=F_net/m_boat=60N/60Kg =+1 m/s^2
The distance each boat travels due to this net force after elapsed time t may be given by:
D(t)=D_0 +1/2*a*t^2
So let’s start Boat X at position 100 m:
D_0x=100m
Let’s start Boat Y at position 0 m:
D_0y= 0m
D_0x-D_0y=100m-0m = 100m (check)
We see that at t=10 seconds with Boat X under a constant net force of -60N has traveled:
D (10s)_x = D_0x+1/2 *a_x * t^2 = 100m +1/2* (-1 m/s^2)*10 ^2* s^2 = 100m-50m = +50m
Hmmn, I wonder how far boat Y has travelled in the same amount of time (t=10 seconds) from its initial position under a constant net force of 60N?
D(10s) _y = D_0y + ˝*a_y*t^2 = 0m +1/2* (1 m/s^2)* 10^2*s^2= 0m +50m = +50m
Looks like they meet right in the middle Sandokhan.
You can play with different numbers if you don't like mine.
Are you going to now try to tell your readers that Boat X or Boat Y will only accelerate due to Force A (-200N) or Force B (140N)?
Remember when you said this:
Since by the very hypothesis forces A and B are of a different magnitude, the boats will never meet exactly in the middle.
Thank you for helping show your readers that you are wrong about the boats not meeting in the middle in your example.
I don't care if you want to break up 60N into fractional components (the math works just fine if T= -A +B or B-A) but I don't have a valid reason or evidence why I should ever treat individually your "Force A" and "Force B" as able to solely accelerate Boat X or Boat Y differently in your example. Your very own analysis contradicts that the two boats of the same size would undergo a different resultant acceleration than due to either -A+B or B-A which are of the same magnitude and opposite direction just as Newton's Third Law requires.
In a very strangely written way (which is okay) due to further clarification (new information presented) it now seems this is what you were conveying earlier here:
Boat X WILL NOT MOVE forward JUST because boat Y is pulling (force B); not at all.
Boat X will also thrust forward based on a second force, the man doing the pulling on the rope with force A.
Are you saying here that the resultant of Force A and Force B obey Newton's Third Law?
If so, then many of us are just saying the same thing and expressing the resultant net force in different ways (T=-A+B or B-A, A=-A+B (reassigned variable), F=B-A(reassigned variable), A=-B (reassigned variable), etc.). Still, each boat accelerates due to the same resultant magnitude of force and meets in the middle.
I should also note that it is possible for a rope to be split into 3 (or more/less) separate ends to pull from:
Ex.
1. If 3 people pulled evenly then each person would pull with a force of T/3 where T is the tension in the rope (T=T/3+T/3+T/3)
2. 3 people pull with different magnitudes of force, one person pulling with force T/2, and 2 people pulling with force T/4 (T= T/2+T/4+T/4)
In any case the tension in the rope is still 1*T.
Notice that this example looks awfully similar to what your are saying about more than one force acting on a rope but is crucially different regarding any bodies that would/could be accelerated by the resultant tension in the rope?
-
Can we change the topic subject? Maybe to 'Sandokhans BS theories and how they relate to boats and ropes'
If dutchy modifies the title of the OP the title of the thread will change. The title of all the posts made between the OP and now will stay the same unless the poster modifies it.
-
Can we change the topic subject? Maybe to 'Sandokhans BS theories and how they relate to boats and ropes'
Request granted.
-
jack, wake up!
Your equations AMOUNT TO NOTHING.
F=ma.
Thus a=F/m.
Exactly.
But you said that |A|=|B|.
THEREFORE, SINCE BOTH BOATS HAVE THE SAME MASS, BY HYPOTHESIS, YOU CANNOT VARY YOUR ACCELERATION AT ALL.
IN THE RE ANALYSIS THE TWO BOATS HAVE TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE.
There is no working around that.
x0-2*x0*mY/(mX+mY)=2*x0*mX/(mX+mY)-x0
The two masses are equal.
The forces applied are the SAME in your analysis.
The two boats will meet in the middle.
Now lets try some different options.
Lets say mX=mY=m
x(X)=x0-2*x0*m/(m+m)
=x0-2*x0*m/(m*(1+1))
=x0-2*x0/2
=x0-x0
=0
That is the ONLY option you got: by hypothesis, the two boats have equal mass.
BUT DIFFERENT FORCES ARE APPLIED AT EACH END OF THE ROPE.
Your other message is useless.
Here is what you wrote:
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
The net force on boat X is -F.
The net force on boat Y is F.
The net force on the rope is F-F=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
The forces applied by you and disputeone are DIFFERENT to start with.
Now, here is the correct FE analysis.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Your tag team partner, sigma, is trying to use same argument, as follows:
If there is tension in the rope due to people pulling on each end then Newton's Third Law requires that at that moment they are pulling with exactly the same force as in an action/reaction pair (forces are equal and opposite).
But a rope can transmit more than one force.
It is very easy to prove this.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
Another way to put it:
If the rope was transmitting only one force, then A = B (another way of saying that the boats would meet exactly in the middle).
The converse IS ALSO TRUE: if A = B, then the rope will be transmitting only one force (or in the FE analysis case, the two mentioned forces; the correct FE analysis can handle the case where A = B easily).
If A = B, then the two boats will meet exactly in the middle.
Here is the proof.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
If A = B, then the two boats will meet in the middle.
Now, jack, let me remind you of what your friend sigma said earlier where HE AGREES WITH ME.
Remember this?
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Agreed for the boat scenario.
You do agree that if the two identical boats pull with different forces, then THEY WILL MEET AT SOME POINT BETWEEN THEM, never exactly in the middle.
Since by the very hypothesis forces A and B are of a different magnitude, the boats will never meet exactly in the middle.
Thus TWO FORCES MUST BE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE SAME ROPE.
If only one force was being transmitted, then the two boats would meet exactly in the middle.
But they do not.
The two men in the boats will be jackblack and disputeone.
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
Of course they will meet not in the middle, but somewhere along the line of the rope.
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -200N.
The net force on boat y is -140N.
The net force on the string is 200N + 140N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
As the two men pull SIMULTANEOUSLY, two forces will be exerted on boat X at once: -A and B.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
The RE equation leads to this contradiction:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
On the other hand, the correct FE analysis leads to the solution:
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
Can we change the topic subject? Maybe to 'Sandokhans BS theories and how they relate to boats and ropes'
Why limit it to "boats and ropes"?
There's a whole encyclopedia full in Sandokhan, Advanced Flat Earth Theory « on: July 14, 2009, 11:59:41 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg746616#msg746616)!
-
BUT DIFFERENT FORCES ARE APPLIED AT EACH END OF THE ROPE.
Wake up sandokhan, you cannot apply different magnitude forces to the two ends of a (hypothetical) massless rope.
To me it seems simple common sense, but I'll find numerous references stating the same thing if you wish.
Don't bother replying with pages and pages of the usual. . . . . . I've seen it all before.
-
The two men in the boats will be jackblack and disputeone.
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
If Jack could pull at 200N and I could only pull at 140N then he would simply pull the rope out of my hand. If it was tied to my wrist I would fall in the water.
-
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic...
What does this have to do with the shape of the earth?
-
you cannot apply different magnitude forces to the two ends of a (hypothetical) massless rope.
The forces applied at each end of the rope will ALWAYS be different.
Certainly you'd be pulling with a different force than, say, jack. Right?
If Jack could pull at 200N and I could only pull at 140N then he would simply pull the rope out of my hand. If it was tied to my wrist I would fall in the water.
No.
Your boat would simply thrust forward, as would his boat.
Remember, you are on water, not on land.
Would you mind explaining and showing with analysis to your readers how the two boats will not meet in the middle?
Sure.
I never said anything about the masses of the two men in those boats. I said the boats were identical, that's all.
Having realized this fact at once, you wrote earlier:
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Agreed for the boat scenario.
All of you here are missing the most important point.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
Never.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
A total match. A perfect match.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
But the RE are requiring that the two forces be exactly the same.
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
jack is pulling with 200 N force (force A).
disputeone is pulling with a force of 140 N (force B).
Does force A equal force B?
Certainly not.
That is why the RE analysis amounts to pure thrash.
It is worthless.
It is useless.
My analysis takes into account both forces applied.
Let us remember the twisted logic applied by jack earlier.
So? That means the reaction force from me pulling will be in the same direction as the force disputeone is applying.
That means they would be in the same direction.
But, at the same time, disputeone IS ALSO PULLING ON JACK'S BOAT.
A second force applied.
Totally unaccounted for by the bumbling RE analysis.
The reaction force from him pulling will be in the same direction as the force jack IS APPLYING AT THE VERY SAME TIME.
It is as simple as this.
Here is the catastrophic RE analysis WHICH WILL ALWAYS VIOLATE/DEFY THE HYPOTHESIS: forces A and B are of a different magnitude to start with.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
The correct analysis has to take into account BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B.
Two different forces.
Of a different magnitude.
The RE analysis is completely useless as it violates/defies the clearly stated hypothesis each and every time.
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
jack is pulling with 200 N.
disputeone is pulling with 140 N.
200 N does not equal 140 N.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
-
If Jack could pull at 200N and I could only pull at 140N then he would simply pull the rope out of my hand. If it was tied to my wrist I would fall in the water.
No.
Your boat would simply thrust forward, as would his boat.
Remember, you are on water, not on land.
Never played tug of war?
If Jack pulls with 200N I need to pull with 200N or else the rope comes out of my hand or I fall over.
-
You seem not to understand basic physics.
You have two boats PULLING TOWARD EACH OTHER ON WATER, ON A LAKE.
Not on land.
Wake up disputeone!
The forces that you and jack will be applying will be different.
He will apply a force of 200 N.
You will exert a force of 140 N.
As simple as this.
Both boats will start to move toward each other.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
A total match. A perfect match.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
But the RE are requiring that the two forces be exactly the same.
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
jack is pulling with 200 N force (force A).
disputeone is pulling with a force of 140 N (force B).
Does force A equal force B?
Certainly not.
That is why the RE analysis amounts to pure thrash.
It is worthless.
It is useless.
Again, here is the catastrophic RE analysis WHICH WILL ALWAYS VIOLATE/DEFY THE HYPOTHESIS: forces A and B are of a different magnitude to start with.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
The correct analysis has to take into account BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B.
Two different forces.
Of a different magnitude.
The RE analysis is completely useless as it violates/defies the clearly stated hypothesis each and every time.
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
jack is pulling with 200 N.
disputeone is pulling with 140 N.
200 N does not equal 140 N.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
-
You seem not to understand basic physics.
Actually it's a funny story.
-
If Jack could pull at 200N and I could only pull at 140N then he would simply pull the rope out of my hand. If it was tied to my wrist I would fall in the water.
Not necessarily.
There is always a weakest point.
You could have been tied to the boat. It might just pull your arm off, but I don't think 200 N would be enough for that... its only roughly 20 kgf.
-
Lmao.
Not my arm please ;D ;D.
-
jack, wake up!
Your equations AMOUNT TO NOTHING.
No. They show the reality of the situation.
IN THE RE ANALYSIS THE TWO BOATS HAVE TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE.
Yes, 2 boats, of the same mass (ignoring other force) will always meet in the middle, just like in reality (although that gets more complicated with different forces like resistance of motion through the water).
So no failure at all.
But don't worry, your "analysis" reaches the same conclusion, that the 2 boats meet in the middle.
So you are just objecting to your own analysis and claims.
There is no working around that.
And there is no need to.
The forces applied are the SAME in your analysis.
Yes, because I care about matching reality, which means the 2 forces will be the same.
That is the ONLY option you got: by hypothesis, the two boats have equal mass.
BUT DIFFERENT FORCES ARE APPLIED AT EACH END OF THE ROPE.
Again, this is your baseless claim which makes the situation impossible.
In reality, the 2 forces will be the same.
Your text book even agrees with me. 2 identical boats meet in the middle. It is only when you make one boat large and the other small that they don't.
So your book is in perfect agreement with me and is contradicting you.
If you think they can meet anywhere other than the middle, why don't you try justifying it?
Especially as the net force on the 2 boats are equal and opposite.
Your other message is useless.
Are you just saying that because it completely destroyed any chance of you refuting me?
Here is what you wrote:
Like I said, if you have an objection state which point it is, why you object, and what you think the correct answer is and why.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
It doesn't equal B. A=-B.
Of course, you will object to that as well. But as you are only objecting to point 16, I take that to mean you fully accept all prior points.
The issue then is that was point 15.
It shows quite clearly that A=-B, and that your baseless claim about the situation is completely wrong.
In reality, the forces are equal but opposite.
Stop just appealing to your bullshit baseless claim. It is wrong. I know it is wrong. This shows that it is wrong.
This is basically your argument:
"YOU SAID THIS.
I SAY THAT IS WRONG.
SO YOU ARE WRONG!!!."
You are just baselessly asserting that I am wrong without justifying it at all.
On the other hand, I have shown quite explicitly why your claim is wrong.
Go through the questions I asked, and tell me what the first one you disagree with and why.
The forces applied by you and disputeone are DIFFERENT to start with.
No. They aren't. Get that through your thick skull.
Continuing to repeat the same refuted bullshit doesn't make your case any better. It just makes you look more and more pathetic.
Do you accept that all force acting on boat X comes from the rope? (for this part I don't care if it is because X is pulling on the rope or Y is, the only important part is that the entirety of the force acting on boat x is being applied to boat X by the rope)
Your tag team partner, sigma, is trying to use same argument, as follows:
And you still refuse to answer.
Why is that? Is it because you know that doing so will show you to be full of shit?
But a rope can transmit more than one force.
No. It can't.
By the very nature of how it works, a rope anchored/pulled at 2 points (1 point at each end) in opposite directions will result in the rope being under tension and applying a force equal in magnitude to the tension in the rope.
That is the sole force the rope transmits.
It is very easy to prove this.
IF THE ROPE WAS TRANSMITTING ONLY ONE FORCE, AS JACK AND SIGMA (NOT TO MENTION RABINOZ) WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, THEN THE TWO BOATS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE. ALWAYS.
No. It is impossible to prove your baseless bullshit.
They only meet in the middle if they are identical. If they are different (e.g. different mass), they don't meet in the middle.
But that is also the result of your analysis.
Here is the proof.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
If A = B, then the two boats will meet in the middle.
And here is what the proof is based upon your analysis (with some irrelevant crap removed and slightly corrected):
The net force on boat x is -A+B.
The net force on boat y is -B+A.
The flatards' own analysis, assumed to be the very best pathetic bullshit that they can come up with to try and deny reality, reaches the following conclusion:
|-A+B|=|-B+A|
If |-A+B|=|-B+A|, then the two boats will meet in the middle.
So congratulations, your own analysis shows they meet in the middle.
Now, jack, let me remind you of what your friend sigma said earlier where HE AGREES WITH ME.
Just because he agrees with a single point doesn't mean he agrees entirely.
Remember this?
The two boats will meet at some point between them.
Agreed for the boat scenario.
Yes. Do you?
He was stating that if you have 2 boats of different masses they will meet at some point between them.
He is not saying that if you have 2 identical boats that they can meet anywhere other than in the middle.
Stop lying about what people are saying.
You do agree that if the two identical boats pull with different forces, then THEY WILL MEET AT SOME POINT BETWEEN THEM, never exactly in the middle.
No. They won't.
They pretty much wont meet at all.
The rope will fly off one of the boats as it was not applying enough force to hold it there.
It is only if the 2 boats apply equal and opposite forces that the string remains.
If you go to reality instead, it then gets more complicated due to other forces acting.
Since by the very hypothesis forces A and B are of a different magnitude, the boats will never meet exactly in the middle.
Again, that is just your baseless claim, and your analysis shows it to be wrong.
You end up with the 2 boats pulling with the same magnitude force (which you don't explicitly state and refuse to answer questions on), and the same magnitude net force on the boats, resulting in them meeting in the middle.
But they do not.
Prove it.
You are yet to do this, and your analysis shows that they will.
Since jackblack needs to vent his fury at his miserable analysis having been thrashed thoroughly in this thread he will pull extremely hard: 200N (location: boat X).
You mean since jackblack is determined to keep beating this dead horse until it flees like pathetic coward or finally gets some life and starts mounting a rational defence, he will pull with 200 N.
disputeone is trolling along, he will pull with a force of 140N (location: boat Y).
And thus gets the rope pulled straight out of his hand as not enough force was applied to hold it there (in fact, he is just helping it along).
Of course they will meet not in the middle, but somewhere along the line of the rope.
Of course they will not meet in the middle, as the rope goes flying and they are no longer connected so they don't meet at all.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
No, we quickly the notice the stupendous error you made by asserting that A and B are different in magnitude when they have to be the same.
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
That's right, which means your situation is pure bullshit. It is physically impossible.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
That's right, but again, that isn't the situation the RE analysis applies to.
In this case, both people are pulling on the rope in the same direction.
What this means is that there is no tension at all unless the rope goes past and attaches to something applying a force of -200 N.
Do you not understand that we are dealing with non-scalar quantities? Where direction (and thus sign) matters?
That if 2 people are pulling in opposite directions, then one force will be >0 and the other will be <0.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
But you do, and you use the equations you are lying about to help.
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
And as equations don't lie, this shows that this situation is impossible.
A possible situation would be when A=200 N and B = -200 N.
All forces balance out perfectly.
No they don't.
You have an action reaction pair between the rope and X.
X is applying a force of A to the rope.
The rope is applying a force of A-B to boat X.
For them to balance you need these to be equal but opposite, i.e.:
-A=-A+B.
Or putting in your numbers:
-200 N = -200 N + 140 N.
They will never be equal.
140 N will never equal 0.
Thus you have unbalanced forces and a completely impossible situation.
So no, plenty of contradictions.
The forces applied at each end of the rope will ALWAYS be different.
Certainly you'd be pulling with a different force than, say, jack. Right?
No. You are completely wrong.
The forces applied at each end of a mass-less rope under tension will always be equal.
Certainly he would be pulling with a force equal but opposite me.
No.
Your boat would simply thrust forward, as would his boat.
Nope. That requires him to apply the force to the boat, he would need to apply all 200 N.
If he can't, then the rope flies out of his hand.
Remember, you are on water, not on land.
So?
Inertia alone is enough to make it impossible. You don't need the added friction of the land.
A simple example, get a rope and tape something heavy too it. Now spin it around going faster and faster. Eventually you spin it too fast and the tape is no longer able to apply the force needed to accelerate the object and the rope comes out of the tape.
I never said anything about the masses of the two men in those boats. I said the boats were identical, that's all.
And in my analysis the mass of the men was included in the boats. mX is not just the mass of the boat itself, it is the mass of the boat and everything in it, including the person or people pulling the rope.
So if they boats are identical but the people aren't, then mX!=mY and thus they do not meet in the middle.
So do you agree that 2 identical boats with identical people being pulled together by a rope will always meet in the middle?
All of you here are missing the most important point.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
No. We understand fulling that that "point" is pure bullshit.
A and B must always be equal and opposite. Otherwise there is a net force on the rope and it goes flying out of someone's hand.
Never.
ALWAYS
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
No, by baseless claim.
If you wish to make that your hypothesis, then fine, your hypothesis is bullshit and doesn't match reality at all. It is a failed hypothesis that any sane person would have discarded long ago.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
And the situation doesn't exist in reality.
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
The limit of your strength, or just when you are trying to apply it to the same rope?
If the latter, then yes, you will, every time you ever measure it it will be an exact match.
The simplest way to measure it is with a spring scale.
This works quite simply, you hook it onto something and pull. It doesn't even matter which way you put it. It tells you how much force you are applying (typically in kgf or lbf). And guess what? Because of how it works, it means you don't even need to bother with the rope. You can just each grab an end and pull.
As it only has one scale it needs to be the same. There isn't a separate measurement for how much each side is pulling, because they need to be equal.
Go try it.
See if you can find any situation where you don't end up with a perfect match.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
Yes, which is also what reality requires.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
No. As it matches reality, it is a good theory, which works.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
No. It fails, spectacularly.
With you ignoring direction you get a result of if the 2 are pulling with an equal force, the boats don't move at all.
But it remains unbalanced and full of contradiction.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
Yes, because that doesn't happen in reality, showing how the theory matches reality, so a perfectly fine theory.
jack is pulling with 200 N force (force A).
disputeone is pulling with a force of 140 N (force B).
Does force A equal force B?
Certainly not.
That is why the RE analysis amounts to pure thrash.
No. That is why your completely delusional scenario amounts to pure trash, because it isn't realistic at all.
In order for it to be real, the 2 forces need to be the same.
So? That means the reaction force from me pulling will be in the same direction as the force disputeone is applying.
That means they would be in the same direction.
But, at the same time, disputeone IS ALSO PULLING ON JACK'S BOAT.
That was the "force disputeone is applying"
So no, not "at the same time, blah"
I already covered that.
Regardless, that was being applied to your delusional, completely unrealistic scenario.
A second force applied.
Totally unaccounted for by the bumbling RE analysis.
Because it doesn't exist in reality.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
No. Your delusional scenario has |A|!=|B| which makes it completely nonsense.
-
Lmao.
Not my arm please ;D ;D.
For a more philosophical question, if you take a person and split them at the neck, are you cutting off their head, cutting off their body or something else?
-
You seem not to understand basic physics.
You have two boats PULLING TOWARD EACH OTHER ON WATER, ON A LAKE.
Not on land.
Who cares if it's land or water?
You seem do not to understand basic physics.
Wake up disputeone!
The forces that you and jack will be applying will be different.
He will apply a force of 200 N. You will exert a force of 140 N.
As simple as this.
Both boats will start to move toward each other.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
Maybe "FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS" but that hypothesis is invalid, as hypotheses easily can be.
And that readily leads to a Reductio ad absurdum type of poof that you must be wrong!
Try again!
-
Lmao.
Not my arm please ;D ;D.
For a more philosophical question, if you take a person and split them at the neck, are you cutting off their head, cutting off their body or something else?
That's deep.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
@Sandokhan I don't claim to understand physics, I do, however have a very good practical and mathematical understanding of forces, loads and ropes, what you are saying is wrong, anyone can test it.
(https://s7.postimg.org/7cekxmtwb/rooping_system.jpg)
I am sorry.
-
You have an action reaction pair between the rope and X.
X is applying a force of A to the rope.
The rope is applying a force of A-B to boat X.
You do not know how to properly apply the forces.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
It doesn't take much to see that you are clueless when it comes to solving this problem.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
Never.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
How can 200N equal 140N?
Here is your bumbling analysis, which does not take into account the two forces of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE which are applied to start with.
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
jack is pulling with 200 N force (force A).
disputeone is pulling with a force of 140 N (force B).
Does force A equal force B?
Certainly not.
That is why the RE analysis amounts to pure thrash.
It is worthless.
It is useless.
Here is the catastrophic RE analysis WHICH WILL ALWAYS VIOLATE/DEFY THE HYPOTHESIS: forces A and B are of a different magnitude to start with.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
It takes a brute and crudish understanding of science to state that |A|=|B| when jack is pulling with 200 N (force A) and disputeone is pulling with 140N (force B).
The absolute value of 200 does not equal the absolute value of 140.
Not even closely.
A most direct and basic contradiction which nullifies your catastrophic analysis jack.
Your analysis is useless and worthless.
The correct analysis has to take into account BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B.
Two different forces.
Of a different magnitude.
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
jack is pulling with 200 N.
disputeone is pulling with 140 N.
200 N does not equal 140 N.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
-
Lmao.
Not my arm please ;D ;D.
For a more philosophical question, if you take a person and split them at the neck, are you cutting off their head, cutting off their body or something else?
That's deep.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
Perhaps a similar question, more on topic:
If we take these boats, with boat X at position x, and boat Y at position Y, and then switch the pieces of them one by one, which boat is which? is the one at x still X, or has it become Y?
Or if we just replace the parts of boat X piece by piece, is it still the same boat?
-
You have an action reaction pair between the rope and X.
X is applying a force of A to the rope.
The rope is applying a force of A-B to boat X.
You do not know how to properly apply the forces.
Nope. That would be you.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
According to me, it is purely a force based upon the tension in the rope.
This is a force of -A.
This perfectly balances the force X is pulling on the rope with, A.
So no contradiction there (or anywhere else between my analysis and reality).
According to your analysis, you have the reaction force of X pulling on the rope, with a force of -A, as well as the force that Y is applying via the rope=B.
That means the rope is applying a force of -A+B to X, while X is only pulling on the rope with a force of A. This makes it completely unbalanced, (unless B is 0, and then from similar analysis A is 0).
Completely contradicting reality.
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
So you accept that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Yes or no?
I will skip the rest of your nonsense this time.
-
According to me, it is purely a force based upon the tension in the rope.
You have created a world of your own making, where you are making up your own rules as go along.
This is called cognitive dissonance.
You are unable to digest reality.
When reality is too much for you, your refuge is creating your own formulas, your own little fantasy world, where you can feel safe.
This is a force of -A.
This perfectly balances the force X is pulling on the rope with, A.
Not if disputeone is pulling from the other side with 140 N.
That would be force B.
Totally different in magnitude from your own applied force of 200 N.
If disputeone is pulling from boat Y, then you need to calculate the impact of this force upon boat X.
According to your analysis, you have the reaction force of X pulling on the rope, with a force of -A, as well as the force that Y is applying via the rope=B.
That means the rope is applying a force of -A+B to X, while X is only pulling on the rope with a force of A.
The first part is true.
But not the second part: again, to feel safe, you are creating your own fantasy world.
Disputeone is pulling on boat X with a force of 140 N.
Can you understand this basic fact?
Are you able to understand it?
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Forces A and B can never be the same.
Never.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
How can the absolute value of 200N equal the absolute value of 140N?
Here is your bumbling analysis, which does not take into account the two forces of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE which are applied to start with.
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
jack is pulling with 200 N force (force A).
disputeone is pulling with a force of 140 N (force B).
Does force A equal force B?
Certainly not.
That is why the RE analysis amounts to pure thrash.
It is worthless.
It is useless.
Here is the catastrophic RE analysis WHICH WILL ALWAYS VIOLATE/DEFY THE HYPOTHESIS: forces A and B are of a different magnitude to start with.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
It takes a brute and crudish understanding of science to state that |A|=|B| when jack is pulling with 200 N (force A) and disputeone is pulling with 140N (force B).
The absolute value of 200 does not equal the absolute value of 140.
Not even closely.
A most direct and basic contradiction which nullifies your catastrophic analysis jack.
Your analysis is useless and worthless.
The correct analysis has to take into account BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B.
Two different forces.
Of a different magnitude.
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
jack is pulling with 200 N.
disputeone is pulling with 140 N.
200 N does not equal 140 N.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
-
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
And
the hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
is an invalid hypothesis!
-
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
jack is pulling with 200 N.
disputeone is pulling with 140 N.
200 N does not equal 140 N.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
(https://s2.postimg.org/e7rtftl8p/images-43.jpg)
-
According to me, it is purely a force based upon the tension in the rope.
You have created a world of your own making, where you are making up your own rules as go along.
This is called cognitive dissonance.
You are unable to digest reality.
When reality is too much for you, your refuge is creating your own formulas, your own little fantasy world, where you can feel safe.
Right, I should have said according to reality. My bad.
How about you stop projecting and answer the questions?
Not if disputeone is pulling from the other side with 140 N.
We aren't talking about your delusional fantasy. We are talking about physically possible situations.
According to your analysis, you have the reaction force of X pulling on the rope, with a force of -A, as well as the force that Y is applying via the rope=B.
That means the rope is applying a force of -A+B to X, while X is only pulling on the rope with a force of A.
The first part is true.
But not the second part: again, to feel safe, you are creating your own fantasy world.
So which part is wrong? Can you be more specific?
Are you breaking it into just 2 parts, so this part is wrong:
"That means the rope is applying a force of -A+B to X, while X is only pulling on the rope with a force of A."
Or are you breaking it into more?
Disputeone is pulling on boat X with a force of 140 N.
Can you understand this basic fact?
That isn't a fact. It is a baseless claim to set up an impossible situation with no bearing in reality. There is pretty much nothing factual about it.
How about you stick with calling it B for now and stop asserting it needs to be different to A.
And of course, there you go repeating the same bullshit rather than answering very simple questions.
(I assume as you were unable to point out a flaw in the prior lines of questions, you fully accept that your analysis is completely wrong and my analysis is correct.)
Here is the question again:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
So you accept that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Yes or no?
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
-
And the hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
is an invalid hypothesis!
Two boats on a lake.
Boat X: the prime minister of Australia, M. Turnbull
Boat Y: one of his subjects, rabinoz
Obviously the prime minister will pull harder on the rope than rabinoz.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
A very valid hypothesis.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Net force on boat x = -200
Net force on boat y = -140
Net force on the string = 340
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so 200 + 140 = 0 so 140 = -200.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |200|=|140|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -200 + 140
The net force on boat Y will be: -140 + 200
The net force on the string will be [200 - 140] + [140 - 200]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200 - 140] + [140 - 200] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
I've finally had a chance to skim through the whole thread to see how we got here.
I was going to post my question (again) and leave it open for Sandokhan to probably ignore (again) but I see the issue was addressed admirably by Rabinoz on pages 6 and 7 before I got involved. Apologies Rab.
So, the question is/was......
If Jack pulls on one end with a force of 100N, and Disputeone pulls on the other end with a force of 100N, what is the tension in the rope, and what would a spring balance fitted at the centre of the rope read?
The situation is exactly like the hanging weights.....
(http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/spring-scale-between-two-weights-measures-tension.jpg)
The answer is 100N. does that surprise you Sandokhan? Is that the answer you would have given? If you don't believe it it's a very simple experiment to do yourself. Rab's diagrams with the wall and elephant on pages 6 and 7 explain it well.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a12.gif)
The tension in the rope is everything here. It MUST be consistent along the whole length. The forces at either end MUST be the same. If Jack pulls on the rope Dispute MUST counter with exactly the same force in order to hang on. If he then pulls a bit harder then Jack MUST increase his force in order to hang on. That's all there is to it. We can forget As and Bs and +/- signs in order to get a feel for what is going on. The 2 forces must be equal. We don't have to sum their magnitudes to get the tension in the rope. It is the rope tension that is pulling the boats. There is no mysterious doubling of the tension force. End of.
Again, this is an excellent tutorial on tension. http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/the-force-of-tension/ (http://www.newtonsapple.org.uk/the-force-of-tension/) which I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read let alone understand.
If you turn out to be correct after publishing your theory, I'll be the first to buy you a drink at your Nobel prize ceremony.
-
zaphod, you seem to have lost your way in this thread.
Your examples include THE SAME FORCES EXERTED ON THE ROPE, not to mention they are done on land.
Here we are dealing with a much simpler situation by comparison.
One you seem to ignore totally.
Let me remind you of the facts.
Two boats on a lake.
Boat X: the prime minister of Australia, M. Turnbull
Boat Y: one of his subjects, rabinoz
Obviously the prime minister will pull harder on the rope than rabinoz.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
A very valid hypothesis.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Net force on boat x = -200
Net force on boat y = -140
Net force on the string = 340
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so 200 + 140 = 0 so 140 = -200.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |200|=|140|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -200 + 140
The net force on boat Y will be: -140 + 200
The net force on the string will be [200 - 140] + [140 - 200]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200 - 140] + [140 - 200] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
The RE analysis turns out to be total piece of thrash.
Worthless.
This is what we are talking about here.
The correct FE analysis provides the right solution, with no contradictions, all of the forces (which must include both the forces applied by M. Turnbull and by rabinoz) accounted for.
You have NOTHING going for you here zaphod.
-
zaphod, you seem to have lost your way in this thread.
Your examples include THE SAME FORCES EXERTED ON THE ROPE, not to mention they are done on land.
Here we are dealing with a much simpler situation by comparison.
One you seem to ignore totally.
Let me remind you of the facts.
Two boats on a lake.
...
where is the difference?
the only difference is that the friction of the objects to the surface.
on Land: high friction
on water: low friction
again my tip for you: learn physics of the reality, and if you do not believe what you learn from others, do yourself experiments and test your ideas.
you idea how forces act is till now only bullshit.
-
zaphod, you seem to have lost your way in this thread.
Your examples include THE SAME FORCES EXERTED ON THE ROPE, not to mention they are done on land.
Here we are dealing with a much simpler situation by comparison.
One you seem to ignore totally.
Let me remind you of the facts.
Two boats on a lake.
Boat X: the prime minister of Australia, M. Turnbull
Boat Y: one of his subjects, rabinoz
Obviously the prime minister will pull harder on the rope than rabinoz.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
A very valid hypothesis.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Net force on boat x = -200
Net force on boat y = -140
Net force on the string = 340
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so 200 + 140 = 0 so 140 = -200.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |200|=|140|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -200 + 140
The net force on boat Y will be: -140 + 200
The net force on the string will be [200 - 140] + [140 - 200]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200 - 140] + [140 - 200] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
The RE analysis turns out to be total piece of thrash.
Worthless.
This is what we are talking about here.
The correct FE analysis provides the right solution, with no contradictions, all of the forces (which must include both the forces applied by M. Turnbull and by rabinoz) accounted for.
You have NOTHING going for you here zaphod.
I take you have seen and possibly during your life time walked over bridges, gone up in a lift in a tall building....see a really big dam, I think you get the idea. All of these structures have been designed by using conventional structural analysis. Are you claiming all the engineers in the world are wrong and you alone are right? as thats the impression you appear to be giving. In your break from building your perpetual motion machine are you also claiming all the engineering text books ever written are also incorrect?
just wondering.....but have you ever considered for one moment that you could be mistaken and are wrong?
-
Two boats on a lake.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
A very valid hypothesis.
No. A completely invalid hypothesis.
You repeatedly asserting it is true doesn't make it true.
Even your own BS analysis, when done in a slightly honest/rational way, reveals that they must pull the rope with equal force.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
You mean the completely correct, rational, honest analysis of rational, honest people that show your hypothesis to be pure bullshit.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
No. It is your delusional hypothesis that is worth less than nothing.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |200|=|140|?
Certainly not.
And so does reality.
All this does is show that your "hypothesis" does not reflect reality at all.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
You mean the completely worthless bullshit analysis, that doesn't understand direction and ends with the massive contradiction of:
-A=-A+B.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
Nope. Plenty of contradictions.
The net force on boat X will be: -200 + 140
Yes, so the rope is applying a force of -60 N to boat X, while the boat is applying a force of 200 N.
By Newton's third law, these 2 need to be equal but opposite.
Does 60=200?
NO. NEVER!!
So you have a massive contradiction showing your analysis is pure garbage.
Your analysis shows that the net force on each boat has a magnitude of 60 N. Each boat has this force applied by the rope.
This means they must be pulling on the rope with a force with a magnitude of 60 N.
Otherwise you are violating Newton's third law.
So according to your analysis:
|60|=|200| and |60|=|140|.
Is that ever the case? NO!!!.
So you end up contradicting the hypothesis as well.
But unlike ours, yours cannot work with physically possible hypotheses when the 2 boats are pulling with an equal but opposite force e.g. 100 N and -100 N.
This is because you calculate the net force to be of a magnitude of 200 N.
But does |200|=|100|
NO!!!
It never does.
Your analysis works in one case only, when boat boats pull with a force of 0 N.
So if we were to accept your analysis, it would indicate that no boats can ever be pulled together. But we know they can.
So your analysis is entirely worthless.
Now care to answer my question?
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
So you accept that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Yes or no?
zaphod, you seem to have lost your way in this thread.
Your examples include THE SAME FORCES EXERTED ON THE ROPE, not to mention they are done on land.
Yes, because it shows the reality of the situation.
You can only ever have the 2 forces be equal but opposite. You can never have them be of different magnitude and have the rope remain where it is.
It doesn't matter if they are done on land. All that means is that another force is acting on them to hold them in place.
Would you prefer this example (without a picture but I can make one if you want):
You have 2 boats on a superfluid lake in a vacuum.
Each boat has a pulley on it.
Strung between the boats is a string of 0 mass with an infinite tensile strength, with a massless spring scale in the middle.
This string (at each boat) goes around the pulley and is then attached to a mass-less spring scale and some weight.
The string also has the property that the total length of rope on the boat side of the pulleys remains constant, i.e. it will shrink as the boats move together and expand if they move apart.
If you have a mass of M1 and M2 what will the three spring scales read at steady state and what will happen to the boats and the masses?
I can easily tell you:
If the 2 masses are equal, such that M1=m=M2, the three scales all read m, the weights remain in place and the boats move together, as the masses are exerting equal but opposite forces.
If one mass is heavier than the other, then the masses start to move with the heavier one falling to the bottom and the lighter one raising to the top.
Depending upon what is a longer distance, either the heavier mass will rest on the boat, reducing the force on the string such that it is the mass of the lighter one read on all three scales and that is the force pulling the boats together, or the lighter one will hit the pulley, get jammed and thus it will be the mass of the heavier one read on all three scales and that is the force pulling the boats together.
Here we are dealing with a much simpler situation by comparison.
No, here we are dealing with a more complex situation which is in no way realistic.
Let me remind you of the facts.
They aren't facts.
They are your delusional claims about a delusion situation which can NEVER occur in reality.
Let me remind you of the facts:
Our analysis works fine and requires the 2 forces to be equal and opposite, as required by reality.
Your analysis only works when the forces are 0. For any other force, you end up with a contradiction of the form -A=-A+B and -B=-B+A, requiring both A and B to be 0, or requiring boat X to be pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A, and most importantly, requiring both to pull on a string with a force that is equal in magnitude just like you claim isn't happening.
Your analysis just has contradiction after contradiction.
I suspect you know this due to your continued refusal to answer a simple question.
How about we try this with an actual valid hypothesis instead of your delusional bullshit?
You pull with a force of 100 N.
Sceptic pulls with a force of -100 N (as it is in the opposite direction it is represented by a - sign, your analysis will report this as 100 N).
Now remember my analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -100 N.
The net force on boat y is -(-100 N).
The net force on the string is 100 N + (-100 N)=0.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
i.e. -100 N=-100 N.
Notice how it holds perfectly with no contradiction at all.
Notice how there is no doubling of forces?
Notice how that X is pulling on the rope with a force of 100 N and the rope is pulling back with a force of -100 N, holding to the third law?
Notice how there isn't a problem with this analysis at all? (when applied to a physically possible situation).
Now lets try yours (option A, with B=100 N):
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
The net force on boat X will be: - 100 + 100=0
The net force on boat Y will be: -100 + 100=0
The net force on the string will be [100 - 100] + [100 - 100]=0
Notice how your analysis leads to the stupendous conclusion that there is no net force on either boat and thus they won't be moving together at all?
Also notice the contradictions.
You either violate Newton's third law, as X is pulling with a force of 100 N, but the rope is pulling back with a force of 0 N. How does |100| = |0|? IT NEVER DOES.
So there is one contradiction, or you violate the original claim, as in order for the forces to be balanced and Newton's third law to hold, X must be pulling on the rope with a force of 0 N.
When does 0 N = 100 N? NEVER. So you contradict the very hypothesis.
Is this why you continually refuse to answer the question? Is it because you know it will show your analysis to directly violate the hypothesis and have X pull with A-B, not A as the hypothesis claims.
Here is the question again for when you have enough brains/balls to answer it:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
So you accept that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Yes or no?
Lets try it with a slightly more correct way (but still horribly wrong as it is using your BS analysis), where B=-100 N, not 100 N:
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
The net force on boat X will be: - 100 + (-100)=-200 N
The net force on boat Y will be: -(-100) + 100=200 N
The net force on the string will be [100 - (-100)] + [(-100) - 100]=0 N.
At least now you have the 2 boats moving together. But you still have the same problems elsewhere.
There exists an action reaction pair between boat X and the rope. This means the magnitude of the forces must be equal (and they must be opposite in sign).
You have boat X applying a force of 100 N to the rope, and the rope applying a force of -200 N to the boat.
i.e. you have |100|=|-200|.
When does this ever hold true? NEVER. 100 will never equal 200.
The only way to avoid this unbalanced force is to have X pull the rope with a force of 200 N.
But that violates the very hypothesis that x is pulling with a force of 100 N.
100!=200. EVER.
Your analysis leads to contradictions in all cases except when the 2 forces are 0.
My analysis (the real, correct analysis), only leads to contradictions when you are dealing with physically impossible situations, because they are physically impossible as they violate the laws of motion.
You have NOTHING going for you here zaphod.
You are the one with nothing going for you.
You continually appeal to physically impossible situations which cannot exist in reality to try and pretend the RE analysis is wrong, while your analysis suffers from similar problems, contradicting the hypothesis/having unbalanced forces and only ever works when the 2 forces are 0.
-
Now then Sandy, care to answer my question:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
So you accept that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Yes or no?
Do you not understand at all, and thus don't know the answer?
Or are you too afraid of answering as it will reveal your analysis to be bullshit?
-
Let me remind you of the facts.
We know the facts, all the facts and even your alternate facts, thank you M. Sandokhan.
Two boats on a lake.
Boat X: the prime minister of Australia, M. Turnbull
Boat Y: one of his subjects, rabinoz
Changing the names to protect the confused will not help your case M. Sandokhan.
Obviously the prime minister will pull harder on the rope than rabinoz.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
A very valid hypothesis.
So sorry, M. Sandokhan, but your hypothesis is quite invalid if the rope/string/whatever is massless
for the simple reason that the tension in the rope/string/whatever must be the same throughout its length.
Hence the forces on each end must be identical.
That seems so elementary that a child could understand it, yet so deep that even the great Sandokhan can't.
When I get to a computer, and it I can be bothered, I will see if I can rustle up a pretty picture and show you how to analyse it properly.
-
but your hypothesis is quite invalid if the rope/string/whatever is massless
for the simple reason that the tension in the rope/string/whatever must be the same throughout its length.
Hence the forces on each end must be identical.
rabinoz, cut out the bullshit.
You can't fool your readers with such nonsense.
The only valid hypothesis is that where forces A and B are not equal.
You can't have two people pulling with the exactly the same force, as the RE analysis requires.
Hence, the NET FORCE on each end will turn out to be same, exactly as in my analysis, but taking into consideration BOTH FORCES.
This is the correct analysis.
The RE analysis requires this: |A|=|B|. Do you understand this? Forces A and B, the applied forces, will never be the same, they cannot be, which means the RE analysis is pure thrash.
Your readers, rabinoz, can see this: you require that |A|=|B|. ALWAYS. But this NEVER turns out to be the case. Which means you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about. In the correct analysis, the NET FORCES on each end of the rope work out fine.
jack, people can see that you have lost it.
Totally.
You no longer have control over what you are writing: having seen that your analysis is a piece of worthless trash, you are resorting to pure slander.
It doesn't work with me.
Yes, so the rope is applying a force of -60 N to boat X, while the boat is applying a force of 200 N.
By Newton's third law, these 2 need to be equal but opposite.
Does 60=200?
NO. NEVER!!
Let me remind you of the correct analysis, where there are no contradictions at all: the NET FORCES are totally taken into consideration.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Do you now understand how the action/reaction forces work at the boat x end of the rope?
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Everything works out fine.
Which is not the case with your miserable analysis.
You pull with a force of 100 N.
Sceptic pulls with a force of -100 N (as it is in the opposite direction it is represented by a - sign, your analysis will report this as 100 N).
It doesn't work like that jack.
No two persons will EVER pull with the very same force.
Moreover you are having one person PUSH on the rope with 100 N. What you meant was both persons pushing with exactly 100 N. A force of -100 N would mean one is pushing on the rope, not very smart is it?
You have chosen THE ONLY CASE which can be handled by your piece of thrash equations/analysis.
BUT YOU REQUIRE THAT FORCES A AND B BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
If we go down to the infinitesimal level of measuring the forces, you will find out that one person will apply 100.000000513 N, while the other, no matter how close he/she tries to attain the same result, will pull with 100.000316789 N (just two examples).
Your analysis is shown to be a PIECE OF THRASH even in this simple example.
Lets try it with a slightly more correct way (but still horribly wrong as it is using your BS analysis), where B=-100 N, not 100 N:
You are showing everyone here that you are no scientist at all.
How could anyone pull with a NEGATIVE FORCE?
Have you taken your medication jack?
A negative force would mean that person would BE PUSHING ON A ROPE.
This alone shows how delusional you are.
You have lost it jack.
There is no other way to put it.
If by now you are resorting to using NEGATIVE FORCES it means you have lost it.
You are no longer acting sane jack.
Here is what you wrote:
where B=-100 N, not 100 N:
One cannot apply a NEGATIVE FORCE, that would be PUSHING on the rope you dimwit.
If one pulls with a force of 100N, the reaction from the rope will measure -100N, the opposing force, you dimwit.
Here is another simple example where we analyze both the RE and FE way of finding a solution.
In one boat we have Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the other we have Brian Cox.
Boat X: NdG Tyson pulling with 300 N.
Boat Y: B. Cox pulling with some 150 N.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Net force on boat x = -300
Net force on boat y = -150
Net force on the string = 450
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so 300 + 150 = 0 so 150 = -300.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |300|=|150|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -300 + 150
The net force on boat Y will be: -150 + 300
The net force on the string will be [300 - 150] + [150 - 300]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[300 - 150] + [150 - 300] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
The RE analysis turns out to be total piece of thrash.
Worthless.
This is what we are talking about here.
The correct FE analysis provides the right solution, with no contradictions, all of the forces (which must include both the forces applied by NdG Tyson and B. Cox) accounted for.
-
The only valid hypothesis is that where forces A and B are not equal.
Incorrect
-
All of you here are missing the most important point.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
Never.
FORCES A AND B ARE OF DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE BY HYPOTHESIS.
If you are pulling with a force of 200N, and disputeone is pulling with a force of 140N, then A does not equal B.
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
This is what we are talking about here, what the RE require.
A total match. A perfect match.
This is the absurd requirement of a failed theory.
My analysis suffers from no such requirements. It can even handle the theoretical case where the two forces are perfectly matched down to the 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton.
By contrast, the RE's own analysis CANNOT EVEN HANDLE a basic infinitesimal difference at the level of a 100,000,000th fraction of a Newton. A totally failed theory.
But the RE are requiring that the two forces be exactly the same.
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
jack is pulling with 200 N force (force A).
disputeone is pulling with a force of 140 N (force B).
Does force A equal force B?
Certainly not.
That is why the RE analysis amounts to pure thrash.
It is worthless.
It is useless.
My analysis takes into account both forces applied.
Here is the catastrophic RE analysis WHICH WILL ALWAYS VIOLATE/DEFY THE HYPOTHESIS: forces A and B are of a different magnitude to start with.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
The correct analysis has to take into account BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B.
Two different forces.
Of a different magnitude.
The RE analysis is completely useless as it violates/defies the clearly stated hypothesis each and every time.
The hypothesis: FORCES A AND B ARE DIFFERENT, OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE.
jack is pulling with 200 N.
disputeone is pulling with 140 N.
200 N does not equal 140 N.
Yet the RE analysis requires that |A|=|B| which is a complete nonsense.
My analysis CORRECTLY takes into account the NET FORCES on both ends, which work out fine.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
but your hypothesis is quite invalid if the rope/string/whatever is massless
for the simple reason that the tension in the rope/string/whatever must be the same throughout its length.
Hence the forces on each end must be identical.
The only valid hypothesis is that where forces A and B are not equal.
Put garbage and simply not possible.
Please explain how one massless rope can possibly have different tensions along its length.
-
rabinoz, are you sober?
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Do you understand these basic things?
The rope can be stretchy/springy.
This is as yet an unaccounted for problem in modern physics.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
It cannot transmit one force, since this requires, per your friend's bullshit analysis, that |A|=|B|.
A contradiction.
By having assumed that the rope will transmit only one force, we reach a contradiction.
-
Absolute value of A can equal absolute value of B in many cases including this one. Suppose A=1 and B=1. Then A=B. No problem.
-
rabinoz, are you sober?
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Do you understand these basic things?
The rope can be stretchy/springy.
I don't care if the rope is stretchy/springy., as long as it is massless, the tension everywhere in the rope is they same.
-
Absolute value of A can equal absolute value of B in many cases including this one. Suppose A=1 and B=1. Then A=B. No problem.
Brilliant.
In case you have noticed, you USED THE SAME VALUE FOR A AND B: 1.
In all of the cases where |A|=|B| that means the magnitude of the two forces are exactly the same.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
I don't care if the rope is stretchy/springy., as long as it is massless, the tension everywhere in the rope is they same.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
It cannot transmit one force, since this requires, per your friend's bullshit analysis, that |A|=|B|.
A contradiction.
By having assumed that the rope will transmit only one force, we reach a contradiction.
-
Not that this is actually relevant, but supposing the people in the boats were of precisely the same strength and build. In your esteemed opinion, could A=B under those circumstances?
-
You don't understand the predicament that jack has wrought upon the RE faction.
This is what YOU have accepted as being a VALID analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
Do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
|A|=|B|
No exceptions.
No other possibilities.
ONLY ONE CASE IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UNDER JACK'S PIECE OF THRASH ANALYSIS: |A|=|B|.
But, in reality that could never be the case.
Again, do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
Even if boat X was pulling with a force 100.000,000,000,000,021 N and boat Y was pulling with a force of 100.000,000,000,000,334 N, the requirements of jack's piece of garbage analysis COULD NEVER BE FULFILLED.
In each and every instant/situation where two people pull on a rope, two on a lake, the FORCES APPLIED WILL BE DIFFERENT.
This means the RE analysis, the piece of thrash posted by jack, IS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY REAL LIFE SITUATION.
-
In that case it is also impossible to walk in a straight line or draw a circle. You're being ridiculous.
-
I see that you do not understand the equations that you have accepted as representing a valid analysis.
Again.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
Do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
|A|=|B|
Your analogies are worthless: we are talking about an equation with an equal sign here.
Even if boat X was pulling with a force 100.000,000,000,000,021 N and boat Y was pulling with a force of 100.000,000,000,000,334 N, the requirements of jack's piece of garbage analysis COULD NEVER BE FULFILLED.
In each and every instant/situation where two people pull on a rope, two on a lake, the FORCES APPLIED WILL BE DIFFERENT.
This means the RE analysis, the piece of thrash posted by jack, IS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY REAL LIFE SITUATION.
Since the two forces WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT, FORCE A APPLIED BY BOAT X, AND FORCE B APPLIED BY BOAT Y, we need a correct analysis that takes into account this very fact.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
rabinoz, are you sober?
Quite sober, thank you. In fact I rarely drink intoxicating drinks anyway.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
No, modern and "non-modern" physics, does not "overlook" this,
it simply shows that in the ideal, though hypothetical, case, a zero mass rope has the same tension along its whole length.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
If the rope is massless there is no error. If the rope has mass, there is still no problem,
in the steady state (stationary or constant velocities) the forces on the ends of the rope still have exactly the same magnitude and
if the rope is accelersting there will be some difference that can be calculated.
These situations can all be analysed, though with increasing difficulty as the mass and elasticity of the rope is included.
Do you understand these basic things?
The rope can be stretchy/springy.
This is as yet an unaccounted for problem in modern physics.
Of course it can be "stretchy/springy" and modern physics has no problem with "stretchy/springy" ropes and cables.
Robert Hooke was hardly a "modern" physicist, but even he seemed to know more than you!
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
It cannot transmit one force, since this requires, per your friend's bullshit analysis, that |A|=|B|.
A contradiction.
By having assumed that the rope will transmit only one force, we reach a contradiction.
Only a contradiction with your original hypothesis, which was an invalid hypothesis.
So the contradiction is only in SandokhanIan Alternate-Physucs, but not in real life.
But this little interchange has been so educational! It gives us such a good idea of where your weird physics comes from.
Keep it up, we're learning so much, about YOU!
-
But the rope cannot transmit one single force.
How forgetful you are.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
If rabinoz, and any of your relatives would pulling on that rope, would those forces be the same, down to the most infinitesimal level of a fraction of Newton?
NEVER.
You see, it takes a SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE TO destroy your meaningless assertions.
Or have you forgotten this piece of thrash analysis?
Here is the garbage analysis brought upon the RE, by none other than jack:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The RE's own analysis, assumed to be the very best that they can come up with, reaches the following conclusion:
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
Do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
|A|=|B|
Even if boat X was pulling with a force 100.000,000,000,000,021 N and boat Y was pulling with a force of 100.000,000,000,000,334 N, the requirements of jack's piece of garbage analysis COULD NEVER BE FULFILLED.
In each and every instant/situation where two people pull on a rope, two on a lake, the FORCES APPLIED WILL BE DIFFERENT.
This means the RE analysis, the piece of thrash posted by jack, IS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY REAL LIFE SITUATION.
Since the two forces WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT, FORCE A APPLIED BY BOAT X, AND FORCE B APPLIED BY BOAT Y, we need a correct analysis that takes into account this very fact.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
rabinoz, cut out the bullshit.
You can't fool your readers with such nonsense.
You are the one spouting bullshit.
You are the one trying to fool everyone.
The only valid hypothesis is that where forces A and B are not equal.
No. The only valid hypothesis is when A=-B.
You can't have two people pulling with the exactly the same force, as the RE analysis requires.
You can. Reality dictates that you must.
The RE analysis requires this: |A|=|B|. Do you understand this? Forces A and B, the applied forces, will never be the same, they cannot be, which means the RE analysis is pure thrash.
Yes, the RE analysis requires this.
So does reality.
Reality necessitates that the applied force is the same.
In order to have a balance, your analysis also requires that as well, it just splits the force up.
In order for |A| to not equal |B| you need to violate Newton's third law.
Yes, so the rope is applying a force of -60 N to boat X, while the boat is applying a force of 200 N.
By Newton's third law, these 2 need to be equal but opposite.
Does 60=200?
NO. NEVER!!
Let me remind you of the correct analysis, where there are no contradictions at all: the NET FORCES are totally taken into consideration.
I just showed you a result of your "correct" analysis.
It reaches a contradiction.
You either violate Newton's third law or you have boat X pull with a force different to A.
How about you address this rather than repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again?
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
As I asked before:
Is this an admission that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
If not, how is boat X applying a force of A-B to the rope?
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Sure, because you changed it from boat X applying a force of A to boat X applying a force of A-B.
You violated the very hypothesis.
Do you now understand how the action/reaction forces work at the boat x end of the rope?
I understood it a long time ago.
Long before you started spouting your nonsense.
You are the one that doesn't seem to understand, or you do understand, and you know you are spouting pure bullshit.
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B[/b]
Everything works out fine.
No, it doesn't.
The only way for that to work out fine is if boat x is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B.
However, the scenario was that X pulling with a force of A.
So the only way for that to work is if B is 0.
But due to the symmetry, that will also require A to be 0.
So the only way your analysis works out is if no force is being applied.
Which is not the case with your miserable analysis.
No. My correct analysis works perfectly for any physically possible situation.
It is only for physically impossible ones where |A|!=|B|, a violation of Newton's laws of motion, that it doesn't hold.
It doesn't work like that jack.
No two persons will EVER pull with the very same force.
It does work like that.
2 people pulling on a mass-less string will always pull with a force opposite in magnitude.
Moreover you are having one person PUSH on the rope with 100 N. What you meant was both persons pushing with exactly 100 N. A force of -100 N would mean one is pushing on the rope, not very smart is it?
No, but thanks for showing your ignorance again.
As above, let boat X start out at position x0, where x0>0.
Let boat Y start out at position -x0.
The rope starts centred at x=0.
Boat X is pulling on the rope towards it, in such a way that if no other force acted, it would move the rope in the positive x direction.
That means the force applied is positive.
Boat Y is also pulling the rope towards it, in such a way that if no other force acted, it would move the rope in the negative x direction.
That means the force applied is negative.
The 2 boats/people are pulling the rope in opposite directions. That is why one is positive and one is negative.
You were the "not very smart" individual that had one person push the rope and the other pull.
As your forces were both positive, that means both individuals were trying to move the rope in the same direction.
As the rope is between them, that means one is pushing (the one at negative x) and one is pulling (the one at positive x).
You have chosen THE ONLY CASE which can be handled by your piece of thrash equations/analysis.
No. I have chosen a representative example of the only kind of case which can be handled by this correct analysis, those which are physically possible, unlike your examples, which are physically impossible and end up with massive contradictions.
BUT YOU REQUIRE THAT FORCES A AND B BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
Yes, as does reality.
You require that as well, but you also have the additional requirement that both are 0.
If we go down to the infinitesimal level of measuring the forces, you will find out that one person will apply 100.000000513 N, while the other, no matter how close he/she tries to attain the same result, will pull with 100.000316789 N (just two examples).
Prove it.
So far all you have done is repeatedly asserted baseless crap like that.
Your analysis is shown to be a PIECE OF THRASH even in this simple example.
No. Your physically impossible situation cannot be analysed by this model which models reality.
How could anyone pull with a NEGATIVE FORCE?
Quite easily.
Force is a vector quantity. It has direction.
Lets say you have someone pulling an object with a positive force.
Have another person come and pull it from the opposite side. They are pulling with a negative force.
This is required to balance the forces, otherwise the forces just add up and the object should move faster, by someone pulling on it to try and slow it down.
Perhaps this is expressed most simply in Newton's third law:
Fr=-Fa.
For ever action (Fa) there is an equal but opposite reaction.
Also note that in your example, the net force on X was -60 N. How can the rope pull X with a force of -60 N if pulling with a negative force is impossible.
Thanks for showing everyone you don't understand physics at all.
You have lost it jack.
There is no other way to put it.
Sure there is. It would go something along the lines of admitting you made a bunch of massive mistakes and have no idea what you are talking about and apologising for repeatedly insulting everyone.
But I guess that would require you to actually understand first, and I see no evidence of that ever happening.
If one pulls with a force of 100N, the reaction from the rope will measure -100N, the opposing force, you dimwit.
So how can ropes pull with -100 N but not people?
Here is another simple example where we analyze both the RE and FE way of finding a solution.
And yet again, you resort to a physically impossible situation.
Totally useless.
Yes, quite useless for analysing your delusional, physically impossible situations other than to indicate they are physically impossible.
Go ahead and test with a measuring device your strength down to the 100,000,000th fraction of Newton against all the people in the world.
You won't find an exact match. Absolutely guaranteed.
Again, is this by you individually pulling against something, or is it by putting a rope between the 2 of you and you both pulling on the rope?
If the former, then sure, but that is irrelevant for this analysis.
If the latter, then you do, as the rope is only capable of measuring a single force and thus the force measured must be the same for each of you.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same?
They must be.
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
They must be.
If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
They must be.
You can simplify the situation down to this:
If you have 2 people pulling a rope, one from each end, such that the rope is under tension, would the forces be the same?
In that case, the answer is always YES.
It can never be no.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
Yes, due to the mass of the rope. That isn't a problem for this example, which you are trying to use to compare to gravity, which certainly is more like a massless string than one with mass.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
But there is only one force applied at each end. The force at one end is equal and opposite the force at the other. This is the correct analysis and it works out just fine for any physically possible scenario.
It cannot transmit one force, since this requires, per your friend's bullshit analysis, that |A|=|B|.
A contradiction.
Only a contradiction between reality and your delusions.
This doesn't contradict reality at all.
Now how about you quit all this bullshit and answer the questions that show your analysis to be pure garbage.
Here it is again:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
If not, how is boat X applying a force of A-B to the rope?
Care to answer?
If not, is it because you don't know the answer, because you don't understand the situation, or is it because you are too dishonest to answer as you know it shows your analysis to be pure garbage?
-
rabinoz, are you sober?
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
Bugger! I had a mouthful of coffee when I read that and now the keyboard to my laptop downstairs is fooked. Everytime I try and write "Sandokhan I believe you're mistaken" it comes out as "$&>>"SanDoCUh{[email protected].+!" .I'm going to have to dismantle it and dry the thing out.
Seriously though mate, please "do some homework" on tension. You can also easily test your hypothesis that the tension varies along a horizontal rope with some cheap spring balances and string. Let us know your results.
Alternatively you may blow physics away by overturning Newton's laws and debunking centuries of understanding of the forces in cables - that would be the understanding that makes all lifts, suspension bridges, towing applications, etc etc etc work.
And can you please stop copying and pasting all the "analysis" unless you have something new to add.
Good luck.
-
jack, you are acting insane.
You are not making any sense anymore.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same?
They must be.
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
They must be.
If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
They must be.
Let us remember what jack wrote earlier, a sure sign of a serious symptom.
According to me, it is purely a force based upon the tension in the rope.
Remember my comments?
You have created a world of your own making, where you are making up your own rules as go along.
This is called cognitive dissonance.
You are unable to digest reality.
When reality is too much for you, your refuge is creating your own formulas, your own little fantasy world, where you can feel safe.
The forces applied in each case described above will ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Donald Trump cannot exert the same force applied by Hillary Clinton.
Or you, jack, to exert the very same force applied by disputeone.
The only valid hypothesis is when A=-B.
Let us see what happens when you have your way.
If A = -B, then |A|=|B|.
You see, it takes a SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE TO destroy your meaningless assertions.
You are truly delusional jack.
You lost, don't you understand?
My analysis applies to each and every possible situation: where FORCES A AND B ARE OF A DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE, AND ALSO, IF THAT WERE TO BE POSSIBLE, TO THE CASE WHERE A WOULD EQUAL EXACTLY B.
But your analysis, using your own statement above, applied TO ONLY ONE SITUATION, EXACTLY THE ONE THAT CANNOT BE TRUE.
Even if boat X was pulling with a force 100.000,000,000,000,021 N and boat Y was pulling with a force of 100.000,000,000,000,334 N, the requirements of jack's piece of garbage analysis COULD NEVER BE FULFILLED.
In each and every instant/situation where two people pull on a rope, two on a lake, the FORCES APPLIED WILL BE DIFFERENT.
This means the RE analysis, the piece of thrash posted by jack, IS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY REAL LIFE SITUATION.
Also note that in your example, the net force on X was -60 N. How can the rope pull X with a force of -60 N if pulling with a negative force is impossible.
People here are tired of your miserable picking at the straws jack.
We are talking about the DIRECTION OF THE NET FORCE.
Basic physics jack.
You are history here jack.
No one else has managed to wreak so much damage to the RE faction/cause.
Let us now examine the piece of thrash that jack came up with.
In one boat we have Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the other we have Brian Cox.
Boat X: NdG Tyson pulling with 300 N.
Boat Y: B. Cox pulling with some 150 N.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Net force on boat x = -300
Net force on boat y = -150
Net force on the string = 450
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so 300 + 150 = 0 so 150 = -300.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |300|=|150|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -300 + 150
The net force on boat Y will be: -150 + 300
The net force on the string will be [300 - 150] + [150 - 300]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[300 - 150] + [150 - 300] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
The RE analysis turns out to be total piece of thrash.
Worthless.
This is what we are talking about here.
The correct FE analysis provides the right solution, with no contradictions, all of the forces (which must include both the forces applied by NdG Tyson and B. Cox) accounted for.
But there is only one force applied at each end.
YES, BUT THOSE ARE DIFFERENT FORCES jack.
NdG Tyson is pulling with 300N.
B. Cox is exerting 150N.
The force at one end is equal and opposite the force at the other.
THE NET FORCES APPLIED, YES.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
At the same time, boat Y is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat X) and the man in boat X is applying force A to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat X: -A and B
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
At the same time, boat X is pulling on the rope (the rope of course is pulling on boat Y) and the man in boat Y is applying force B to the rope.
Two forces acting on boat Y: -B and A
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat Y?
The reaction forces: -A and B
The net force on boat X will be: -A + B
The net force on boat Y will be: -B + A
The net force on the string will be [A - B] + [B - A]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[A - B] + [B - A] = 0
-
zaphod, you mentioned your wife earlier.
zaphod, and his wife pulling at each end of the rope on that lake.
Boat X: zaphod pulling with 200 N
Boat Y: zaphod's wife pulling with 140 N (unless, of course, she turns out to be Xena in disguise)
RE analysis
The net force on boat x is -200N.
The net force on boat y is -140N.
The net force on the string is 200N + 140N.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
We quickly notice the stupendous contradiction which we reach in an instant of a second.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
|A|=|B|.
Does |200|=|140|?
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
EQUATIONS DO NOT LIE.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
A = 200N
B = 140N
There is no way that 200N + 140N = 0.
There is no way that 140N = -200N.
It is as simple as this.
|A|=|B|.
Does |200|=|140|?
FE analysis
The net force on boat X will be: -200N + 140N
The net force on boat Y will be: -140N + 200N
The net force on the string will be [200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200N - 140N] + [140N - 200N] = 60N - 60N = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
This is going nowhere as usual.
You're ideas about the tension in the rope are WRONG.
You can easily find this out yourself by doing your "homework" and doing some simple experiments. I wonder why you choose not to?
Copying and pasting the same "argument" over and over again without actually addressing the points others make is pointless. Please stop it. We can all page up and read it over and over again. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make centuries of established and verifiable physics wrong.
There is NO magic doubling of the tension force. There is NO difference in the tension force from one end of the rope to the other.
It also has nothing to do with RE vs FE.
-
The example I provided in my previous message proves that you are totally wrong.
The third law is fine.
What we are dealing here is the catastrophic way in which the RE are interpreting this law: this erroneous interpretation leads directly to a most obvious contradiction.
It doesn't make centuries of established and verifiable physics wrong.
Here is Newton himself denying each and every phrase in your last statement.
Let us see what Newton has to say on the subject of gravitational pressure.
A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:
The gradient extended to Earth's centre:
'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'
Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.
'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'
In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.
"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"
"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."
His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.
The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, II (Cambridge, 1960)
288-295, 295 (sent 28 Feb. 1679)
‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.
Westfall, note 10, 91.
R.Westfall, Never at Rest (Cambridge, 1980)
T.Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4 vols (London 1756-7; reprinted Brussels 1968), 3, 1756, 248-60.
Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton fully believed in the ether pressure gravity theory, and thrashed in no uncertain terms the supposed law of attractive gravity.
In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:
[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”
I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.
Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):
Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them? And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?
In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.
Newton, Opticks, Query 19:
Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
One of the rarest documents, the complete letter from Newton to Boyle dated 1679: On the Cosmic Ether of Space
http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm
It is of huge significance.
4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
So this is what Newton meant by gravitational attraction: outside pressure brings the two bodies together ("adhere strongly to one another").
I shall set down one conjecture more, which came into my mind now as I was writing this letter; it is about the cause of gravity. For this end I will suppose aether to consist of parts differing from one another in subtilty by indefinite degrees; that in the pores of bodies there is less of the grosser aether, in proportion to the finer, than in open spaces; and consequently, that in the great body of the earth there is much less of the grosser aether, in proportion to the finer, than in the regions of the air; and that yet the grosser aether in the air affects the upper regions of the earth, and the finer aether in the earth the lower regions of the air, in such a manner, that from the top of the air to the surface of the earth, and again from the surface of the earth to the centre thereof, the aether is insensibly finer and finer. Imagine now any body suspended in the air, or lying on the earth, and the aether being by the hypothesis grosser in the pores, which are in the upper parts of the body, than in those which are in its lower parts, and that grosser aether being less apt to be lodged in those pores than the finer aether below, it will endeavour to get out and give way to the finer aether below, which cannot be, without the bodies descending to make room above for it to go out into.
Terrestrial gravity: according to Newton is force of PRESSURE.
-
Remember my comments?
You have created a world of your own making, where you are making up your own rules as go along.
This is called cognitive dissonance.
You are unable to digest reality.
When reality is too much for you, your refuge is creating your own formulas, your own little fantasy world, where you can feel safe.
Good job describing yourself there.
Now how about you cut the crap and answer the question?
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
If not, how is boat X applying a force of A-B to the rope?
Care to answer?
If not, is it because you don't know the answer, because you don't understand the situation, or is it because you are too dishonest to answer as you know it shows your analysis to be pure garbage?
Let us see what happens when you have your way.
If A = -B, then |A|=|B|.
Yep, just like you would expect.
Also note that in your example, the net force on X was -60 N. How can the rope pull X with a force of -60 N if pulling with a negative force is impossible.
People here are tired of your miserable picking at the straws jack.
This is not picking at straws. It is showing the stupidity, hypocrisy and/or ignorance of your argument
Forces are not scalar quantities like distance.
They are vector quantities like displacement.
That means DIRECTION MATTERS!!!
In 1D, that means you have positive forces and negative forces, with one (e.g positive) representing forces in one direction and the other (e.g. negative) representing forces in the other direction.
When you go to 2D (or other higher dimension), simple numbers like that just don't cut it and you need to use actual vectors like:
<Fx,Fy>, where each part of the vector can be positive or negative.
We are talking about the DIRECTION OF THE NET FORCE.
Basic physics jack.
Yes, this is very basic physics, so why do you seem to be completely ignorant of it?
Let us now examine the piece of thrash that jack came up with.
And how do you do this? By coming up with a pile of pure, delusional bullshit.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |300|=|150|?
Certainly not.
And do you know what that means? This situation is physically impossible as it violates Newton's laws of motion.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
That's right. It is an honest, rational analysis of the situation. Something you seem incapable of.
YES, BUT THOSE ARE DIFFERENT FORCES jack.
Only in your delusional fantasy-land.
In reality, they are equal but opposite, just as Newton's third law demands.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
The rope pulling on boat X. That is the only possible force that can act upon it.
By Newton's third law that must be equal but opposite the force X is applying.
Thus if X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, the net force on X MUST be -A.
If it is anything else, you have unbalanced forces and are defying Newton's laws of motions.
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Again, is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
The example I provided in my previous message proves that you are totally wrong.
No. They don't.
They violate the third law of motion and/or the hypothesis you have made about the situation.
They are not physically possible situations at all.
The RE analysis indicates this as you reach a contradiction, showing that your assumed forces are wrong.
The third law is fine.
Not if you are to hold to the "hypothesis" of the situation.
In that, X is pulling with a force of A (e.g. 200 N), but the rope is pulling back on X with a force of -A+B (e.g. -60 N).
By the third law, these 2 values must be equal but opposite, i.e. -A=-A+B (e.g -200=-60).
Thus you have contradicted the third law of motion, reaching an impossible situation.
I will skip your other BS until we are done with this.
You can start by answering the question:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
-
Sandokhan
Here we go, you're changing the subject again.
Let me re-phrase, even though it was bloody obvious what I meant,
You're ideas about the tension in the rope are WRONG.
You can easily find this out yourself by doing your "homework" and doing some simple experiments. I wonder why you choose not to?
Copying and pasting the same "argument" over and over again without actually addressing the points others make is pointless. Please stop it. We can all page up and read it over and over again. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make centuries of established and verifiable physics ABOUT TENSION IN ROPES AND CABLES wrong.
There is NO magic doubling of the tension force. There is NO difference in the tension force from one end of the rope to the other.
It also has nothing to do with RE vs FE.
You are talking utter BOLLOCKS
-
There is NO magic doubling of the tension force. There is NO difference in the tension force from one end of the rope to the other.
(https://s21.postimg.org/5qnqkk55z/unsatisfactory-logic.png)
-
The example I provided in my previous message proves that you are totally wrong.
The third law is fine.
Sure is! Such pity you can't apply it correctly to "Boats and Ropes"!What we are dealing here is the catastrophic way in which the RE are interpreting this law: this erroneous interpretation leads directly to a most obvious contradiction.
<< Reams of Sandokhananian Physics totally unrelated to "Boats and Ropes" or to "Distances in the universe" >>
I see you've given up on "Boats and Ropes" and trying another distraction from the topic "Distances in the universe".
I have repeatedly asked:
Yes, "this thread is actually about the distances in the universe" so will you finally tell me the
Distances to the sun, moon, planets and stars.
That seems completely relevant and on-topic,
but if you don't know just tells us, instead of hiding behind a wall of no comment.
Have you forgotten how to read? The topic is
Distances in the universe.
And I have asked you many times what is
the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
If you haven't a clue, just say so!
Oh sorry, but I forgot to repeat my request for the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars.
And don't forget those free magnetic monopoles and they free energy machine (in good working order).
Much obliged!
Do have a nice day!
PS I'm still waiting for information on your supplying these magnetic monopoles, a free energy machine and also
the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
If you have no idea, just admit it.
Etc, etc, ad nauseum!
-
Gravity is a nonexistent force.
To go out in into galactic travel you must first go up here is where you encounter so called gravity which in fact it is air and its different densities that causes the push down effect.
we can not go high enough to enter galactic travel. those numbers reflect outward distances we have to achieve at least 1/4 the distance up of the miles that it would take to get to the planet of choice. We have many plains, levels and spheres ascending upwards.
-
Gravity is a nonexistent force.
To go out in into galactic travel you must first go up here is where you encounter so called gravity which in fact it is air and its different densities that causes the push down effect.
we can not go high enough to enter galactic travel. those numbers reflect outward distances we have to achieve at least 1/4 the distance up of the miles that it would take to get to the planet of choice. We have many plains, levels and spheres ascending upwards.
No. Gravity is real.
You encounter it everywhere.
Different densities of air doesn't cause a "push down" effect. All it would do is push out, equally in all directions.
-
Sandy, why don't you try naming a positive direction in your boat problem? Let's say boat Y is to the right of boat X, and right is the positive direction. It's easier with signed forces.
Now Turnbull on boat X is pulling with a force of -200N on the rope, and Rab on boat Y with a force of +140N. So the net force on X is the reaction force to Turnbull's pulling (+200N), and the force applied by Rab, transmitted through the rope (+140N). Which makes us 340N. You'll find that the net force on Y is -340N. Add the forces and you get a net force of 0 on the rope, which makes sense because we've chosen a massless rope. But every part of the rope is pulling on every other part of the rope with a force of magnitude 340N, which is the tension on the rope.
You can also do away with the rope, which is just a conduit for the force, think about it with people on boats pulling on each other, and you'll see that the result is the same, which makes sense.
I'm not sure what your issue with this is. Your analysis however is definitely wrong. Why? Because according to your analysis, the higher the difference of the magnitude of the forces that are applied, the higher the net force on the boats is. Which is obviously nonsense.
-
Now Turnbull on boat X is pulling with a force of -200N on the rope, and Rab on boat Y with a force of +140N. So the net force on X is the reaction force to Turnbull's pulling (+200N), and the force applied by Rab, transmitted through the rope (+140N). Which makes us 340N. You'll find that the net force on Y is -340N.
Wrong.
Completely wrong.
You can't pull with A NEGATIVE FORCE.
Then, you'd be pushing against the rope, not a very smart thing to do.
Your friends tried that avenue, with the negative force, but it went nowhere.
And you are missing the complete description of the balance of forces involved here.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -200 + 140
The net force on boat Y will be: -140 + 200
The net force on the string will be [200 - 140] + [140 - 200]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200 - 140] + [140 - 200] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
If you want to label force A as -200N, then the reaction force will BE POSITIVE: 200N.
Then, force B will be 140N, and ITS REACTION FORCE, WILL BE LABELED AS NEGATIVE, AS PER YOUR OWN CHOICE OF DIRECTION: -140N.
-
Wrong.
Completely wrong.
You can't pull with A NEGATIVE FORCE.
Yes you can.
What you can't do is pull with a force that is negative in magnitude.
This is because force has a direction.
If you are pulling on something so it moves in the positive direction, you are applying a positive force.
If you pull something so it moves in a negative direction, you are applying a negative force.
If you push something so it moves in a positive direction, you are applying a positive force.
If you push something so it moves in a negative direction, you are applying a negative force.
Then, you'd be pushing against the rope, not a very smart thing to do.
No. That is if you have 2 people, one located in a positive position and the other in a negative position both applying a positive force to the rope.
The one in the positive position is pulling the rope. The one in the negative position is pushing the rope as it is trying to move the rope in a positive direction.
Your friends tried that avenue, with the negative force, but it went nowhere.
Yes, because you had no way to refute it other than by spouting ignorant nonsense, which was then quickly refuted.
So you gave up, and pretended you didn't get your ass handed to you.
And you are missing the complete description of the balance of forces involved here.
You are the one missing it not us.
You continually not answering our questions shows this.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
No. Massive contradictions, either violating the third law of motion, or violating the initial premise.
Here is the question again if you finally have the spine and brain to answer it:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
-
DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: ROYAL TUG OF WAR
Two boats on a lake.
On one end of the rope: Henry VIII (boat X)
In the official chronology of history, Henry VIII was an accomplished wrestler.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Henry-VIII-kingofengland_1491-1547.jpg)
(http://www.comptonverney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CVCSC-0192.B-After-Holbein-King-Henry-VIII-%C2%A9-Compton-Verney.jpg)
On the other end of the rope, Queen Elizabeth I (boat Y).
Historians describe her as being "frail".
(https://englishhistory.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/queen-elizabeth-1.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-O2PMNfSyVaY/VfKygZEZdPI/AAAAAAACFj0/0rn66yTOQtA/s1600/1592-99%2BQueen%2BElizabeth%2BI%2B1533-1603%2B%2BThe%2BHardwick%2BPortrait%2Bby%2BNicholas%2BHilliard%2Band%2Bhis%2Bworkshop.%2B%25282%2529.jpg)
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = 350 N
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
Any sensible scientist/human being would realize from the very start that King Henry VIII would pull with a greater force than that applied by Queen Elizabeth I.
But the RE seem to be a different species altogether.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same?
They must be.
Let us now use the useless, clueless, and of course worthless RE analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Net force on boat x = -350N
Net force on boat y = -125N
Net force on the string = 475N
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so 350 + 125 = 0 so 125 = -350.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |350|=|125|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 + 350
The net force on the string will be [350 - 125] + [125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 - 125] + [125 - 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
How about you stop repeating the same refuted bullshit and answer the question?
Everything you have said has already been refuted. You are using fictional scenarios which could never occur in reality.
If Henry is pulling with more force than Elizabeth can, the rope will come out of her hands.
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
-
DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX: ROYAL TUG OF WAR
Two boats on a lake.
On one end of the rope: Henry VIII (boat X)
In the official chronology of history, Henry VIII was an accomplished wrestler.
(http://www.comptonverney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CVCSC-0192.B-After-Holbein-King-Henry-VIII-%C2%A9-Compton-Verney.jpg)
On the other end of the rope, Queen Elizabeth I (boat Y).
Historians describe her as being "frail".
(https://englishhistory.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/queen-elizabeth-1.jpg)
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = 350 N
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
I couldn't care less how strong Henry VIII was or how weak Queen Elizabeth I was.
You could have an elephant on one end and Queen Elizabeth I on the other.
If the rope is massless or not accelerating
the force on the rope cannot be more than the lesser of the two capabilities, ie Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N.
Now, surely you are smart enough to work out why! Putting all these massive pictures doesn't convince anyone.
And if you want to continue this farce, consider this:
1547, January 28: King Henry VIII the father of Queen Elizabeth I dies and
1558, November 17: Elizabeth succeeds her Catholic sister Mary I as Queen of England .
So, of course, Queen Elizabeth I could outpull poor old Henry VIII. :P He's been dead over ten years! :P
-
The forces applied at each end of the rope will ALWAYS be different.
That isn't how tension works on a straight line/rope (one-dimension tension). By Newton's Third Law, these are the same forces exerted on the ends of the string by the objects to which the ends are attached. You can personally observe this with a cable tension meter.
If one side couldn't manage to hold the tension applied (IE queen Elizabeth) then they would move with an acceleration depending on their mass and the amount of force that they couldn't hold. Why do the boats move AT ALL is because the water is incapable of holding that force. If the cleat or whatever you have lashed off to couldn't hold the force it would break off of the boat.
-
How does he not know a negative sign can indicate direction for vectors?
-
The forces applied at each end of the rope will ALWAYS be different.
That isn't how tension works on a straight line/rope (one-dimension tension). By Newton's Third Law, these are the same forces exerted on the ends of the string by the objects to which the ends are attached. You can personally observe this with a cable tension meter.
If one side couldn't manage to hold the tension applied (IE queen Elizabeth) then they would move with an acceleration depending on their mass and the amount of force that they couldn't hold. Why do the boats move AT ALL is because the water is incapable of holding that force. If the cleat or whatever you have lashed off to couldn't hold the force it would break off of the boat.
exactly, that is what we telling him all the time. but sandy is simply not able to understand this simple mechanical principle.
-
Now Turnbull on boat X is pulling with a force of -200N on the rope, and Rab on boat Y with a force of +140N. So the net force on X is the reaction force to Turnbull's pulling (+200N), and the force applied by Rab, transmitted through the rope (+140N). Which makes us 340N. You'll find that the net force on Y is -340N.
Wrong.
Completely wrong.
You can't pull with A NEGATIVE FORCE.
Then, you'd be pushing against the rope, not a very smart thing to do.
Your friends tried that avenue, with the negative force, but it went nowhere.
And you are missing the complete description of the balance of forces involved here.
Force A (M. Turnbull pulling on the rope) = 200 N
Force B (rabinoz struggling not to fall into the lake) = 140 N
Let us now apply the beautiful, exquisite, wonderful and of course correct FE analysis.
No wild substitutions.
No contradictions.
All the forces properly accounted for.
The net force on boat X will be: -200 + 140
The net force on boat Y will be: -140 + 200
The net force on the string will be [200 - 140] + [140 - 200]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[200 - 140] + [140 - 200] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
If you want to label force A as -200N, then the reaction force will BE POSITIVE: 200N.
Then, force B will be 140N, and ITS REACTION FORCE, WILL BE LABELED AS NEGATIVE, AS PER YOUR OWN CHOICE OF DIRECTION: -140N.
The signs ("negative" force) represent the direction of the applied force. I already said that a force directed to the right is considered positive, while a force directed to the left is considered negative. So if I'm sitting to the left of the rope pulling it towards myself with a force of magnitude 200N, the force is -200N. If I'm sitting to the right of the rope, pulling it towards myself, it's +200N. Remember, forces are vectors, and when you have to do with vectors in just one dimension, you can use plus and minus signs to indicate direction.
I already told you what the issue with your analysis is. You found that the net force on both of the boats has a magnitude of 60N. This is obviously wrong. What if both applied a force of 200N? According to your analysis, they wouldn't move at all. That has nothing to do with reality.
-
The signs ("negative" force) represent the direction of the applied force. I already said that a force directed to the right is considered positive, while a force directed to the left is considered negative. So if I'm sitting to the left of the rope pulling it towards myself with a force of magnitude 200N, the force is -200N. If I'm sitting to the right of the rope, pulling it towards myself, it's +200N. Remember, forces are vectors, and when you have to do with vectors in just one dimension, you can use plus and minus signs to indicate direction.
I already told you what the issue with your analysis is. You found that the net force on both of the boats has a magnitude of 60N. This is obviously wrong. What if both applied a force of 200N? According to your analysis, they wouldn't move at all. That has nothing to do with reality.
This is the first time a RE said something interesting here.
You cannot have two equal forces applied at each end of the rope: at the infinitesimal level there will be differences no matter how one tries to match their values to be both as close as possible to each other.
Let us now apply YOUR analysis to the hypothetical case where the two forces would be exactly equal, as you require, using the two forces model.
You: boat X (to the left) applying a force of -200N
Other person: boat Y (to the right) applying a force of 200N
Reaction forces: left end of the rope, 200N - right end of the rope, -200N
Net force on boat X: 200 + 200
Net force on boat Y: -200 + -200
You were saying what, that they would not move at all?
Net force on string: [-200 - 200] + [200 + 200] = 0
Twice the forces.
-
The signs ("negative" force) represent the direction of the applied force. I already said that a force directed to the right is considered positive, while a force directed to the left is considered negative. So if I'm sitting to the left of the rope pulling it towards myself with a force of magnitude 200N, the force is -200N. If I'm sitting to the right of the rope, pulling it towards myself, it's +200N. Remember, forces are vectors, and when you have to do with vectors in just one dimension, you can use plus and minus signs to indicate direction.
I already told you what the issue with your analysis is. You found that the net force on both of the boats has a magnitude of 60N. This is obviously wrong. What if both applied a force of 200N? According to your analysis, they wouldn't move at all. That has nothing to do with reality.
This is the first time a RE said something interesting here.
You cannot have two equal forces applied at each end of the rope: at the infinitesimal level there will be differences no matter how one tries to match their values to be both as close as possible to each other.
Let us now apply YOUR analysis to the hypothetical case where the two forces would be exactly equal, as you require, using the two forces model.
You: boat X (to the left) applying a force of -200N
Other person: boat Y (to the right) applying a force of 200N
Reaction forces: left end of the rope, 200N - right end of the rope, -200N
Net force on boat X: 200 + 200
Net force on boat Y: -200 + -200
You were saying what, that they would not move at all?
Net force on string: [-200 - 200] + [200 + 200] = 0
Twice the forces.
You cannot have two equal forces applied at each end of the rope: at the infinitesimal level there will be differences no matter how one tries to match their values to be both as close as possible to each other.
Doesn't matter. The net force wouldn't be 0, but it would be really, really small according to your method. Which isn't really what is observed.
You were saying what, that they would not move at all?
No, according to my method, they would move, because there's a net non zero force (with a magnitude of 400N) applied onto the boats. So if both Turnbull and Rab weigh 80kg each, they'd accelerate towards the center at 5m/s^2.
The result would be the same if they pulled at each other, without a rope.
Your method would result to a 0 net force on the boats. So they'd be pulling and not going anywhere.
-
Nice try.
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
Certainly labeling each force with the proper direction works out fine: an improvement.
However, the RE analysis is not even a joke.
Because it requires the impossible: |A|=|B|.
In practice forces A and B will always be different.
Newton's third law, properly and correctly applied at each end, will require TWICE THE NUMBER OF FORCES NEEDED.
-
The signs ("negative" force) represent the direction of the applied force. I already said that a force directed to the right is considered positive, while a force directed to the left is considered negative. So if I'm sitting to the left of the rope pulling it towards myself with a force of magnitude 200N, the force is -200N. If I'm sitting to the right of the rope, pulling it towards myself, it's +200N. Remember, forces are vectors, and when you have to do with vectors in just one dimension, you can use plus and minus signs to indicate direction.
I already told you what the issue with your analysis is. You found that the net force on both of the boats has a magnitude of 60N. This is obviously wrong. What if both applied a force of 200N? According to your analysis, they wouldn't move at all. That has nothing to do with reality.
This is the first time a RE said something interesting here.
You cannot have two equal forces applied at each end of the rope: at the infinitesimal level there will be differences no matter how one tries to match their values to be both as close as possible to each other.
Let us now apply YOUR analysis to the hypothetical case where the two forces would be exactly equal, as you require, using the two forces model.
You: boat X (to the left) applying a force of -200N
Other person: boat Y (to the right) applying a force of 200N
Reaction forces: left end of the rope, 200N - right end of the rope, -200N
Net force on boat X: 200 + 200
Net force on boat Y: -200 + -200
You were saying what, that they would not move at all?
Net force on string: [-200 - 200] + [200 + 200] = 0
Twice the forces.
you are still wrong, in the rope is only 200N acting.
what is the force in the rope if you pull at it with 200N and the other side is fixed to a wall?
what is the force in the rope if you pull at it with 200N and the other side is holding it (for that person it feels like he is also pulling with 200N)
if you can not find it out in your head, do that experiment yourself.
if you have done that experiment you can come back and we can talk about the results.
Till than stop telling stuff you did not know anything about it.
-
The RE analysis amounts to nothing at all.
It requires the impossible: |A|=|B|.
In practice forces A and B will always be different.
Newton's third law, properly and correctly applied at each end, will require TWICE THE NUMBER OF FORCES NEEDED.
Here is how to correctly apply Newton's third law to the two boats connected by a rope problem:
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
-
Single dimension tension problems are scalar. Ropes do not transmit multiple forces, only tension. Sorry for the inconvenience of reality.
-
The rope will transmit the forces applied at each end, two different forces, and the two corresponding reaction forces.
Have you forgotten that you, THE RE, have nothing going for you here?
This is what YOU came up with: a total disaster, a mockery of science.
Let me remind of the facts.
The force applied by the first man is force A.
The force applied by the second man is force B.
They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
The use of only one force has led to a most direct contradiction.
Here is how to correctly apply Newton's third law to the two boats connected by a rope problem:
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
-
This is the first time a RE said something interesting here.
No. We have repeatedly been pointing it out to you, you just repeatedly ignore it.
You cannot have two equal forces applied at each end of the rope: at the infinitesimal level there will be differences no matter how one tries to match their values to be both as close as possible to each other.
Yes, in the real case, where the rope has a mass as well. Over time, it averages out, otherwise the rope itself has to move.
But in the ideal case, they have to be equal.
Net force on boat X: 200 + 200
Net force on boat Y: -200 + -200
No.
Net force on boat X: 200 N.
Net force on boat Y: -200 N.
You are trying to apply a similar analysis to your broken one.
Try it with your broken one where you ignore that force can be negative.
In that case A=200 N, B=200 N.
Thus the net force on X: -200 N + 200 N = 0 N.
Net force on Y: -200 N + 200 N = 0 N.
So no net force, no movement.
Going to admit you were wrong?
Twice the forces.
Yes, because you are counting them twice.
That typically happens when you count things twice, you get twice the expected result.
Now how about you answer the question you have repeatedly been asked:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Nice try.
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
No. There is just one force, the force of the rope pulling on boat X. There is no reason to divide it into separate pieces unless you are intentionally trying to be dishonest.
However, the RE analysis is not even a joke.
That's right. It isn't a joke. That would be your pathetic attempt (which is also quite a pathetic joke).
The RE analysis is rational and honest.
Because it requires the impossible: |A|=|B|.
Yes, as reality demands.
In practice forces A and B will always be different.
Because the rope has mass.
Newton's third law, properly and correctly applied at each end, will require TWICE THE NUMBER OF FORCES NEEDED.
No. It won't.
If you do it correctly, then as boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, the rope MUST be pulling back with a force of -A. Any other net force on boat X will violate Newton's third law.
If the rope is pulling on boat X with a force of -A+B, then x must be pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A as you claim.
You have a direct violation of Newton's third law.
You have an action-reaction pair existing where one entity (the boat) is applying a force of A, and the other (the rope) is applying a force of -A+B.
By Newton's third law, these must be equal and opposite.
Does -A=-A+B?
Only when B is 0.
Doing it the same for boat Y, you end up with A=0.
So the only way for Newton's third law of motion to be correctly applied with your analysis is if you have no force applied. In which case yes, you get twice the force needed, as 2*0 is 0. But that isn't a problem, as you still have no force.
Perhaps this is a simpler question:
What is the net force boat X is applying to the rope, which must be done by X pulling on the rope (as that is the only way for X to apply the force to the rope)?
Is it A, or is it A-B?
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
No. That is a blatantly incorrect way.
That results in 3 forces between boat X and the rope.
You have X pulling on the rope with force A.
You have the rope pulling back with force -A.
And you have the rope pulling with force B.
That is a direct violation of the law (unless B is 0).
You have X applying a force of A to the rope and the rope applying a force back of -A+B.
By Newton's third law, you have an action-reaction pair existing between the rope and the boat.
It requires the boat to apply a force of F and the rope to apply a force of -F. i.e. the forces must be equal and opposite.
That means if X is pulling with a force of A, the rope MUST be pulling back with a force of -A. Nothing else is permitted.
If you wish to change the magnitude of the force that rope is applying to X, such as making it -A+B, then you must also change the force X is applying to the rope, such as making it A-B.
But that would mean X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A as the situation demands.
So no, it isn't applied in the correct way.
The only correct way to apply it is if X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, then the rope is pulling on boat X with a force of -A.
That is an action-reaction pair exists between the rope and boat X where X is applying one force and the rope is applying an equal but opposite force.
Anything else is a violation of Newton's third law.
As such if boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, the net force on boat X MUST be a force of -A.
Anything else is a violation of Newton's third law.
So no, you haven't applied it correctly.
Now then, are you going to answer the question or try to mount a rational defence, or just keep repeating the same refuted bullshit?
-
Nice try.
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
Certainly labeling each force with the proper direction works out fine: an improvement.
However, the RE analysis is not even a joke.
Because it requires the impossible: |A|=|B|.
In practice forces A and B will always be different.
Newton's third law, properly and correctly applied at each end, will require TWICE THE NUMBER OF FORCES NEEDED.
I'm not sure how that is a reply to my post...
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
Cool. What's the issue?
It should be mentioned that applying an additional 200N to the rope when the other person is already pulling with 200N would feel like pulling with a force of 400N against a wall. If one person is not actively pulling, only gripping the rope, and the other is pulling with 200N, it would feel like pulling with 200N. I'm just saying that for the people who might misunderstand what I'm saying.
Do you understand why your analysis is wrong?
-
Lets get the whole boat thing squared away.
If you have a line, attached to a wench on boat A, also attached to a wench on boat B.
Both wenches are applying 200N on the line.
You would have a tension of 400N on the line, this would be applied to both stands holding the wenches and transferred to the boat. Both wenches would show it had a 400N load and both boats would move accelerate their mass to equal out 200N of this tension (since both boats would be moving to equalize forces first by accelerating and then by using the waters resistance). If the boat was tied off to pulley ashore (that was stationary, being ashore) and both pulleys were applying 200N on the line, then both pulleys would be experience 400N load and the boat would accelerate its mass to equal out the 400N of this tension (since only one boat would be moving to equalize force, again first by accelerating and then by using the waters resistance)
-
jack, you are constantly misrepresenting the facts.
No matter what you do, you don't stand a chance with me here.
You've had your chance.
Here is what you came up with.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
The use of only one force has led to a most direct contradiction.
But in the ideal case, they have to be equal.
In this the real world, FORCES A AND B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
What you require is an impossibility:
|A|=|B|.
I already applied the two forces analysis, using the new requirement that the direction of the force be taken into consideration.
Let us now apply YOUR analysis to the hypothetical case where the two forces would be exactly equal, as you require, using the two forces model.
You: boat X (to the left) applying a force of -200N
Other person: boat Y (to the right) applying a force of 200N
Reaction forces: left end of the rope, 200N - right end of the rope, -200N
Net force on boat X: 200 + 200
Net force on boat Y: -200 + -200
You were saying what, that they would not move at all?
Net force on string: [-200 - 200] + [200 + 200] = 0
Twice the forces.
There is just one force, the force of the rope pulling on boat X. There is no reason to divide it into separate pieces unless you are intentionally trying to be dishonest.
No dishonesty.
But BOAT Y IS ALSO PULLING ON BOAT X with FORCE B.
Using your way, only one force, you reached a most direct contradiction.
Your analysis amounts to nothing.
BOAT Y IS ALSO PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
That is how you CORRECTLY apply Newton's third law to the problem.
If you do it correctly, then as boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, the rope MUST be pulling back with a force of -A. Any other net force on boat X will violate Newton's third law.
It does not, on the contrary.
BOAT Y IS ALSO PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
You cannot ignore this basic fact.
You did try to ignore it, and it led to a disaster: your incorrect analysis.
You have an action-reaction pair existing where one entity (the boat) is applying a force of A, and the other (the rope) is applying a force of -A+B.
By Newton's third law, these must be equal and opposite.
No such thing ever happens: you do not know how to properly count the forces involved.
That means if X is pulling with a force of A, the rope MUST be pulling back with a force of -A. Nothing else is permitted.
Sorry, you've had it your way, and it doesn't work out at all.
CERTAINLY BOAT Y IS PULLING BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
You must take that force acting on boat X into account.
If you do not, you will reach a direct contradiction.
TWO FORCES on boat X: reaction from the left side of the rope + the other person pulling from right
TWO FORCES on boat Y: reaction from the right side of the rope + you pulling from the left
ON BOAT X YOU TWO FORCES ACTING AT ONCE.
ON THE ROPE ITSELF, YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TWO FORCES.
Only ACTION-REACTION PAIRS, just as required by the third law.
-
JackBlack, I counted the forces twice, because I was tackling a different type of problem. But the result is equivalent. Boat X exerts a force of -400N on boat Y, and boat Y exerts a force of 400N on boat X.
-
Lets get the whole boat thing squared away.
If you have a line, attached to a wench on boat A, also attached to a wench on boat B.
Both wenches are applying 200N on the line.
You would have a tension of 400N on the line, this would be applied to both stands holding the wenches and transferred to the boat. Both wenches would show it had a 400N load and both boats would move accelerate their mass to equal out 200N of this tension (since both boats would be moving to equalize forces first by accelerating and then by using the waters resistance). If the boat was tied off to pulley ashore (that was stationary, being ashore) and both pulleys were applying 200N on the line, then both pulleys would be experience 400N load and the boat would accelerate its mass to equal out the 400N of this tension (since only one boat would be moving to equalize force, again first by accelerating and then by using the waters resistance)
If you had wenches that are set to apply 200N, the tension would be 200N.
-
It should be mentioned that applying an additional 200N to the rope when the other person is already pulling with 200N would feel like pulling with a force of 400N against a wall. If one person is not actively pulling, only gripping the rope, and the other is pulling with 200N, it would feel like pulling with 200N. I'm just saying that for the people who might misunderstand what I'm saying.
Do you understand why your analysis is wrong?
Nothing wrong with my analysis.
Equations do not lie.
Everything is wrong with your analysis.
Remember this?
The force applied by the first man is force A.
The force applied by the second man is force B.
They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
The use of only one force has led to a most direct contradiction.
We are analysing the situation where both persons are pulling: anything else it becomes a different situation altogether.
Lets get the whole boat thing squared away.
We cannot.
Your analysis could not be more wrong.
If you want me to move along to other situations I will require this statement from you alphasailor:
I, ALPHASAILOR, TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY SANDOKHAN, WHERE TWICE THE NUMBER OF FORCES REQUIRED BY NEWTONIAN MECHANICS HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO OBTAIN THE CORRECT ANSWER.
I, ALPHASAILOR, ALSO TOTALLY AGREE THAT THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE RE IS USELESS AND WORTHLESS.
Then we move on.
-
It should be mentioned that applying an additional 200N to the rope when the other person is already pulling with 200N would feel like pulling with a force of 400N against a wall. If one person is not actively pulling, only gripping the rope, and the other is pulling with 200N, it would feel like pulling with 200N. I'm just saying that for the people who might misunderstand what I'm saying.
I dislike this somewhat.
The reason why it would feel like pulling with 200 N is because you would be pulling with 200 N.
Similarly, if you have a rope between 2 people where each is already pulling with a force of magnitude 200 N and then one pulls with an additional 200 N of force, it would feel like pulling against a brick wall with a force of 400 N because you are pulling with a force of 200 N.
-
Sandokhan, if one person was applying a force on the rope less than the other person, his hands would slip from the rope. Just by gripping to the rope while the other person is pulling with 200N is equivalent to pulling with 200N to your direction (let's use signed forces and say applying a force of -200N, if you're to the left of the rope). Your doubling of the forces comes when you apply 200N on top of the 200N you apply by gripping onto it.
-
If you have a line, attached to a wench on boat A, also attached to a wench on boat B.
Both wenches are applying 200N on the line.
You would have a tension of 400N on the line
No. You would not.
You would have a tension of 200 N on the line.
Both wenches would show it had a 400N load
No. It would show it had a 200 N load, as that is the force the wench is applying.
both boats would move accelerate their mass to equal out 200N of this tension
No, they would be accelerated by the total tension of 200 N.
If the boat was tied off to pulley ashore (that was stationary, being ashore) and both pulleys were applying 200N on the line, then both pulleys would be experience 400N load and the boat would accelerate its mass to equal out the 400N of this tension
No. The tension would still be 200 N and the load on the wenches will be 200 N and the boat will accelerate with a force of 200 N.
It doesn't matter if you are pulling against a wall or against a person/boat/whatever.
The tension on the rope will be whatever force you are pulling with and you will move with whatever force that is, no magic doubling.
-
It should be mentioned that applying an additional 200N to the rope when the other person is already pulling with 200N would feel like pulling with a force of 400N against a wall. If one person is not actively pulling, only gripping the rope, and the other is pulling with 200N, it would feel like pulling with 200N. I'm just saying that for the people who might misunderstand what I'm saying.
I dislike this somewhat.
The reason why it would feel like pulling with 200 N is because you would be pulling with 200 N.
Similarly, if you have a rope between 2 people where each is already pulling with a force of magnitude 200 N and then one pulls with an additional 200 N of force, it would feel like pulling against a brick wall with a force of 400 N because you are pulling with a force of 200 N.
That is sort of what I intended to say, but I couldn't phrase it properly.
Bottom line: if you're holding a weight that weighs 200N using a pulley, you're already applying 200N of force. If you now start pulling downwards so that the weight accelerates at 9.8m/s^2, you're applying an extra 200N. That's where the forces appear to double. But it was a bad example.
-
Ok, I think I've got a nice example.
Say we've got Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" on X and Averell Dalton from "Lucky Luke" on Y.
Both are really dumb characters. If they learn to pull with a certain force, they'll pull with exactly that force, no matter what, and will not try to adapt to the circumstances.
Lenny is very strong, he learns to pull against walls with 500N.
Averell learns to pull against walls with 250N.
If you put them on their boats and start pulling against each other, Averell will lose his grip. If you don't want anyone to lose his grip, you'll have to equalize the forces. Either Averell will have to grip harder, or Lenny will have to control his strength. Bottom line, the forces will always be equal in magnitude.
-
jack, you are constantly misrepresenting the facts.
No. I have constantly been stating the facts and exposing your blatant misrepresentation of them.
No matter what you do, you don't stand a chance with me here.
You mean a chance to have you admit your mistakes and admit the truth?
Because I have just been wiping the floor with you.
You are yet to put up any kind of rational defence against my total destruction of your arguments.
You can't even answer simple questions.
Here is what you came up with.
I came up with the truth. Something you are yet to refute.
The only pathetic "defence" you can come up with is by appealing to impossible situations.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
Again, that is just your baseless claim.
Reality demands that |A|=|B| (at least in the ideal case of a massless string).
Any other situation is a blatant violation of reality.
A continuation of your analysis requires that as well, it just uses different symbols, where X is pulling with a force of A-B, instead of A and Y is pulling with a force of B-A, instead of B.
And guess what?
|A-B|=|B-A|, just as reality demands. So your analysis, when extended to honestly and rationally analyse the situation, results in the same issue.
In this the real world, FORCES A AND B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Because in the real world, the rope will have a mass and be suspended between the boats.
This means the rope itself can be accelerated by applying a net force to it.
Your analysis still treats the rope as massless and thus suffers from the same issue.
What you require is an impossibility:
No. That would be you.
What you require is for an action-reaction pair to exist between boat X and the rope (and another similar set for boat Y and the rope) where boat X is puling with a force of A while the rope pulls with a force of -A+B, with A and B being non-zero, an impossibility which violates Newton's third law of motion.
I already applied the two forces analysis, using the new requirement that the direction of the force be taken into consideration.
Let us now apply YOUR analysis to the hypothetical case where the two forces would be exactly equal, as you require, using the two forces model.
You: boat X (to the left) applying a force of -200N
Other person: boat Y (to the right) applying a force of 200N
Reaction forces: left end of the rope, 200N - right end of the rope, -200N
Net force on boat X: 200 + 200
Net force on boat Y: -200 + -200
THIS IS NOT MY ANALYSIS!!!.
THIS IS STILL YOUR BULLSHIT ANALYSIS WHERE YOU HAVE AN ACTION REACTION PAIR EXISTING WHERE ONE SIDE PULLS WITH A AND THE OTHER SIDE PULLS WITH -A+B. So a completely violation of Newton's laws of motion and thus a physical impossibility.
Here is my ACTUAL analysis
You: boat X (to the left) applying a force of -200 N
Other person: boat Y (to the right) applying a force of 200 N
Reaction forces: left end of the rope, 200 N - right end of the rope, -200 N
Net force on boat X: 200 N
Net force on boat Y: -200 N
Action-reaction pair between boat X and the rope:
-200 N applies by boat, 200 N applies by rope.
Between boat Y and the rope:
-200 N applied by the rope, 200 N applied by the boat.
No contradiction. No magic doubling of forces.
Instead a completely correct model of this ideal situation.
You were saying what, that they would not move at all?
No. I was saying that your BS analysis, where you ignore the direction of the forces and pretend both sides are pulling with 200 N (rather than one pulling with 200 N and one pulling with -200 N) gives you no net force on the boats.
That is because you have A=B=200 N.
Thus your claimed net force on X=-A+B=-200 N + 200 N = 0.
My analysis had A=-B=-200 N (the 200 N is just for this example).
The net force on boat X=-A=B = 200 N.
No contradiction at all.
Twice the forces.
Yes, because you are counting them twice.
No surprise that when you count forces twice, you end up with twice the force.
Lets look at what you have:
Net force on string: [-200 - 200] + [200 + 200] = 0
Where is each part of this coming from?
I'm going to break it down into 4 letters so we can clearly see:
Net force on string: [a + b] + [c + d] = 0
So a=b=-200 N.
c=d=200 N.
Now then, where do these forces come from?
Well, you have boat X applying a force of -200 N and boat Y applying a force of 200 N.
So we will let a be the force from boat X, and c be the force from boat Y.
So that gives us 2 of the 4 forces acting on the rope.
But we still have 2 left over.
Where does b and d come from?
To a sane person it may appear quite obvious, YOU ARE COUNTING THE FORCES TWICE.
You have both a and b being X applying a force of - 200 N to the rope.
Similarly, you have both c and d being Y applying a force of 200 N.
You are literally counting the forces twice, while still pretending that X is only pulling on the rope with a force of - 200 N
If X is applying a force of -400 N to the rope, then guess what? X is pulling on the rope with a force of -400 N, not -200 N.
No dishonesty.
No. It is blatant dishonesty.
But BOAT Y IS ALSO PULLING ON BOAT X with FORCE B.
No, it isn't.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope. The only thing pulling on boat X is the rope. It doesn't matter if boat Y is also pulling on the rope, or if it is just boat X pulling on the rope with nothing else there, the only thing pulling on boat X is the rope.
As per Newton's third law (which is merely describing reality), if X pulls with a force of A, then the rope pulls with a force of -A. No more, no less. Anything other than a force of -A will be a direct violation of Newton's third law and thus a direct violation of reality.
If you want the rope to pull on boat X with a force of -A+B, then X needs to be pulling on the rope with a force of A-B, not A as the situation demands.
Using your way, only one force, you reached a most direct contradiction.
No I haven't.
So far the only contradiction you have been able to show in my analysis is with physically impossible situations.
However I have pointed out blatant contradictions with your analysis which applies any time either force isn't 0.
You are yet to respond to any of them in any honest, rational way.
BOAT Y IS ALSO PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
That is how you CORRECTLY apply Newton's third law to the problem.
No. It isn't.
Boat Y isn't pulling on boat X.
Only the rope is.
Newton's third law applies between boat X and the rope, as the rope is the only thing pulling on boat X.
Similarly it will apply to between boat Y and the rope, as the only thing pulling on boat y is the rope.
I did the correct analysis. You threw it out the window and came up with pure bullshit which directly violates Newton's third law.
If you do it correctly, then as boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, the rope MUST be pulling back with a force of -A. Any other net force on boat X will violate Newton's third law.
It does not, on the contrary.
BOAT Y IS ALSO PULLING ON BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
You cannot ignore this basic fact.
That's right. I can't ignore facts.
However I can easily refute your blatant lie, by pointing out it is a blatant lie.
The ONLY thing pulling on boat X is the rope.
If you think boat Y is pulling on boat X tell us how.
Remember that if boat Y is pulling on boat X through the rope, that really means that boat Y is pulling on the rope and the rope is pulling on boat X, showing yourself to be blatantly lying.
So tell us how boat Y is pulling on boat X, without appealing to the rope.
Also, tell us then what the net force on the rope is.
You have continually been saying it in the form of something like this:
[A-B]+[-B+A]
You did try to ignore it, and it led to a disaster: your incorrect analysis.
No. I correctly analysed it, seeing that boat Y doesn't pull on boat X, it merely pulls on the rope.
This then lead to the correct analysis, with no contradictions, no violations of Newton's laws, and no problems.
You have an action-reaction pair existing where one entity (the boat) is applying a force of A, and the other (the rope) is applying a force of -A+B.
By Newton's third law, these must be equal and opposite.
No such thing ever happens: you do not know how to properly count the forces involved.
No. I can correctly count them:
You have boat X pulling on the rope. The rope transmits this force and pulls on boat Y.
At the same time you have boat Y pulling on the rope, with the rope transmitting this force and pulling on boat X.
This correctly accounts for all 4 forces.
You have an action-reaction pair between boat X and the rope, with boat X pulling the rope and the rope pulling boat X.
You also have an action-reaction pair between boat Y and the rope, with the rope pulling boat Y and boat Y pulling the rope.
All 4 forces correctly accounted for. No doubling of forces. No double counting. No violations of the laws of motion. No problem at all.
I can even label them:
You have boat X pulling on the rope with force A. The rope transmits this force and pulls on boat Y with force A.
At the same time you have boat Y pulling on the rope with force B, with the rope transmitting this force and pulling on boat X with force B.
You have an action-reaction pair between boat X and the rope, with boat X pulling the rope with force A and the rope pulling boat X with force B.
You also have an action-reaction pair between boat Y and the rope, with the rope pulling boat Y with force A and boat Y pulling the rope with force B.
In order for these to be valid action-reaction pairs, this requires A=-B
So the total list of forces I have:
X pulls on rope with force A=-B.
Rope pulls on X with force -A=B.
Rope pulls on Y with force A=-B.
Y pulls on rope with force -A=B.
This is your method:
You have boat X pulling on the rope with force A. The rope pulls back with force -A. The rope also transmits this force and pulls on boat Y with force A.
At the same time you have boat Y pulling on the rope with force B, with the rope transmitting this force and pulling on boat X with force B as well as pulling back on boat Y with force -B.
You no longer have the action-reaction pairs. Instead you have this:
You have a set of forces between boat X and the rope. Boat X is pulling with force A, the rope is pulling with a net force of -A+B, where -A is the reaction force, and B is the magic from boat Y.
You have a similar set between boat Y and the rope. Boat Y is pulling with force B, while the rope is pulling with a net force of -B+A, where -B is the reaction force and A is the magic force from boat X.
See how this isn't properly counting them and you have unbalanced forces (in the violation of Newton's third law kind of way where you only have one side of the action-reaction pair.
The only way to make this even slightly correct is to literally double count every force:
You have boat X pulling on the rope with force A. The rope pulls back with force -A. The rope also transmits this force and pulls on boat Y with force A and boat Y pulls back with force -A.
At the same time you have boat Y pulling on the rope with force B, with the rope transmitting this force and pulling on boat X with force B which results in boat X pulling back with force -B, as well as the rope pulling back on boat Y with force -B.
So the total list of forces you have:
X pulls on rope with force A.
X pulls on rope with force -B.
Rope pulls on X with force -A.
Rope pulls on X with force B.
Rope pulls on Y with force A.
Rope pulls on Y with force -B.
Y pulls on rope with force -A.
Y pulls on rope with force B.
Notice how you have X pulling on the rope twice, the rope pulling on X twice, the rope pulling on Y twice and Y pulling on the rope twice.
So notice how you have counted every force TWICE?
Why are you then surprised that you end up with twice the force?
Surely you should expect that.
Sorry, you've had it your way, and it doesn't work out at all.
No. It worked fine for any real situation.
Try it.
CERTAINLY BOAT Y IS PULLING BOAT X WITH FORCE B.
You must take that force acting on boat X into account.
If you do not, you will reach a direct contradiction.
No, it isn't
Boat Y is pulling on the rope, the rope is pulling on X.
I have taken all the forces into account.
You have counted some twice.
The force of Boat Y pulling on the rope gets transmitted along the rope and is the reaction force of boat X pulling on the rope.
They are the same force.
Counting them twice reaches a contradiction.
Only ACTION-REACTION PAIRS, just as required by the third law.
Then why do you continually refuse to state these explictly?
Is it because you know it will expose your dishonesty and show that you are literally double counting?
Nothing wrong with my analysis.
There is plenty wrong as I have pointed out.
Equations do not lie.
But your dishonest misapplication/misuse of them does.
Everything is wrong with your analysis.
They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.
No. That is the problem with your analysis.
Reality dictates that for the ideal case, A=-B.
If it doesn't then Newton's third law is violated.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
You mean reaching the correct conclusion to make the situation compatible with reality and thus easily exposing impossible situations?
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Instead of your twisted, BS analysis, which when extended honestly and rationally, reaches a far more direct contradiction, which will directly contradiction almost any situation:
A=A-B, and B=B-A.
The only time your analysis doesn't reach a contradiction is when A=B=0.
We are analysing the situation where both persons are pulling: anything else it becomes a different situation altogether.
Yes, both pulling on the rope (X with a force of A, Y with a force of B), holding it under tension, with the ideal case of a massless rope, which requires a net force of 0 on the rope.
That means both A and B must be non-zero, but your analysis requires them to be 0, so clearly your analysis doesn't describe this situation.
If they aren't pulling with equal and opposite force, then there will be a net force on the rope, thus it will be flying out of one of their hands, again, not representing this situation.
As such, you MUST have A=-B!=0. Anything else is NOT describing this situation.
So our analysis works fine for this situation. The pathetic examples you have provided do not. They directly contradict these requirements and as such do not represent this situation. Your general analysis reaches a conclusion which also violates this, with either X pulling with a force of A-B, or X not pulling at all.
We cannot.
That's right, because you keep on repeating the same refuted bullshit and contiunally not answer the questions provided which would have you effectively admit it is pure bullshit.
You are the one with the wrong analysis where you are counting forces twice.
So no, I'm not going to let you move on from this complete failure of yours until you admit it as such (at least not in this thread).
-
It should be mentioned that applying an additional 200N to the rope when the other person is already pulling with 200N would feel like pulling with a force of 400N against a wall. If one person is not actively pulling, only gripping the rope, and the other is pulling with 200N, it would feel like pulling with 200N. I'm just saying that for the people who might misunderstand what I'm saying.
Do you understand why your analysis is wrong?
Nothing wrong with my analysis.
Equations do not lie.
Everything is wrong with your analysis.
Remember this?
The force applied by the first man is force A.
The force applied by the second man is force B.
They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
The use of only one force has led to a most direct contradiction.
We are analysing the situation where both persons are pulling: anything else it becomes a different situation altogether.
Lets get the whole boat thing squared away.
We cannot.
Your analysis could not be more wrong.
If you want me to move along to other situations I will require this statement from you alphasailor:
I, ALPHASAILOR, TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY SANDOKHAN, WHERE TWICE THE NUMBER OF FORCES REQUIRED BY NEWTONIAN MECHANICS HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO OBTAIN THE CORRECT ANSWER.
I, ALPHASAILOR, ALSO TOTALLY AGREE THAT THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE RE IS USELESS AND WORTHLESS.
Then we move on.
Why do you still posting claim for that you have not the slightest prove.
As I said, do that real test and see the reality.
If you don't do that experiment you only prove that you know that you are wrong.
-
If you have a line, attached to a wench on boat A, also attached to a wench on boat B.
Both wenches are applying 200N on the line.
You would have a tension of 400N on the line
No. You would not.
You would have a tension of 200 N on the line.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear what I was saying. I'll try again.
If you have two situations
Situation A: Two boats are tied with a line, one boat the line is wrapped around a wench, the other boat the line is wrapped around the railing. If the wench pulls with 200N. Then the wench would cause a force of 200N on the line and the railing would cause a reactionary force of 200N to counter this tension. The line would be under 200N of tension.
Situation B: Two boats are tied with a line, both boats are using wenches. Both boats are pulling with 200N. The wenches would both be causing 200N on the line, and also cause 200N of reactionary force on the line. The line would be under 400N of tension.
Note I'm only talking about the actual force caused by the wench, not the wench load.
I'm afraid I wasn't clear about what was reactionary forces and what was caused by the wenches.
-
Lets get the whole boat thing squared away.
If you have a line, attached to a wench on boat A, also attached to a wench on boat B.
Both wenches are applying 200N on the line.
You would have a tension of 400N on the line.
Are you sure? If one wrench is pulling at 200N wouldn't the other wrench have to be "pulling" at 200N to maintain the tension?
As dictated by my buddy Newton?
Edit.
Just saw Jack clarified it.
-
A good example would be two cars crashing head on, both at say 100kph velocity.
What is the force of the impact experienced by each car?
Would the force be more than or equal to a single car crashing into a concrete wall at 100kph?
-
Are the wenches holding wrenches? Why does one have rope wrapped around her? Or are they operating the winches? If that was my boat it wouldn't be ropes they were pulling on.
-
If one person was applying a force on the rope less than the other person, his hands would slip from the rope.
If you put them on their boats and start pulling against each other, Averell will lose his grip. If you don't want anyone to lose his grip, you'll have to equalize the forces.
It doesn't work out like that.
If Queen Elizabeth I simply just holds on to the rope, and Henry VIII is pulling with a force of 350N, her boat will start to thrust forward, but she will not lose grip on the rope.
Even if she applies a much lesser force, say 125N, the rope will not slip, she will move forward based on the forces applied and of course her own weight.
Equations do not lie.
The net force on the rope will be zero.
The rope does not move.
Only the boats will start to thrust forward.
Force A can never equal force B.
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
No matter what all of you say here, you've had your chance, and it does not work out at all.
The RE analysis is worthless and useless.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
The use of only one force has led to a most direct contradiction.
There is nothing else that you (all of you) can do in this regard.
Now, here is how to properly account for all of the forces seen/involved in the two boats scenario.
Boat X will thrust forward based on two forces: boat Y is pulling on the rope, while at the same time we will have the reaction force from the pulling done by boat X.
TWO FORCES ACTING SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Both these forces have to be taken into account.
Remember, that the RE analysis, where only one force is used, leads to a direct contradiction: it is worthless and useless.
My analysis leads to no such contradictions.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
Everything works out fine.
Equations do not lie.
The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
By contrast the correct analysis can take care of ALL of the situations that could possibly arise.
-
Equations do not lie.
Sandokhan.
GiGo.
-
Are the wenches holding wrenches? Why does one have rope wrapped around her? Or are they operating the winches? If that was my boat it wouldn't be ropes they were pulling on.
Maybe leave the wenches holding their winches and turning them with wrenches and try this.
We want to examine the situation with a massless rope and unequal forces applied to each end.
Now, I (we) have claimed that this is an impossible situation, but let's
hypothesise a system with unequal forces, a massless rope and a mass in the middle of the rope
and then test if the zero mass case is valid.
With mass M in the middle, thesystem is now quite amenable to analysis as follows:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Two%20men%20pulling%20rope%20%20mass_zpspkfzegrh.png)
Now with a mass dividing the rope, the forces applied by the men can be different.
Any difference in the forces is applied to the Mass, which can accelerate.
The Strong man applies a force FS to the right-hand end and
the Weak man applies a force FW to the left-hand end of the rope.
Hence TR = FS and TL = FW.
So the nett force applied to the mass is given by TR - TL so FM = FS - FW
Now, with a nett force applied to the mass, it must accelerate with aM = FM/M
Clearly as M is decreased, the acceleration aM increases and as M -> 0, aM -> ∞.
Hence our initial hypothesis that the forces are unequal must be invalid
and FS = FW note that FS is not the force that strong man is capable of, but the force he is actually applying.
If the strong man tries to pull any harder, presumably he must wind in rope
and the weak man must be dragged along or let the rope slip through his hands.
-
Different situation. You are now on land. You will have to account for friction.
-
Situation B: Two boats are tied with a line, both boats are using wenches. Both boats are pulling with 200N. The wenches would both be causing 200N on the line, and also cause 200N of reactionary force on the line. The line would be under 400N of tension.
Note I'm only talking about the actual force caused by the wench, not the wench load.
I'm afraid I wasn't clear about what was reactionary forces and what was caused by the wenches.
No. They wouldn't
That isn't how winches or forces work.
(Note: ignoring direction).
If they are pulling with a force of 200 N, then that is the force they are pulling with, that is the load on them.
It doesn't matter if they are pulling a railing or another winch/wench. It is still pulling with a force of 200 N, and the tension is 200 N.
For the tension on the rope to be 400 N with a load of 400 N on the winch, the force the winch is applying MUST be 400 N. That is how action-reactions pairs work.
That force that you claim is a reactionary force on the line is actually the force being provided by the winch. They are the same force. You are counting them twice.
The only situation where the net force would be 400 N with each winch applying a force of 200 N is if you had 2 separate lines, where each line was attached to one winch and one railing.
In that case each winch will apply a force of 200 N, the tension in each line will be 200 N and the force on each railing will be 200 N
-
Let us now increase the length of the rope to SIX MILES (9.6 KM).
The midpoint maximum curvature on a spherical earth will measure: 1.8 M.
The distance between boat X and boat Y will now be SIX MILES (9.6 KM), as will the length of the rope itself.
On a spherical earth, we are to believe that THE ROPE ITSELF WILL CURVE, that is, it will form A BENDING LINE, WITH A MIDPOINT CURVATURE OF 1.8 METERS.
Now, the RE will have to explain the following, since the rope will be pulled from both ends.
How do two gravitons attract each other?
How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core attract a graviton released by the rope itself?
On a flat earth the rope will form a straight line, extremely easy to explain.
But on a spherical earth the rope will form a bending line: if we unite points X and Y with a straight line, the maximum difference between this straight line and the curvature will measure 1.8 METERS.
-
Different situation. You are now on land. You will have to account for friction.
A force is a force is a force and it makes no difference where it is, but dream on.
-
Different situation. You are now on land. You will have to account for friction.
If there is zero friction you are totally reliant on your mass and acceleration for force. For example I'm around 75kgs and I can deadlift 130kgs for a one rep max.
If there was zero friction / structural resistance (the floor) we can easily calculate how much I will move in relation to the barbell.
First we can calculate the percentage difference in mass.
75kgs is approximately 42.3% smaller than 130kgs.
We can then use this increase / decrease to calculate acceleration caused by force for each object.
We can clearly see that the smaller mass will move 42.3% further / faster regardless of force.
Say for example I try to lift the barbell up one metre for simplicity I will move 1423mm to move the bar 1000mm with no friction / resistance.
This is governed by F=ma and also newtons third law. In this context meaning the force I apply on the barbell is also applied to me.
Come on man.
-
If one person was applying a force on the rope less than the other person, his hands would slip from the rope.
If you put them on their boats and start pulling against each other, Averell will lose his grip. If you don't want anyone to lose his grip, you'll have to equalize the forces.
It doesn't work out like that.
No. That is exactly how it works.
If Queen Elizabeth I simply just holds on to the rope, and Henry VIII is pulling with a force of 350N
And that "just hold on" requires her to apply a force of 350 N to the rope.
Lets consider the case where she isn't "pulling" on the rope at all and instead just "holding" the rope.
So you just have Henry the dead pulling with a force of 350 N. This force will be transmitted along the rope resulting in the rope exerting a force of 350 N on Lizzy.
This requires an action-reaction pair, where Lizzy is pulling on the rope with a force of (ignoring direction) 350 N.
So for Lizzy to just "hold" the rope she actually needs to be pulling on it with a force of 350 N. If she isn't then the rope will fly out of her hands.
Anything else is a complete violation of the third law of motion.
Equations do not lie.
No, they don't, but how you are applying them does.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
That is because it is an idealised case, where the rope is massless.
Your analysis reaches the same conclusion.
In reality the rope has mass and thus can have a net force on it.
But for the ideal case of a massless rope, reality dictates that |A|=|B|. This is summarised in the third law of motion:
For every action (A) there is an equal but opposite reaction (B). i.e. |A|=|B| (or more specifically, A=-B).
That is what reality demands.
So it isn't surprising that the RE analysis ends with reality.
No matter what all of you say here, you've had your chance, and it does not work out at all.
And we succeeded, repeatedly refuting your mountains of bullshit.
You have had plenty of chances to rationally defend your claims, and you have repeatedly failed.
Now, here is how to properly account for all of the forces seen/involved in the two boats scenario.
No. It isn't. Counting the forces twice is not properly accounting for them.
Boat X will thrust forward based on two forces: boat Y is pulling on the rope, while at the same time we will have the reaction force from the pulling done by boat X.
TWO FORCES ACTING SIMULTANEOUSLY.
No. A single force which you are counting twice.
Boat Y pulling on the rope is the reaction force.
Remember, that the RE analysis, where only one force is used, leads to a direct contradiction: it is worthless and useless.
No. It leads the correct conclusion with no contradiction, however your one, by just going a bit further here reaches a contradiction where you have -A=-A+B, a direct violation of Newton's laws of motion or the description of the scenario.
My analysis leads to no such contradictions.
Yes, it does (except that the alleged contradiction you are pointing out isn't a contradiction).
It ends up with X applying a force (i.e. pulling on the rope) of A-B to the rope and Y applying a force of B-A.
Notice how the 2 forces are equal and opposite?
Notice how |A-B|=|B-A|.
So your analysis reaches the same conclusion and just miscounts the forces.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
Are you sure it isn't A and -B?
And like I have asked you so many times, WHERE IS THIS FORCE COMING FROM??
The only location it can come from is X pulling on the rope.
That means X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B.
This is a direct violation of the scenario where X is pulling with a force of A.
If you are going to claim it isn't X pulling on the rope, then tell me where the force comes from.
Noting that a reaction force to the rope pulling on X is still X pulling on the rope.
Everything works out fine.
No it doesn't, as you counted the forces twice and ended up with the most stupid contradiction possible:
-A=-A+B; and -B=-B+A.
i.e. B=0 and A=0
The only time your analysis will ever work is when A=B=0. Otherwise you either violate the laws of motion or you have X pulling with a force other than A, thus contradicting the scenario.
The only time this is the case is when no one is pulling.
This makes your analysis worth less than the disk space it is stored on (which admittedly is growing quite a bit with you continually repeating the same refuted bullshit).
The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.
You mean a perfectly fine situation, which matches reality as expressed by the third law of motion.
By contrast the correct analysis can take care of ALL of the situations that could possibly arise.
No, not by contrast. The correct analysis (which is the RE analysis, or at least the analysis done by several REers here) takes care of all POSSIBLE ideal situations that could arise. Yes, it has difficulties with impossible situations which violate reality such as the third law of motion. I don't care as it makes no attempt to describe these impossible situations.
In contrast, your massively flawed analysis only takes care of the trivial situation where there is no one pulling.
Let us now increase the length of the rope to SIX MILES (9.6 KM).
The midpoint maximum curvature on a spherical earth will measure: 1.8 M.
If you wish to move on to having other areas of your ignorance being pointed out, finish with the rope example first.
Either answer our questions (and any subsequent questions), mount a rational defence of your claims, removing the contradictions that have been pointed out and rationally refute our claims with physically possible situations; or admit you were completely wrong and our double forces are not a paradox, they are just you miscounting.
-
If you wish to move on to having other areas of your ignorance being pointed out, finish with the rope example first.
Are you telling everyone here that you cannot explain how a rope with a length of six miles will have to form a bending line?
Then you are saying that the Earth is not round.
You are going to have to address this issue, as it relates directly to our situation.
Let us now increase the length of the rope to SIX MILES (9.6 KM).
The midpoint maximum curvature on a spherical earth will measure: 1.8 M.
The distance between boat X and boat Y will now be SIX MILES (9.6 KM), as will the length of the rope itself.
On a spherical earth, we are to believe that THE ROPE ITSELF WILL CURVE, that is, it will form A BENDING LINE, WITH A MIDPOINT CURVATURE OF 1.8 METERS.
Now, the RE will have to explain the following, since the rope will be pulled from both ends.
How do two gravitons attract each other?
How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core attract a graviton released by the rope itself?
On a flat earth the rope will form a straight line, extremely easy to explain.
But on a spherical earth the rope will form a bending line: if we unite points X and Y with a straight line, the maximum difference between this straight line and the curvature will measure 1.8 METERS.
If you cannot address this issue, directly related to our situation, I will claim that the RE are unable to explain how a rope with a length of six miles will have to form a bending line.
So for Lizzy to just "hold" the rope she actually needs to be pulling on it with a force of 350 N. If she isn't then the rope will fly out of her hands.
Anything else is a complete violation of the third law of motion.
You are not on land. You are on water, on a lake. Please wake up!
Queen Elizabeth I can just hold on to the rope, while her boat is being pulled toward boat X.
Forces acting on boat X: A (since Henry VIII is pulling to the left in a negative direction) and B (the boat itself which has to be pulled towards the left).
Forces acting on boat Y: -B (reaction to the force exerted by boat B) and -A.
No it doesn't, as you counted the forces twice and ended up with a contradiction possible:
-A=-A+B; and -B=-B+A.
i.e. B=0 and A=0
No such thing ever happened.
You are making up things as you go along, a sure sign of delusion.
Again.
Now, here is how to properly account for all of the forces seen/involved in the two boats scenario.
Boat X will thrust forward based on two forces: boat Y is pulling on the rope, while at the same time we will have the reaction force from the pulling done by boat X.
TWO FORCES ACTING SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Both these forces have to be taken into account.
Remember, that the RE analysis, where only one force is used, leads to a direct contradiction: it is worthless and useless.
My analysis leads to no such contradictions.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
Everything works out fine.
Equations do not lie.
The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
By contrast the correct analysis can take care of ALL of the situations that could possibly arise.
You lost jackblack.
In a most miserable way.
Here is your piece of crap analysis again, in plain sight.
Force A can never equal force B.
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
No matter what all of you say here, you've had your chance, and it does not work out at all.
The RE analysis is worthless and useless.
Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Which can NEVER be the case.
The use of only one force has led to a most direct contradiction.
-
If Queen Elizabeth I simply just holds on to the rope, and Henry VIII is pulling with a force of 350N, her boat will start to thrust forward, but she will not lose grip on the rope.
By holding onto the rope she is already applying 350N. It's as if she's pulling with 350N as well.
Even if she applies a much lesser force, say 125N, the rope will not slip, she will move forward based on the forces applied and of course her own weight.
No, she'll just slip or fall down or whatever. I'm not sure what it's called in English, but do you know that thing where you grasp a handle connected to a rope connected to a boat and you wear a pair of skis and just sort of ski on the surface of the sea? Well, do you know what happens if you grip (pull) the handle with less force than the force exerted by the boat?
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
A cannot equal B.
Can you not see that you've created a force C=A+B and a force D=-A-B, for which |C|=|D|? So now you've got the person on boat Y applying a force of C and the person on boat X applying a force of -C. It's just that you doubled the forces. You can go further, and quadruple the forces, if we go by your method:
The forces applied on boat X are C, plus the reaction force to the force -C the person applies to the rope, so the net force is 2C.
Similarly, the net force applied on boat Y is -2C.
You can even double that:
The forces applied on boat X are 2C, plus the reaction force to the force -2C the person applies to the rope, so the net force is 4C.
The net force on Y is -4C.
See? This isn't going anywhere.
The point is that a person who can only pull against a wall with 200N maximum, you're not suddenly going to be applying a force
You asking how |A| can be equal to |B| is analogous to asking how the force you apply to your chair when you're sitting down can be equal to the force the chair applies to you. You're just confused.
-
By holding onto the rope she is already applying 350N. It's as if she's pulling with 350N as well.
Let us see how the balance of forces works out.
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Can you not see that you've created a force C=A+B and a force D=-A-B, for which |C|=|D|? So now you've got the person on boat Y applying a force of C and the person on boat X applying a force of -C.
Your friend jack has made sure that such an analysis will lead to a contradiction.
Remember this?
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
The net force on boat X is -F.
The net force on boat Y is F.
The net force on the rope is F-F=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF FORCES TO JUST ONE, YOU WILL REACH A MOST DIRECT CONTRADICTION.
The forces balance out correctly ONLY by taking into consideration THE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, AND RESPECTIVELY ON BOAT Y.
-
On a spherical earth, the rope with a length of six miles will have to form a bending line.
Can the RE explain how such a thing would be possible?
On a flat earth the rope will be a straight line: very easy to explain.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig03.jpg)
But on a round earth we encounter this situation:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig08.jpg)
How does the Earth attract the rope, so that it will shape itself into a bending line, and still be able to transmit the forces applied at each end?
In the RE scenario, not only would |A|=|B|, which can never happen, but also now one has to explain how a bending rope will transmit the forces applied at each end.
-
If you wish to move on to having other areas of your ignorance being pointed out, finish with the rope example first.
Are you telling everyone here that you cannot explain how a rope with a length of six miles will have to form a bending line?
No. I'm saying I'm not going to let you change the topic.
Deal with your ignorance/dishonesty regarding the forces before moving on.
Is that simple enough?
Here, you can start by answering the question I have repeatedly asked:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
You are going to have to address this issue, as it relates directly to our situation.
No. I'm not letting you change the topic.
If you want me to deal with this first admit you were completely wrong about the forces and that the paradox is just a result of your dishonest miscounting of forces.
So for Lizzy to just "hold" the rope she actually needs to be pulling on it with a force of 350 N. If she isn't then the rope will fly out of her hands.
Anything else is a complete violation of the third law of motion.
You are not on land. You are on water, on a lake. Please wake up!
It makes no difference.
If she is not applying an equal and opposite force, Newton's laws of motion are violated.
Queen Elizabeth I can just hold on to the rope, while her boat is being pulled toward boat X.
And like I showed "just holding" the rope in this case requires her to be pulling on it with a force of -350 N. If she isn't pulling with that force, the rope will come out of her hand.
No it doesn't, as you counted the forces twice and ended up with a contradiction possible:
-A=-A+B; and -B=-B+A.
i.e. B=0 and A=0
I see you changed my words. What's the matter? Don't you like it when people point out your stupidity?
No such thing ever happened.
Yes it did.
You have an action-reaction pair existing between boat X and the rope. The rope is applying a force of -A+B. Thus X must be pulling with a force of -(A-B).
Instead, you have X pulling with a force of -A.
That means (in order to not violate Newton's third law) -A=-A+B.
So yes, it did happen.
You are making up things as you go along, a sure sign of delusion.
No. You are denying reality, which is a sign of delusion.
On the other hand, I am just logically extending your analysis, in a manner which you continually avoid.
Now, here is how to properly account for all of the forces seen/involved in the two boats scenario.
Again, you are counting them twice.
You are counting the force the rope is applying to X as -A and as B. They are the same force.
My analysis leads to no such contradictions.
Except it does, as I have poitned out repeatedly.
Your analysis only works when A=0=-B. Anything else and you get a contradiction.
My analysis (the correct one), works only when A=-B, i.e. the ideal case based upon reality. It only reaches a contradiction in impossible cases where Newton's laws of motion are violated.
Let us see how the balance of forces works out.
Yes, lets see.
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
HOW???
You have Henry pulling with 350 N and Lizzy pulling with -125 N.
Thus the net force is 350 N - 125 N. That doesn't equal 0.
In order to have what you claim, you need Henry pulling with a force of 350 N + 125 N=475 N and you need Lizzy pulling with a force of -125 N - 350 N = -475 N.
So no, the forces don't work out.
Your friend jack has made sure that such an analysis will lead to a contradiction.
Yes, he has made sure that your analysis leads to a contradiction.
Your analysis suffers from all the same non-existent problems with my analysis, and then a bunch more actual problems.
Now answer my question. You continually refusing to do so shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you know you are spouting pure bullshit.
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
-
No. I'm saying I'm not going to let you change the topic.
There is no change of topic.
In fact the title of this thread is "distances in the universe".
We simply increase the distance between the two boats to six miles.
Of course, the length of the rope will now measure six miles also.
HOW WOULD A BENDING ROPE BE ABLE TO TRANSMIT THE FORCES BEING APPLIED AT EACH END?
Please explain how a bending rope will transmit the forces being exerted on it.
If you cannot, as you are obviously trying to dodge the question, our debate is over.
How does a bending rope, being pulled on each end, transmit forces?
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
The RE requested that the PROPER DIRECTION OF THE FORCES be taken into account.
Fine.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
If she is not applying an equal and opposite force, Newton's laws of motion are violated.
Let us see how the balance of forces works out.
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
You have an action-reaction pair existing between boat X and the rope. The rope is applying a force of -A+B. Thus X must be pulling with a force of -(A-B).
Instead, you have X pulling with a force of -A.
That means (in order to not violate Newton's third law) -A=-A+B.
See the analysis above.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
You have Henry pulling with 350 N and Lizzy pulling with -125 N.
Thus the net force is 350 N - 125 N. That doesn't equal 0.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
jack, please explain how a bending rope, with a length of six miles will transmit forces, once those forces are being applied at each end of the rope.
-
No. I'm saying I'm not going to let you change the topic.
There is no change of topic.
Yes there is.
The topic at hand now, that we are discussing is your alleged double forces of gravity paradox.
Something you seem completely unable to rationally defend as you can't answer a simple question about it:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Once we deal with your alleged paradox, we can move on.
If you cannot, as you are obviously trying to dodge the question, our debate is over.
No. I'm not dodging anything. I'm not allowing you to change topic after you have been continually refuted without an admission of such.
You have repeatedly dodged questions and arguments, continually bringing up the same refuted crap and continually not answering the questions raised to you that show your argument to be pure bullshit.
Here is the question again:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Going to answer it, or are you going to keep on dodging it.
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
The RE requested that the PROPER DIRECTION OF THE FORCES be taken into account.
Once again dodging the question.
The scenario is that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A and Y is pulling on it with a force of B.
But you claim the net force on the rope from X is A-B.
Is that X pulling on the rope with force A-B?
If not, where is that force coming from?
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
How is it this? Where are these forces coming from?
Is X applying it to the rope? If not, who or what is?
If she is not applying an equal and opposite force, Newton's laws of motion are violated.
Let us see how the balance of forces works out.
You have already done that and failed miserably by just magicking in some extra forces.
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Again, where is this coming from?
You have Henry applying a force of -350 N, and Lizzy applying a force of 125 N.
Where did the 350 and -125 come from?
There is no source, they just magically exist there.
So how can you claim that all forces are accounted for when you can't account for these.
The only way to do so would be to admit that Henry is actually pulling on the rope with a force of -125 N -350 N=-475 N, and have Lizzy pull on the rope with a force of 350 N + 125 N=475 N.
So do you admit that?
If not, tell us where these magic forces are coming from?
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
And just like the above, where are these coming from?
You need [-A-B] to be coming from Henry and [A+B] to be coming from Lizzy.
So do you admit that?
If not, what else is there to act on the string to make that the net force on the string.
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Again, where are these magic forces coming from?
You only have Henry pulling with -350 N and Lizzy pulling with 125 N.
jack, please explain how a bending rope, with a length of six miles will transmit forces, once those forces are being applied at each end of the rope.
We can get into that once you admit your error with your analysis where you are magicking forces into existence.
-
You have Henry pulling with 350 N and Lizzy pulling with -125 N.
Thus the net force is 350 N - 125 N. That doesn't equal 0.
(https://s17.postimg.org/6lzyuppb3/Papa_Rayzor.jpg)
Dear sandokhan please use quote tags
Yours truly, Legibility.
-
jack, you were asked to provide an analysis of the two boats on a lake example.
Here is what you came up with:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |A|=|B|?
Certainly not.
The RE analysis is not even a bloody joke.
It is a complete disaster.
A total and most direct contradiction.
Do you understand the situation what you have created here jack?
By claiming to use just one force you reached a contradiction.
You need to use both the forces applied on each end of the rope to solve the problem.
Here is how the balance of forces is to be applied correctly.
There are no magical forces, no violation of the third law.
Everything works out fine.
Equations do not lie.
Your equations amount to a piece of crap.
Mine work out very fine.
Just watch.
The RE requested that the PROPER DIRECTION OF THE FORCES be taken into account.
Fine.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
There are two forces being applied on each end of the rope.
Certainly boat X is pulling to the left with -A, but also boat Y is pulling on the rope with force B.
Your analysis using just one force led to a contradiction.
It is useless and worthless.
My analysis leads to the correct solution.
No contradictions whatsoever.
So, jack you are unable to explain how a bending rope will transmit forces on a round earth.
Even if the length of the rope is now six miles, the double forces of attractive gravitation still applies.
You are dodging the question.
HOW CAN A BENDING ROPE STILL TRANSMIT FORCES?
-
disputeone, your analysis amounts to a piece of crap. It leads to this: |A|=|B|. But forces A and B will never be equal.
Let us see how the balance of forces works out.
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
by the way disputeone... since you value intelligence so much.
Can you explain to everybody here how a rope measuring six miles in length WILL BEND AND STILL BE ABLE TO TRANSMIT THE FORCES BEING APPLIED AT EACH END?
-
Garbage in garbage out, you're starting with an incorrect understanding of force pairing. I suggest you study Newtons laws.
This rope example isn't as complicated as you think.
-
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Yes, you've said that like ten times already. And I've explained to you why it doesn't make sense, and you haven't addressed it.
Can you still not see that according to your method, both Henry and Elizabeth are each pulling with a force of 450N?
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
The "hypothesis" is wrong. You're confused. If |A|=/=|B|, someone loses his grip or slips, or falls down, or whatever. Getting back to the wenches, if one wench applies a force of 200N, and the other a force of -150N, the second wench is going to lose grip, as a net force of 50N is applied to the rope.
-
GI=GO
Equations don't lie.
-
Can you explain to everybody here how a rope measuring six miles in length WILL BEND AND STILL BE ABLE TO TRANSMIT THE FORCES BEING APPLIED AT EACH END?
Yes, exactly like a one metre rope if you assume a massless rope that can't stretch.
With mass and stretch there would be more factors involved, the mass of the rope and how much it can stretch.(obviously) Which would be quite large at 6 miles
The equal force pairing remains the same however. Always.
-
If |A|=/=|B|, someone loses his grip or slips, or falls down, or whatever.
If you are on land, sure that can happen.
However, on the lake the two boats will move/thrust forward toward each other.
Can you still not see that according to your method, both Henry and Elizabeth are each pulling with a force of 450N?
Newton's third law, action-reaction pairs.
Let us see how they work out.
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
Henry VIII is pulling with -350 N (directed to the left).
Then the reaction force from the rope will be 350 N.
But, at the same time, Queen Elizabeth I will be pulling with 125 N (to the right).
The reaction from boat X on this force being applied on it will be -125 N.
Everything adds up fine.
In the analysis provided by jack, NOTHING adds up. Nothing works.
By the way, would you care to explain how a bending rope (six miles in length) would be attracted by the Earth and still be able to transmit the forces being applied at each end?
-
With mass and stretch there would be more factors involved, the mass of the rope and how much it can stretch.(obviously) Which would be quite large at 6 miles
The equal force pairing remains the same however. Always.
Is this your way of passing your time with useless jokes?
HOW DOES A BENDING ROPE TRANSMIT FORCES THROUGH IT?
HOW DOES THE EARTH MAKE THAT ROPE BEND IN SUCH A WAY?
You haven't the foggiest idea, do you?
On a spherical earth, with the rope being six miles in length, you will have a midpoint curvature of 1.8 METERS.
How in the world can a bending rope transmit the forces being applied on it?
On a flat earth, you have a straight rope, everything works out fine.
-
jack, you were asked to provide an analysis of the two boats on a lake example.
And I did.
I provided an analysis which is entirely consistent with Newton's laws of motion for the ideal case of a massless string, which contained no contradictions.
You are yet to mount any rational argument against it, instead all you do is repeat the bullshit claim that |A|!=|B|, throwing Newton's third law out the window.
On the other hand, you have repeatedly been asked to answer a simple question (or ones similar to it):
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Yet you continually dodge it, almost like you know if you answered it you will show your analysis to be pure bullshit.
And now, you are trying to change the subject because you know you can't get out of your horrible mistake.
Does |A|=|B|?
If Newton's third law is to be obeyed, then YES, it MUST.
Certainly not.
Only in delusional fantasy lands where Newton's laws of motion don't apply, where you can have forces appearing by magic.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
Again, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?
The only possible source is boat X.
But that means boat X is pulling with a force of -A-B, not A (or -A) as the situation demands, a direct contradiction.
My analysis leads to the correct solution.
No contradictions whatsoever.
No it doesn't. It leads directly to a massive contradiction you are yet to even rationally respond to or acknowledge in any way. Instead you act like a broken record repeating the same bullshit again and again.
Is X pulling on the rope with a force of A (or -A), or is it pulling with a force of A-B (or -A-B)?
You are dodging the question.
No. You are the one dodging the question. I am refusing to allow you to change the subject.
Here is the question you have repeatedly dodged:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
It doesn't require a mountain of crap to answer, just a simple yes or no.
Is X pulling on the rope with a force of A-B (or -A-B)? YES OR NO?
Why do you keep dodging the question?
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Henry VIII is pulling with -350 N (directed to the left).
But, at the same time, Queen Elizabeth I will be pulling with 125 N (to the right).
Everything adds up fine.
NO. It doesn't.
It doesn't work at all.
You have 2 forces acting on the rope -350 N and 125 N, yet you claim there are 4 forces acting on the rope.
You have forces appearing by magic.
That doesn't add up.
Is Henry pulling with a force of -350 N or is he pulling with a force of -475 N?
In the analysis provided by jack, NOTHING adds up. Nothing works.
No. In my analysis everything adds up. Everything works. There is no problem at all, except with your delusional, impossible situations.
Now how about you answer the question, pointing out the obvious flaw in your analysis?
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
-
I provided an analysis which is entirely consistent with Newton's laws of motion for the ideal case of a massless string, which contained no contradictions.
Your analysis leads directly to a most profound contradiction.
Which means it is useless and worthless.
Again, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?
The only possible source is boat X.
But that means boat X is pulling with a force of -A-B, not A (or -A) as the situation demands, a direct contradiction.
Boat X is pulling with a force of -A (remember, it was your friends here that demanded the direction of the force be properly accounted for, so I fulfilled their wish accordingly).
Reaction force from the rope: A
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
Very simple.
Your analysis led to this piece of crap.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
What a piece of thrash.
Totally useless.
Worthless piece of "analysis".
Moreover, the lunacy of the RE way of seeing reality does not stop here.
Their analysis requires that |A|=|B|.
Does |A|=|B|?
Certainly not.
Is X pulling on the rope with a force of A-B (or -A-B)? YES OR NO?
The net forces on boat X are: A and B
SO THE NET FORCES ON THE ROPE AT THAT END ARE: -A AND -B
TOTAL NET FORCE ON THE ROPE FROM THAT END: (-A - B)
Very simple.
You have 2 forces acting on the rope -350 N and 125 N, yet you claim there are 4 forces acting on the rope.
No magic at all, you are forgetting the action-reaction pairs.
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
Henry VIII is pulling with -350 N (directed to the left).
Then the reaction force from the rope will be 350 N.
But, at the same time, Queen Elizabeth I will be pulling with 125 N (to the right).
The reaction from boat X on this force being applied on it will be -125 N.
Everything adds up fine.
Everything comes down to basic equations.
Here are your equations.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
By insisting on only one force, you have reached a contradiction: |A|=|B|.
Forces A and B can never be equal.
My equations work out perfectly, by contrast.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
No. I'm saying I'm not going to let you change the topic.
There is no change of topic.
In fact the title of this thread is "distances in the universe".
We simply increase the distance between the two boats to six miles.
So you give up on the short massless rope and try do divert everyone's attention away from you failure!
But what difference does it make if the rope is massless?
Of course, the length of the rope will now measure six miles also.
If the rope is massless it will be six miles long and transmits force as before.
If it is not massless the rope will form a catenary and be (slightly) longer, but can still transmit force.
HOW WOULD A BENDING ROPE BE ABLE TO TRANSMIT THE FORCES BEING APPLIED AT EACH END?
Please explain how a bending rope will transmit the forces being exerted on it.
I don't see the problem. If the rope is massless it will be straight anyway.
If it is not massless the rope will form a catenary and can transmit a force,
but for a six mile length the sag will be massive and completely impractical.
But till I get to a computer I can't give actual figures, especially as it now depends very much on the material used.
If you cannot, as you are obviously trying to dodge the question, our debate is over.
You have never debated anyway, so what difference would it make.
Your version of debating is to just claim everyone else is wrong and then post exactly the same rubbish over and over.
How does a bending rope, being pulled on each end, transmit forces?
What is the problem with a bending rope, other than a six mile length being quite ridiculous.
But in the case I presented with the weak man/strong man, please explain how friction between feet and ground would affect the calculations?
If we postulate that weak man pulls the rope with force FW then it makes no difference what friction might be.
So, stop deflecting and discuss the issues.
-
If |A|=/=|B|, someone loses his grip or slips, or falls down, or whatever.
If you are on land, sure that can happen.
However, on the lake the two boats will move/thrust forward toward each other.
Can you still not see that according to your method, both Henry and Elizabeth are each pulling with a force of 450N?
Newton's third law, action-reaction pairs.
Let us see how they work out.
Force A (Henry VIII pulling on the rope) = -350 N (directed to the left)
Force B (Queen Elizabeth I) = 125 N
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
The net force on the string will be [350 + 125] + [-125 - 350]
Since the string is not moving, the net force on the string is 0:
[350 + 125] + [-125 - 350] = 0
Henry VIII is pulling with -350 N (directed to the left).
Then the reaction force from the rope will be 350 N.
But, at the same time, Queen Elizabeth I will be pulling with 125 N (to the right).
The reaction from boat X on this force being applied on it will be -125 N.
Everything adds up fine.
In the analysis provided by jack, NOTHING adds up. Nothing works.
By the way, would you care to explain how a bending rope (six miles in length) would be attracted by the Earth and still be able to transmit the forces being applied at each end?
However, on the lake the two boats will move/thrust forward toward each other.
Yes, they will, but the person applying the greater force will essentially be pushing against the rope alone with 50N (in which case we'd have to account for the mass of the rope as well), and the rope will be accelerating. For the other person, instead of gripping to the rope, it would feel like when you're trying to lower a weight slower, and you let the rope slip, while still applying some force. The scenario won't be very realistic.
Newton's third law, action-reaction pairs.
That's great, but you are the one who's claiming the forces applied by each person would be different. And here you're saying that they are the same.
The net force on boat X will be: 350 + 125
The net force on boat Y will be: -125 - 350
And the reaction forces to these forces are the forces applied by Henry and Elizabeth respectively. So the force applied by Henry is equal to the force applied by Elizabeth. And yet you are for some reason insisting that they have to be different. Very odd.
-
rabinoz, you have finally reached the following conclusion: PURE MAGIC IS REQUIRED FOR THE RE SCENARIO TO FUNCTION.
This is what you wrote.
If it is not massless the rope will form a catenary and be (slightly) longer, but can still transmit force.
HOW will a bending rope transmit forces?
Please explain.
HOW will the Earth attract that straight rope to shape it into a bending rope?
Please explain.
What is the problem with a bending rope, other than a six mile length being quite ridiculous.
Are you saying that there is no problem?
Then explain how in the world a bending rope will still be transmitting forces.
Explain how the Earth will cause a straight rope to become a bending rope.
-
I'm sorry guys, somebody mind explaining what you are arguing?
-
Yes, they will, but the person applying the greater force will essentially be pushing against the rope alone with 50N (in which case we'd have to account for the mass of the rope as well), and the rope will be accelerating. For the other person, instead of gripping to the rope, it would feel like when you're trying to lower a weight slower, and you let the rope slip, while still applying some force. The scenario won't be very realistic.
"Pushing" against the rope? Perhaps you meant something else.
The official textbooks on mechanics agree that this is a realistic scenario.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/double7_zpsarhv8lpo.jpg)
It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
That's great, but you are the one who's claiming the forces applied by each person would be different. And here you're saying that they are the same.
The forces A and B will always be different.
THE NET FORCES ON THE TWO BOATS WILL FORM ACTION-REACTION PAIRS WHICH ADD UP PERFECTLY.
And the reaction forces to these forces are the forces applied by Henry and Elizabeth respectively. So the force applied by Henry is equal to the force applied by Elizabeth. And yet you are for some reason insisting that they have to be different. Very odd.
No oddness at all.
Please review the action-reaction pairs again carefully.
Henry VIII is pulling with -350 N (directed to the left).
Then the reaction force from the rope will be 350 N.
But, at the same time, Queen Elizabeth I will be pulling with 125 N (to the right).
The reaction from boat X on this force being applied on it will be -125 N.
Everything adds up fine.
Everything comes down to basic equations.
Here are the RE equations.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
By insisting on only one force, you have reached a contradiction: |A|=|B|.
Forces A and B can never be equal.
My equations work out perfectly, by contrast.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
I'm sorry guys, somebody mind explaining what you are arguing?
Are Newtons second and third law applicable to a rope. It's pretty lulzy.
-
I provided an analysis which is entirely consistent with Newton's laws of motion for the ideal case of a massless string, which contained no contradictions.
Your analysis leads directly to a most profound contradiction.
No it doesn't.
You keep claiming it does but fail to show that what you claim can happen can actually happen.
In order to disprove my analysis you need to show that A and B can be different in the ideal case.
But that violate's Newton's laws of motion.
Your "rebuttal" of my analysis is basically just claiming Newton's laws of motion are wrong.
On the other hand, your analysis leads to a quite pathetic contradiction, which you are still yet to address. Here it is again:
What are the forces acting on the rope, coming from boat X?
The reaction forces: A and -B
Is this an admission that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A-B?
Which means it is useless and worthless.
Boat X is pulling with a force of -A
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
Very simple.
If it is so simple, why is it so hard for you to answer a yes or no question about it?
Do you notice how you have boat X applying a force of -A-B to the rope?
But the situation demands that boat X applies a force of -A, not -A-B.
The only way this works is if B is 0.
Do you realise that?
If not, how can boat X be applying a force of-A-B, while it is only pulling on the rope with a force of -A?
That is claiming that somehow this force of -A magically becomes -A-B.
So again, do you admit that this means boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of -A-B? Yes or no?
If no, then how is boat X applying that force of -A-B?
remember, it was your friends here that demanded the direction of the force be properly accounted for, so I fulfilled their wish accordingly.
A can be negative. Don't you realise that?
Your analysis led to this piece of crap.
Which you are completely unable to show what is wrong with it.
Instead all you can do is baselessly assert that |A|!=|B|. But you have no basis for that claim.
You also have the exact same problem with your analysis (at least when carried through to its logical conclusion)
So if this means my analysis is wrong, it also means your analysis is wrong.
Your analysis results in X applying a force of -A-B to the rope, and Y applying a force of A+B.
Notice how they are equal and opposite, exactly what you claim is impossible?
Is X pulling on the rope with a force of A-B (or -A-B)? YES OR NO?
The net forces on boat X are: A and B
It is a simple yes or no question. Why can't you answer it?
No magic at all, you are forgetting the action-reaction pairs.
Nope. Pure magic.
You have magic forces acting with no origin.
Here are your equations.
And these are exactly the same as yours.
You have A=-A-B and B=A+B.
It is exactly the same.
To make it clearer, I will call mine C and D:
C=-A-B
D=A+B
(notice how they are already equal and opposite, but that isn't required at the start of my analysis).
My analysis:
The net force on boat x is -C.
The net force on boat y is -D.
The net force on the string is C+D.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so C+D=0 so C=-D.
And I reach the conclusion that |C|=|D|, as required by the third law of motion.
Now yours:
Net force on boat X: A + B=-C
Net force on boat Y: -A - B=-D
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]=C+D
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] =C+D= 0
Notice how it is exactly the same?
All you are doing is counting the forces twice.
You have X applying a force of C to the rope=-A-B, not -A as the situation demands.
So you contradict the very basics of the scenario, in all cases where A or B are non-zero.
The official textbooks on mechanics agree that this is a realistic scenario.
No. They don't.
They have the same force applied by each boat, the difference is in the acceleration and velocity (and water resistance when you include that) because of the different mass.
If you want to claim they agree, find me one which says they can pull with a DIFFERENT FORCE.
Not move differently, have a different force. There is a big difference between the 2.
The forces A and B will always be different.
Instead of using A and B, you are using -A-B and A+B.
You have boat X pulling the rope with a force of -A-B and boat Y pulling with a force of A+B.
And look, they are equal but opposite, just like we were claiming from the start.
THE NET FORCES ON THE TWO BOATS WILL FORM ACTION-REACTION PAIRS WHICH ADD UP PERFECTLY.
Yes, just like we had. This requires that X pulls with some force, and Y pulls with an equal but opposite force.
Henry VIII is pulling with -350 N (directed to the left).
No he isn't.
As he is applying a force of -475 N to the rope, he is pulling with a force of -475 N.
Also note you still don't understand the direction aspect.
It is a force of 475 N directed to the left, if you have a negative force directed to the left that is actually a positive force directed to the right.
Everything adds up fine.
No. It doesn't.
If it did, that would mean -300=-475.
Does that really look like it adds up?
-
I'm sorry guys, somebody mind explaining what you are arguing?
Sandman is claiming that there exists a double forces of gravity paradox.
He is attempting to use an analogy with boats and strings/ropes to illustrate this.
In order to do this he is trying to set up a system where X pulls on the string with a force of A, but it magically becomes A-B and the rope magically pulls back with a force of B-A. (and has recently changed A to -A).
He is basically counting the forces twice to pretend it is double.
At the same time he is also effectively claiming Newton's third law is wrong, and that you can magically have a rope that isn't moving have 2 unequal forces applied at each end, without developing a net force on it.
-
Sandman, perhaps instead of making it simpler, I should make it more complex.
You no longer have a massless string.
Instead you have a block which 2 people are pulling against.
One side, Henry, is pulling on the block with a force of -350 N=A.
The other side, Lizzy, is pulling with a force of 125 N=B.
What is the net force on the block?
What will the acceleration of the block be if it has a mass of m?
Just to make it clear, the block, Henry and Lizzy are on a friction-less surface, not land.
According to your analysis, there is no net force and thus no acceleration.
According to you, these are all the forces involved:
Henry is pulling on the block (and thus Lizzy) with a force of A.
This results in the block (and Lizzy) pulling back with a force of -A.
Lizzy is pulling on the block (and thus Henry) with a force of B.
The block (and Henry) is thus pulling back with a force of -B.
So net forces:
Lizzy=A-B=-350 N-125 N=-475 N.
Henry=-A+B=350 N+125 N=475 N.
Block=A-B+(-A+B)=0 N.
So no net force on the block.
You don't find that strange?
-
Are we considering a friction-less surface, or water? Water still delivers friction to the bottom of the boats that will impact the equation.
-
Are we considering a friction-less surface, or water? Water still delivers friction to the bottom of the boats that will impact the equation.
We are treating water as a friction less surface.
The friction of the surface is completely irrelevant for the dispute.
-
Although it might not, if both boats are the same size and weight, then the friction would be the same on both.
-
Are we considering a friction-less surface, or water? Water still delivers friction to the bottom of the boats that will impact the equation.
We are treating water as a friction less surface.
The friction of the surface is completely irrelevant for the dispute.
Oh ok. Then both boats should move at the same rate whether a force is being applied on the opposite end or not.
-
Let us now increase the length of the rope to SIX MILES (9.6 KM).
...
ok do it: take a 9.6km long rope and pull both sides on it and see how high the middle is of the ground.
make some pictures of that experiment and show us the results
;D ;D
-
The length of the rope should be irrelevant. If force A is applied on one end, and no force is applied on the other, the boats will still travel towards each other at an equal rate. They will move at double this rate if force A is applied at BOTH boats. I'm not sure what's so confusing with this. However, if force A is at one end, and force B is at the other, then the boats will still travel at an equal rate towards each other.
-
The length of the rope should be irrelevant. If force A is applied on one end, and no force is applied on the other, the boats will still travel towards each other at an equal rate. They will move at double this rate if force A is applied at BOTH boats. I'm not sure what's so confusing with this. However, if force A is at one end, and force B is at the other, then the boats will still travel at an equal rate towards each other.
in reality the length and therefor the weight of the rope is not irrelevant.
but otherwise you are correct, only sandy does not understand this simple thing.
-
But that violate's Newton's laws of motion.
No, it violates your piece of crap analysis.
Newton's third law is fine.
Do you notice how you have boat X applying a force of -A-B to the rope?
But the situation demands that boat X applies a force of -A, not -A-B.
The only way this works is if B is 0.
If not, how can boat X be applying a force of-A-B, while it is only pulling on the rope with a force of -A?
That is claiming that somehow this force of -A magically becomes -A-B.
You are forgetting the action-reaction pairs, a correct application of Newton's third law.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Reaction force from the rope: A
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
The reaction force from boat X on the rope (force B being applied by boat Y on the rope) will be/equal -B. This is where that force comes from.
jack, you seem to be struggling with basic facts of reality.
In order to disprove my analysis you need to show that A and B can be different in the ideal case.
Forces A and B will always be different.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
Your ideal scenario is not part of this world, but of your armchair analysis.
Can you please wake up jack?
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Donald Trump will pull with a different force than Hillary Clinton.
Henry VIII will pull with a different force than Queen Elizabeth I.
You will pull with a different force than any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
Forces A and B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Force A can never equal force B.
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
You already tried the crap with C and D.
When you use a single force you will reach a direct contradiction.
Remember this?
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
The net force on boat X is -F.
The net force on boat Y is F.
The net force on the rope is F-F=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF FORCES TO JUST ONE, YOU WILL REACH A MOST DIRECT CONTRADICTION.
The forces balance out correctly ONLY by taking into consideration THE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, AND RESPECTIVELY ON BOAT Y.
Your equations are a piece of crap jackblack.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
By insisting on only one force, you have reached a contradiction: |A|=|B|.
Forces A and B can never be equal.
My equations work out perfectly, by contrast.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
Although it might not, if both boats are the same size and weight, then the friction would be the same on both.
It depends more upon their shape.
A simple example is to consider a parachute. When folded up in the bag it has very little friction. When it is released and made big, it has massive friction.
-
The length of the rope should be irrelevant. If force A is applied on one end, and no force is applied on the other, the boats will still travel towards each other at an equal rate. They will move at double this rate if force A is applied at BOTH boats. I'm not sure what's so confusing with this. However, if force A is at one end, and force B is at the other, then the boats will still travel at an equal rate towards each other.
Not quite.
If force A is just applied at one end, only that boat and the rope will move.
As the other boat is not applying any force to the rope, no action-reaction pair can exist between it and the rope and thus the rope is unable to pull it.
-
But that violate's Newton's laws of motion.
No, it violates your piece of crap analysis.
Newton's third law is fine.
Do you notice how you have boat X applying a force of -A-B to the rope?
But the situation demands that boat X applies a force of -A, not -A-B.
The only way this works is if B is 0.
If not, how can boat X be applying a force of-A-B, while it is only pulling on the rope with a force of -A?
That is claiming that somehow this force of -A magically becomes -A-B.
You are forgetting the action-reaction pairs, a correct application of Newton's third law.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Reaction force from the rope: A
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
The reaction force from boat X on the rope (force B being applied by boat Y on the rope) will be/equal -B. This is where that force comes from.
jack, you seem to be struggling with basic facts of reality.
In order to disprove my analysis you need to show that A and B can be different in the ideal case.
Forces A and B will always be different.
prove that claim!!
if you say it does not matter, you have to prove it with evidence and/or an experiment
based on you wrong assumption you following text is bullshit
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Force A = 100.000,000,000 N
Force B = 100.000,000,001 N
Even in this case B will not be equal to -A.
Your ideal scenario is not part of this world, but of your armchair analysis.
Can you please wake up jack?
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Donald Trump will pull with a different force than Hillary Clinton.
Henry VIII will pull with a different force than Queen Elizabeth I.
You will pull with a different force than any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
Forces A and B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Force A can never equal force B.
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
You already tried the crap with C and D.
When you use a single force you will reach a direct contradiction.
Remember this?
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
The net force on boat X is -F.
The net force on boat Y is F.
The net force on the rope is F-F=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.
BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF FORCES TO JUST ONE, YOU WILL REACH A MOST DIRECT CONTRADICTION.
The forces balance out correctly ONLY by taking into consideration THE TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, AND RESPECTIVELY ON BOAT Y.
Your equations are a piece of crap jackblack.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
By insisting on only one force, you have reached a contradiction: |A|=|B|.
Forces A and B can never be equal.
My equations work out perfectly, by contrast.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
But that violate's Newton's laws of motion.
No, it violates your piece of crap analysis.
Newton's third law is fine.
No. It violates my correct analysis and Newton's third law.
Let me remind you of Newton's third law expressed in a simple way:
A=-B.
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
The conclusion you are saying is a contradiction IS newton's third law.
So if my analysis is wrong, then Newton's third law is wrong.
You are forgetting the action-reaction pairs, a correct application of Newton's third law.
No I'm not.
You are completely misapplying Newton's law and making the reaction forces work like magic.
It works like this:
If you pull on an object with force F, it pulls back with force -F.
If an object pulls on you with a force of -F, you pull back with force F.
It doesn't matter which is the action and which is the reaction.
All it means is that between any 2 bodies, B1 and B2, you will have B1 applying a force of F, and B2 applying a force of -F.
There is no distinction between an action force and a reaction force.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on the rope from boat X will be -A.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Then the net force on the rope from boat Y will be B.
Thus the total net force on the rope will be -A+B. There is no other force available to do anything to the rope.
jack, you seem to be struggling with basic facts of reality.
No. I'm not. You are blatantly misrepresenting Newton's third law.
In order to disprove my analysis you need to show that A and B can be different in the ideal case.
Forces A and B will always be different.
Repeatedly claiming the same bullshit doesn't make it true.
Prove A and B are different.
Let us remember that the foregoing RE analysis cannot be applied even in a hypothetical case where:
Where Newton's third law is violated, an impossible situation. No suprise there.
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
No. By the very hypothesis boat X is applying a force of A to the rope and boat Y is applying a force of B to the rope.
There is no requirement for them to be anything other than non-zero.
Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
You are the one that is claiming Newton's third law is wrong.
However, by your analysis, boat X is applying a force of A-B to the rope. That directly violates the hypothesis.
It also leads to boat X applying an equal but opposite force than boat Y, directly violating your baseless claim.
They are of different magnitude.
PROVE IT!!!
So far all you are doing is continually asserting crap.
You already tried the crap with C and D.
Yes, and you were unable to refute it at all.
When you use a single force you will reach a direct contradiction.
Again, the only contradiction in my analysis is with your baseless claim.
However, your analysis contradicts that baseless claim as well, as you end up with boat X pulling with a force of C and boat Y pulling with a force of D, where C=-D.
It doesn't matter if that force is an "action" or "reaction". There is no distinguishing between them.
Remember this?
Yes, I remember you quoting my analysis then just baselessly asserting it is wrong because you say it is, without you being able to provide anything more than a baseless assertion.
By insisting on only one force, you have reached a contradiction: |A|=|B|.
No. Not a contradiction, Newton's third law.
My equations work out perfectly, by contrast.
No. They don't.
They do reach a contradiction.
You have X is pulling the rope with a force of A.
But X applies a force of A-B to the rope.
A direct contradiction whenever B!=0.
Do you accept that Boat X is applying a force of A-B (or -A-B with your new crap) to the string? Yes or no?
-
rabinoz, you have finally reached the following conclusion: PURE MAGIC IS REQUIRED FOR THE RE SCENARIO TO FUNCTION.
This is what you wrote.
If it is not massless the rope will form a catenary and be (slightly) longer, but can still transmit force.
HOW will a bending rope transmit forces?
Please explain.
You do know what a catenary is? Read up on it in CHAPTER 18, THE CATENARY (http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/classmechs/class18.pdf).
But here is a calculator to calculate the sag from the applied force, spacing of supports and mass/unit length.
For example for 6 miles of 0.5 mm Dyneema at a load of 350 N the sag would be almost 63 m!
And the yield strength of that cable is only 474 N, so it can't be loaded much more.
HOW will the Earth attract that straight rope to shape it into a bending rope?
Please explain.
Who brought that up? But it is gravity pulling the rope down into a catenary shape.
What is the problem with a bending rope, other than a six-mile length being quite ridiculous.
Are you saying that there is no problem?
Then explain how in the world a bending rope will still be transmitting forces.
Explain how the Earth will cause a straight rope to become a bending rope. << you already asked that >>
Why can't a bending rope be transmitting a force?
A catenary looks like this.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~w6rmk/math/images/catenary.gif)
It is the combination of the tension in the rope (here a fine strand) and gravity acting on the mass of the rope making the catenary shape.
What more is to be said? Ask any Civil Engineer, they know much more than I do about catenaries.
But was your silly idea to suggest a six-mile rope! Whyever would you do that.
And I said that the rope would be a little more than six miles long. It turns out to be 31683.6 feet or 6.00067 miles.
What I have left out here is the stretching of the Dyneema cable. That will be considerable.
-
But it is gravity pulling the rope down into a catenary shape.
It is the combination of the tension in the rope (here a fine strand) and gravity acting on the mass of the rope making the catenary shape.
You have provided NO explanation at all.
HOW does gravity pull the rope to bend into a catenary shape?
That rope will become a bending line.
How a does a bending rope transmit the forces applied on it?
Your bibliographical references DO NOT explain HOW gravity provides the magical force to bend a straight rope into a bending rope (catenary).
-
But it is gravity pulling the rope down into a catenary shape.
It is the combination of the tension in the rope (here a fine strand) and gravity acting on the mass of the rope making the catenary shape.
You have provided NO explanation at all.
HOW does gravity pull the rope to bend into a catenary shape?
That rope will become a bending line.
How a does a bending rope transmit the forces applied on it?
Your bibliographical references DO NOT explain HOW gravity provides the magical force to bend a straight rope into a bending rope (catenary).
How about you stop trying to change the topic and deal with your massive failure?
What is the force X is applying to the rope (i.e. pulling on the rope with)? Is it A? -A? A-B? -A-B? Something else?
-
Let me remind you of Newton's third law expressed in a simple way:
A=-B.
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
The conclusion you are saying is a contradiction IS newton's third law.
So if my analysis is wrong, then Newton's third law is wrong.
Newton's third law says this:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Then, YOU FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPLY THIS LAW TO THE TWO BOATS ON A LAKE EXAMPLE.
Then the net force on the rope from boat Y will be B.
Thus the total net force on the rope will be -A+B. There is no other force available to do anything to the rope.
Boat X is pulling with a force of -A (remember, it was your friends here that demanded the direction of the force be properly accounted for, so I fulfilled their wish accordingly).
Reaction force from the rope: A
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
Very simple.
SEE HOW YOU FAILED TO APPLY THE THIRD LAW?
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what you are missing.
Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
You are the one that is claiming Newton's third law is wrong.
Newton's third law is fine.
It is you who has provided a piece of crap analysis.
The RE requested that I introduce the proper labeling of forces (their direction) in the analysis.
Let us see now what happens when we apply this basic requirement to jack's piece of crap analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
This is priceless.
Amazing.
jack's horrible piece of crap, with the forces correctly labeled, has reached the amazing conclusion that A=B.
But the forces applied on each end will always be different.
It takes a single counterexample to show this.
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Donald Trump will pull with a different force than Hillary Clinton.
Henry VIII will pull with a different force than Queen Elizabeth I.
You will pull with a different force than any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
Forces A and B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Force A can never equal force B.
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
It does no such thing.
Newton's third law simply states this:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Your piece of crap analysis reached this conclusion:
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
Another contradiction.
You said this: Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
But now, by your own priceless analysis, A=B!
Newton's third law has to be properly applied.
My equations work out perfectly, by contrast.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
No contradictions whatsoever.
-
There's a massive contradiction. You say first that the force applied to the rope by the person on boat X is -A, and then you say it's -A-B. Can't have both.
One clarification: in your example, can the person move independently of the boat, or are his feet glued onto it?
-
There's a massive contradiction. You say first that the force applied to the rope by the person on boat X is -A, and then you say it's -A-B. Can't have both.
There is no contradiction because I said no such thing.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what you are missing.
-
The RE requested that I introduce the proper labeling of forces (their direction) in the analysis.
Let us see now what happens when we apply this basic requirement to jack's piece of crap analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
This is priceless.
Amazing.
jack's horrible piece of crap, with the forces correctly labeled, has reached the amazing conclusion that A=B.
But the forces applied on each end will always be different.
It takes a single counterexample to show this.
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Let us see now what happens further with jack's piece of thrash analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.
Let us apply the correct labeling of forces again.
The net force on boat x is A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is (-A - A)=0, so -2A=0.
What a piece of crap.
Not only is jack's analysis contradicting his basic requirement that A=-B, but also his forces now do not cancel each other to add up to zero; instead they add up to -2A!
Let us remember what jack said:
Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
But now, having properly labeled the forces his piece of crap analysis leads to this:
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
It doesn't get any worse than this for the RE: a total and most direct contradiction.
-
...
But the forces applied on each end will always be different.
It takes a single counterexample to show this.
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
...
you still have to shown a prove for that.
ignoring fact does not change facts.
that you are ignoring to show us prove of your claim shows that you know that you are wrong.
-
Any two human beings, when forces will be analyzed at the most infinitesimal level (we are talking here about the 100,000,000,000,000,000,....th fraction of a Newton, will be pulling with DIFFERENT FORCES.
The basic RE requirement is now this (see my previous message):
A = B
Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I will apply different forces.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will apply different forces.
So will you and any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
The burden of proof IS ON YOU, NOT ME.
You have to prove that in each and every situation, the two forces will be TOTALLY AND EXACTLY THE SAME.
You can't even have this:
Force A = 100.000,000,001
and
Force B = 100.000,000,000
It won't satisfy the RE requirement as listed above.
You are out of luck on this one.
-
Any two human beings, when forces will be analyzed at the most infinitesimal level (we are talking here about the 100,000,000,000,000,000,....th fraction of a Newton, will be pulling with DIFFERENT FORCES.
The basic RE requirement is now this (see my previous message):
A = B
Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I will apply different forces.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will apply different forces.
So will you and any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
The burden of proof IS ON YOU, NOT ME.
You have to prove that in each and every situation, the two forces will be TOTALLY AND EXACTLY THE SAME.
You can't even have this:
Force A = 100.000,000,001
and
Force B = 100.000,000,000
It won't satisfy the RE requirement as listed above.
You are out of luck on this one.
that is the max force that the person can pull
at the end at the rope only the smaller force is pulling.
as i said show us a rope where there is two different forces at each end pulling by showing us as a real experiment.
the reality counts, not what you make up in your head.
-
Somebody earlier mentioned that if force A is applied on only one boat, the other boat will not move.
Uh, yes it will. In an environment with no friction, a force of -A will be applied on the other side.
So the equation A+-A would equal 0, making the rope not move whatsoever, which means both boats would move at the same rate towards each other.
Now, say force B was applied on one boat and force A was applied on the other. Then, the following equation would be treu where X is the distance the boat moved.
(A-B)-(B-A)=X
A-B would be the force applied on boat 1, and B-A would be the force applied on boat 2. Therefore, X would equal zero, and the rope would not move.
-
The RE requested that I introduce the proper labeling of forces (their direction) in the analysis.
Let us see now what happens when we apply this basic requirement to jack's piece of crap analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
Now, the claims that jack has made here regarding A = -B are really going to come back and destroy even further his "analysis".
In order for these to be valid action-reaction pairs, this requires A=-B
So the total list of forces I have:
X pulls on rope with force A=-B.
Rope pulls on X with force -A=B.
Rope pulls on Y with force A=-B.
Y pulls on rope with force -A=B.
Reality dictates that for the ideal case, A=-B.
If it doesn't then Newton's third law is violated.
As such, you MUST have A=-B. Anything else is NOT describing this situation.
But for the ideal case of a massless rope, reality dictates that |A|=|B|. This is summarised in the third law of motion:
For every action (A) there is an equal but opposite reaction (B). i.e. |A|=|B| (or more specifically, A=-B).
That is what reality demands.
So it isn't surprising that the RE analysis ends with reality.
Let me remind you of Newton's third law expressed in a simple way:
A=-B.
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
The conclusion you are saying is a contradiction IS newton's third law.
So if my analysis is wrong, then Newton's third law is wrong.
It only so happens that the correct labeling of forces leads directly to the conclusion that A = B. A most troubling contradiction in view of the quotes referenced above.
-
There is no contradiction because I said no such thing.
You did. That's what you're saying. It's just that you're confused, and don't really understand what you're saying.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
You can't have that, unless someone's losing grip, but I'll let it be for now, because I want to show you the contradiction in your method.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
Which combine of course into a single force. Let's call it C. Let's also call the force on boat Y D. D and C are of equal magnitude. C is exerted by the feet of the person on the boat. Therefore there's a reaction to the force C, which is -C, that is applied on the person, to the direction that the person is pulling. THIS force is the force the person exerts to the rope. THIS force is the force with which the person pulls the rope. And it's equal in magnitude to the force with which the person on boat Y is pulling against the rope. So here you have your contradiction.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
Exactly. Boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of magnitude B, and boat Y is pulling on the rope with a force of magnitude B. Equal. You can't have them be different, otherwise the rope would move, someone would lose grip, and that sort of stuff.
-
Any two human beings, when forces will be analyzed at the most infinitesimal level (we are talking here about the 100,000,000,000,000,000,....th fraction of a Newton, will be pulling with DIFFERENT FORCES.
You are wondering how it's possible for two humans to be pulling with the exact same force. So I'm asking you, how is it possible that you're pushing against the floor with your legs with exactly the same force as the floor is pushing you upwards? An even better example:
(http://piedmontvirginian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/8.-Shanghai-Acrobats-of-the-Peoples-Republic-of-China.-Photo-courtesy-of-the-artist-1.jpg)
How is the acrobat on the top able to push downwards with her hands with exactly the same force as the one below her pushes her upwards with her feet?
BTW these are some pretty sweet acrobatics if you ask me.
Better yet: let's say you're in a skate park and you're pushing against Intikam's hands, and Intikam is pushing back against you. Do you realize why the force you are exerting on Intikam is exactly the same he is exerting on you? Do you understand why the force with which you're pushing him is exactly the same as the force with which he is pushing you?
-
There's a massive contradiction. You say first that the force applied to the rope by the person on boat X is -A, and then you say it's -A-B. Can't have both.
I never said any such thing.
Let me remind you.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Which combine of course into a single force. Let's call it C. Let's also call the force on boat Y D. D and C are of equal magnitude.
When you use a single force you will reach a direct contradiction.
Remember this?
Boat X pulls the rope with force F
The rope pulls boat X with force -F.
The rope pulls boat Y with force F.
Boat Y pulls the rope with force -F.
The net force on boat X is -F.
The net force on boat Y is F.
The net force on the rope is F-F=0.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
A cannot equal B.
Exactly. Boat X is pulling on the rope with a force of magnitude B, and boat Y is pulling on the rope with a force of magnitude B.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
The situations that you have described next are DIFFERENT from the two boats on a lake scenario.
No two persons can pull with exactly the same force as the RE analysis requires.
-
Let me remind you.
I don't want you to remind me anything. You've said the same things a million times already. Please make smaller posts and omit unnecessary stuff that you've already said.
When you use a single force you will reach a direct contradiction.
You do know that any two forces can be combined into single force, right? PLEASE don't tell me you want that explained as well.
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
I told you what happens with this hypothesis. The force on the rope isn't balanced. If two different forces are acting on two ends of the rope, there will be a non zero net force acting on the rope, and the rope will move. It's that simple.
The situations that you have described next are DIFFERENT from the two boats on a lake scenario.
Of course they're different. I thought that maybe you'd understand them if they're different. But the principle is the same.
No two persons can pull with exactly the same force as the RE analysis requires.
Do you realize that "pulling" could also be considered providing resistance by gripping to the rope, right? You know how static friction works, right? Now think about the examples I gave you with the acrobats.
-
You say that A cannot equal B, when you specifically stated that A=B earlier. It cannot. A-B=B-A, representing the total forces acting on each boat separately. They truly are equal, showing that the forces acting on the string are equal, and the string will not move.
-
You say that A cannot equal B, when you specifically stated that A=B earlier. It cannot. A-B=B-A, representing the total forces acting on each boat separately. They truly are equal, showing that the forces acting on the string are equal, and the string will not move.
i think Sandy knows that the forces on both side are equal, he ignores to make a experiment himself that would proof it.
but than he would have to admit that his view of a flat earth without gravity is wrong.
-
I thought we were talking about a hypothetical setting with no friction, just to discuss the forces involved.
-
I thought we were talking about a hypothetical setting with no friction, just to discuss the forces involved.
it does not matter, in both cases the assumption from Sandy is wrong.
-
By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.
I told you what happens with this hypothesis. The force on the rope isn't balanced. If two different forces are acting on two ends of the rope, there will be a non zero net force acting on the rope, and the rope will move. It's that simple.
Um... no, it's not. The force of the rope is actually balanced, according to one of Newton's laws of motion:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So, the forces acting on boat X are A-B, with A being the force acted on boat X and -B being the equal, opposite force from the force on boat Y. The same goes for boat Y, which ends with the following equation:
A-B=B-A
So therefore, the rope WILL NOT move
-
Flat Earth is not Real.
The Earth is Spherical, not 100% sphere, just like the moon. If you find a telescope and view the moon, you can see the edge turning aside. The same as Earth.
It just seemed flat because you only see the surroundings you see but if you were on the tallest Building beside a sea, you could see ships far away coming out like it came from under the sea but really it is because the farther it is, the roundness shows up, just like how the Moon or Sun Sets/Rise.
-
Flat Earth is not Real.
The Earth is Spherical, not 100% sphere, just like the moon. If you find a telescope and view the moon, you can see the edge turning aside. The same as Earth.
It just seemed flat because you only see the surroundings you see but if you were on the tallest Building beside a sea, you could see ships far away coming out like it came from under the sea but really it is because the farther it is, the roundness shows up, just like how the Moon or Sun Sets/Rise.
Please find a different forum, we're arguing about something else right now.
-
There's a massive contradiction. You say first that the force applied to the rope by the person on boat X is -A, and then you say it's -A-B. Can't have both.
I never said any such thing.
Let me remind you.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
No two persons can pull with exactly the same force as the RE analysis requires.
Firstly, it is not a "RE analysis", it is a "Physics analysis"using Newton's Laws and some elementary mechanics.
But, this never going to be resolved until we sort out some basic points. Newton's Laws are probably OK so let's look at men and ropes.
Primer for men and ropes- This is a "ROPE", "R" is for "ROPE": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Piece%20of%20Rope_zps5n9vfkf7.png)
An ideal rope is massless, of infinite strength and zero elasticity.
An ideal rope can transmit a force and change its direction, for example using an ideal pulley.
But . . . . . the tension is the same throughout its length, so that the rope won't have infinite acceleration. This means that if I draw a free body diagram of a infinitely small piece of the rope, I will have to show two tension forces of same magnitude and in opposite directions, cancelling each other.
Physics Stack Exchange, Interaction between an ideal pulley and an ideal rope (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315440/interaction-between-an-ideal-pulley-and-an-ideal-rope)
Hence if
the force applied to the left end is FW, the tension in the left end is TL = FW,
the tension in the right end is TR = TL and the force on the right end is FR = TR.
Hence FR = RL. - This is a "WEAK MAN", "W" is for "WEAK MAN": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Weak%20Man_zpsnpwzw2k4.png)
The "weak man" actually pulls on the rope with a force FW, though may may be able to pull with up to 200 N.
It makes no difference whether the WEAK MAN is on hard ground, ice, in a boat or even a helicopter,
if the WEAK MAN pulls with a force of FW he pulls with a force of FW.
I would have thought that axiomatic!
- This is a "STRONG MAN", "S" is for "STRONG MAN": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Strong%20Man_zps7oubtqtn.png)
The "strong man" actually pulls on the rope with a force FS, though may may be able to pull with up to 350 N.
It makes no difference whether the STRONG MAN is on hard ground, ice, in a boat or even a helicopter,
if the STRONG MAN pulls with a force of FS he pulls with a force of FS.
I would have thought that axiomatic!
The crux of this whole "discussion" is "the tension on an ideal rope is the same throughout its length".
Though another issue is that even though a person is able to pull with a certain force, they do not necessarily pull with that force. In many situations, it may not be possible, because of other constraints to do that.
This might arise when lifting a mass at a constant speed or pulling against a winch limited to a certain force.
An almost trivial example of this is a force limited fishing reel, such as (http://www.anglerswarehouse.com.au/webshots/shimano_forcemaster_9000_electric_reel_13945_10250045_M.jpg)
SHIMANO FORCEMASTER 9000 ELECTRIC REEL
If you pull too hard, you either break the line or rip the hook out and bingo one big marlin jpins the "ones that got away
and are t . . . . . . . . . h . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . s b . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . g!
Now, can everyone point out if they agree with these basic points? If we can't even do that this can get nowhere.
-
I agree with everything you just said, but using our hypothetical scenario, our rope is massless and tensionless. We are simply trying to debate the forces acting on either boat, when two people pulling at different forces begin to pull on the rope, which means the rope will not move.
-
Somebody earlier mentioned that if force A is applied on only one boat, the other boat will not move.
That is because it wont.
Uh, yes it will. In an environment with no friction, a force of -A will be applied on the other side.
Yes, if one boat is pulling with a force of A, the other boat will be applying a force of -A to the rope, if it is attached to the rope.
Thus you won't have a situation where just force A is applied to one boat.
Instead you have the situation where one boat is pulling with A while the other is pulling with -A.
If only one side is applying a force to the rope, then the other side CANNOT be applying any force to the rope, and thus by Newton's third law, the rope cannot be applying any force to the boat and thus the rope will merely move off the boat without taking the boat with it.
So the equation A+-A would equal 0, making the rope not move whatsoever, which means both boats would move at the same rate towards each other.
Again, only if one boat is applying a force of A, and the other is applying a force of -A.
If it is just one side applying a force of A, then the rope has a net force of A and it will move.
Now, say force B was applied on one boat and force A was applied on the other. Then, the following equation would be treu where X is the distance the boat moved.
(A-B)-(B-A)=X
Again, it wouldn't be.
If force A is applied by one boat and B was applied by the other, then the net force on the rope would be A+B, and thus the rope would move.
You are describing a situation where one boat applies a force of A-B and the other applies a force of B-A.
A-B would be the force applied on boat 1, and B-A would be the force applied on boat 2. Therefore, X would equal zero, and the rope would not move.
And A-B would be the force applied by boat 2 and B-A would be the force applied by boat 1. Thus you don't have one boat pulling with force A and the other pulling with force B.
-
One boat would only be putting a force of A on the rope, this is true, but also a force of -B would be applied to the same side from the equal opposite force from the other side.
And as far as just force A on one side and no force on the other, we're assuming the rope is tied to the other boat.
-
Newton's third law says this:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Yes, I know Newton's third law.
2 simultaneous forces such that A=-B.
Then, YOU FAILED TO CORRECTLY APPLY THIS LAW TO THE TWO BOATS ON A LAKE EXAMPLE.
No. I correctly applied it, ending up with the conclusion that A=-B, just as the law dictates.
On the other hand, you completely violated it, saying that X is pulling on the rope with a force of A, but the rope is pulling back with a force of -A+B (or with your new ones, X is pulling with a force of -A and the rope is pulling back with a force of A+B.
Are A and -A+B (or -A and A+B) equal and opposite? No. As such, you are violating Newton's third law.
The only way out of it is if you admit that X is actually pulling on the rope with a force of A-B (or -A-B in your new labels).
So do you admit that X is actually pulling on the rope with a force of A-B thus violating the description of the scenario, or do you admit that you are violating Newton's third law as you have unbalanced action-reaction pairs?
remember, it was your friends here that demanded the direction of the force be properly accounted for, so I fulfilled their wish accordingly.
No. You didn't.
You didn't need to change A to -A.
A can be negative.
For example, Henry is pulling on the rope with a force of A, where A=-350 N.
There is no need to have A be negative.
However making A negative does show your dishonesty even more, as it shows your double counting more easily, as you continually have expressions of the form A+B, almost like A and B are the same thing and you are just counting them twice.
Boat X is pulling with a force of -A.
And if this is the case, then the only force X is capable of applying to the rope is -A. In order for X to apply any other force to the rope, it needs to be pulling with that force.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
So do you admit X is pulling on the rope with a force of -B in addition to the force of -A?
If not, X CANNOT be exerting a force of -B in addition to the force of -A on the rope.
You must have either -A is that reaction force and thus -A=-B, or you have X pulling on the rope with a force of -A-B.
Anything else is a violation of Newton's laws of motions with forces appearing by magic.
SEE HOW YOU FAILED TO APPLY THE THIRD LAW?
No. I applied it correctly, considering 2 bodies and ensuring their force was equal and opposite.
X is pulling on the rope with force A, then the rope is pulling on X with force -A.
In order to satisfy Newton's third law, the rope CANNOT be pulling on X with a force of anything other than -A.
If the rope pulls on X with a force of -A+B, then X MUST pull on the rope with a force of A-B.
For any 2 entities, the force one applies to the other must be equal but opposite the force the other applies to it.
i.e. A=-B. There is no other way.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
That's right, no magic invention of forces at all.
X is exerting a force on the rope, thus the rope is exerting an equal but opposite force on X. It doesn't magically double the forces.
This is what you are missing.
No. I am missing nothing.
What you are missing is that Newton's third law doesn't magically make new forces appear.
If X is pulling the rope with a force of A, that is all X is applying to the rope.
There is no distinction between A being a force which then has a reaction force, or A being a reaction force.
There is no distinction between an action force and a reaction force.
It is impossible to tell the 2 apart.
Newton's third law is fine.
Not with your analysis.
With your analysis you have X pulling on the rope with a force of -A and the rope pulling back with a force of A+B.
The only way for Newton's third law to be fine is if the rope is pulling back with a force of A, or if X is pulling with a force of -A-B, which would then violate the situation.
The RE requested that I introduce the proper labeling of forces (their direction) in the analysis.
Let us see now what happens when we apply this basic requirement to jack's piece of crap analysis.
Yes, when you were using numbers, claiming the force one is applying is 350 N and the force the other is applying is 125 N.
In this case you have both pushing the rope in the same direction.
My perfectly sound analysis is not crap in any way and easily meets these requirements.
Notice a key thing I said (which is just Newton's third law?
A=-B. i.e. one person is pulling with a force of say 350 N, while the other is pulling with a force of -350 N. One is positive, one is negative. Thus they can both be pulling on the rope. No problem at all.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
Yes, by changing A to -A, you just get that.
So now, X, pulling with a force of -A, is equal and opposite to Y pulling with a force of B.
Still holding to Newton's third law of motion, still having no net force on the string.
reached the amazing conclusion that A=B.
Yes, has reached the completely unsurprising conclusion that is Newton's third law of motion.
It takes a single counterexample to show this.
And so far all you have done is baselessly asserted that they exist.
It is no different to claiming that if X is pulling on the rope with a force of -A, the rope will pull back with a force of B, which is different to force A.
It is just baselessly asserting pure bullshit.
The single counterexample needs to be physically possible.
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Not according to Newton's third law of motion.
That creates a quite explicit relationship between them of A=-B. There is no other option.
Last time I checked, 2 forces that are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction are equal in magnitude, not different in magnitude.
You will pull with a different force than any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
Not when pulling on the same rope in opposite directions with no one else there while holding the rope under tension.
Forces A and B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Yes, one will be positive and one will be negative, such that A=-B.
That is the requirement to hold a rope in tension. The tension in the rope will be the magnitude of the forces. T=|A|=|B|.
If the forces are different you no longer have a rope under tension (not unless you move away from the ideal case and consider the mass of the string, but you aren't doing that in your analysis).
Force A can never equal force B.
So you are claiming that for an action there cannot be an equal but opposite reaction?
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.
And it wouldn't be the ideal case of the mass-less string. Instead, you would have to consider the mass of the string and realise that X isn't just pulling boat Y, it is also pulling the string.
In this case, as B is greater Y will be pulling the string towards them.
The net force on X will be A. The net force on Y will be -B. The net force on the string will be B-A. This will result in a slight acceleration of the string.
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
So the RE analysis works fine for a massless string, equivalent to the situation you are trying to model. On the other hand, your analysis fails miserably and has you double counting forces.
The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.
No. It leads directly to the requirement for the ONLY cases which can be experienced in reality, A=-B.
Your analysis leads directly to a conclusion which will only hold when A=B=0.
You have X pulling on the rope with a force of A, but applying a force of A-B to the rope.
Does A=A-B? Only when B is 0.
So for any non-zero value of A or B, you have a contradiction.
For example, in the case above, Henry is pulling on the rope with a force of -350 N, which contradicts your claim that the net force on the rope from X is -475 N.
Last time I checked, -350 does not equal -475.
Do you think they are equal?
If not, then how can you claim there is no contradiction?
If X is pulling with a force of A, then the only force applied to the rope will be -A.
You said this: Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
But now, by your own priceless analysis, A=B!
No, by your manipulation of my analysis.
A=-B, when X is pulling with a force of A and Y is pulling with a force of B.
You are changing it so X is instead pulling with a force of -A.
So if you take note that your "A" is really -A, you end up with this:
(-A)=B.
i.e. A=-B, just like before and just like Newton's law dictates.
The other way is to teak Newton's law slightly, for example, having the action force be -A, and the reaction force be B.
Then -A=-B or A=B.
Newton's third law has to be properly applied.
As I did.
You have X pulling the rope with force A, and the rope pulling X with a force B.
As per Newton's third law, A=-B. That is the only option (which is equivalent to changing A to -A)
Instead you have X pulling the rope with force -A, and the rope pulling with force A+B.
So by Newton's third law, A=A+B. Does that make sense to you?
The other option is an even more direct contradiction, where you have forces appear by magic, where X is pulling the rope with a force of -A, but the net force on the rope from X is -A-B.
Does -A=-A-B?
Only when B is 0.
So no, your equations fail miserably.
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
No, it isn't.
As X is pulling with force -A, and Y is pulling with force B, the net force on the string will be -A+B.
In order for the net force to be as you claim, you need X pulling with a force of -A-B, and Y pulling with a force of A+B, directly violating the description of the situation.
There's a massive contradiction. You say first that the force applied to the rope by the person on boat X is -A, and then you say it's -A-B. Can't have both.
There is no contradiction because I said no such thing.
Yes, you have repeatedly refused to admit that.
But the situation clearly described X as pulling the rope with a force of -A (at least now that you have changed the sign of the force).
But your analysis dictates that X is applying a force of -A-B to the rope.
But the only way for X to be applying a force to the rope is by pulling on it. That means your analysis dictates that X is pulling the rope with a force of -A-B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
This is claiming that X is pulling on the rope with a force of -A-B. If X isn't pulling with this force, then how is X applying this force to the rope?
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Yes, because you are counting the forces twice.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Yes, so if the net force on X from the rope is A+B, then X must be pulling on the rope with a force of -A-B, but that goes directly against the description of the situation where X is pulling with a force of -A.
Let us apply the correct labeling of forces again.
If you are going to replace A with -A, you need to do that in all cases.
This is the fixed version:
The net force on boat x is A.
The net force on boat y is -A.
The net force on the string is (-A +A)=0, so 0=0.
Not only is jack's analysis contradicting his basic requirement that A=-B
Not when you do it honestly, and realise that by substituting -A into A, you need to change the requirement to -A=-B.
but also his forces now do not cancel each other to add up to zero; instead they add up to -2A!
Only when you replace half the A's with -A.
When you do it properly then you have -A+A=0
Let us remember what jack said:
Newton's third law dictates A=-B.
Yes, when you have X applying a force of A and Y applying a force of B.
That is because the force applied by one must be equal and opposite the force applied by the other.
If you instead have X applying a force of -A and Y applying a force of B, the requirement changes such as -A=-B, or A=B.
It only so happens that the correct labeling of forces leads directly to the conclusion that A = B. A most troubling contradiction in view of the quotes referenced above.
No it doesn't. Not when you note that this is equivalent to my claim.
You have just changed A to -A.
If you take note of that and apply it to my conclusion:
A=-B (my claim)
-A=-B (subbed in your substitution)
A=B (simplified).
So no contradiction, no problem.
It just appears like one because of your dishonesty.
It would be akin to me saying that your analysis originally had the net force on X be -A+B, but now it is A+B. Is that a contradiction?
Not when you consider that the latter is a result of substituting -A into A for the former.
But I understand, you need to resort to this blatant dishonesty otherwise your analysis would be exposed as bullshit straight away.
You grasping at whatever straws you can to try and make a pathetic attempt (your best attempt) at justifying the mountains of bullshit you have spouted and "refuting" the facts we have provided.
Any two human beings, when forces will be analyzed at the most infinitesimal level (we are talking here about the 100,000,000,000,000,000,....th fraction of a Newton, will be pulling with DIFFERENT FORCES.
Thus exerting a net force on the rope.
Remember, you are trying to model gravity.
With gravity, F=GMm/r^2 directed towards the other object. That makes them equal by definition.
So they will be pulling with IDENTICAL forces.
In a real situation, you have slight variations and you have a string/rope with mass which can thus be accelerated.
Either the forces average out over time, or you have one pull in more rope and them not meet in the centre.
The burden of proof IS ON YOU, NOT ME.
No. You are claiming there is a contradiction and that |A|!=|B|. As such, the burden is on you to show that is possible for the ideal case of a massless rope.
But as you seem to want to go to a real situation, here it is, still slightly unreal, the 2 boats have masses MX and MY, the rope has a mass of m, and it is located right in the centre of the rope, with the rest of the rope being massless:
X will apply a force of A to the rope (taking note that A can be negative, you don't need to make the force -A, you can leave it as A).
This means the rope will pull back with a force of -A.
Y will apply a force of B to the rope.
Thus the rope will pull back with a force of -B.
Thus the net force on X will be -A, and it will thus accelerate at a rate of -A/MX.
The net force on Y will be -B and it will thus accelerate at a rate of -B/MX.
The net force on the rope will be A+B, and it will thus accelerate at a rate of (A+B)/m.
The tension in the rope will vary. In reality it will vary across the entire rope, but in our example to keep it simple, the tension on the X side of the rope will be |A|. The tension on the Y side will be |B|.
Happy, now we have a situation much closer to reality, where the sting, by virtue of having mass, can now have a net force acting upon it and be accelerated.
If we now let M1 and M2 be equal, and |B|>|A| we note that boat Y will move more and they will not meet in the middle. We also note that the middle of the string will end up on boat Y.
You have to prove that in each and every situation, the two forces will be TOTALLY AND EXACTLY THE SAME.
No. You have to prove that in the ideal case where the string is massless, the forces can be different.
You can't even have this:
Force A = 100.000,000,001
and
Force B = 100.000,000,000
That's right, because in the ideal case of the massless string, that means you have a net force on the string and thus it will be accelerated at an infinite rate.
It won't satisfy the RE requirement as listed above.
Because it is physically impossible.
-
I agree with everything you just said, but using our hypothetical scenario, our rope is massless and tensionless. We are simply trying to debate the forces acting on either boat, when two people pulling at different forces begin to pull on the rope, which means the rope will not move.
The problem is that that is a contradiction.
If they are pulling with different forces, then there will be a net force on the rope, which as it is massless will result in infinite acceleration.
One boat would only be putting a force of A on the rope, this is true, but also a force of -B would be applied to the same side from the equal opposite force from the other side.
No, it wouldn't.
If the boat is only putting a force of A on the rope, then the entire force on the rope from this side is A, not A-B. In order for it to be A-B, you need it to be putting a force of A-B onto the rope.
This force of A IS this force of -B.
They are the same force, you are counting them twice.
And as far as just force A on one side and no force on the other, we're assuming the rope is tied to the other boat.
It doesn't matter how it is.
In order for the rope to apply a force of A to that boat, that boat must be applying a force of -A to the rope.
You cannot have a force being applied just on one side and having both boats move.
Even if the rope is just tied to the boat, the boat can exert a force on the rope. You don't need a sentient individual there pulling on the rope.
-
But it is gravity pulling the rope down into a catenary shape.
It is the combination of the tension in the rope (here a fine strand) and gravity acting on the mass of the rope making the catenary shape.
You have provided NO explanation at all.
HOW does gravity pull the rope to bend into a catenary shape?
Is your internet broken?
That rope will become a bending line.
How a does a bending rope transmit the forces applied on it?
Your bibliographical references DO NOT explain HOW gravity provides the magical force to bend a straight rope into a bending rope (catenary).
Whether it be it gravitation, push aether something-or-other or witchcraft,
Something certainly makes things go down with a force proportional to their mass - agreed?
If Robert Hooke understood it in the 1670s, and its equation was derived by Leibniz, Huygens and Johann Bernoulli in 1691,
surely you, being the world renowned mathematician that you claim can do it in 2017!
You could even look it up in Wikipedia, see .
It is easier to see how loose chains hang first.
Wilipedia, Catenary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary).
Look up the bit Analysis
Model of chains and arches
In the mathematical model the chain (or cord, cable, rope, string, etc.) is idealized by assuming that it is so thin that it can be regarded as a curve and that it is so flexible any force of tension exerted by the chain is parallel to the chain. The analysis of the curve for an optimal arch is similar except that the forces of tension become forces of compression and everything is inverted. An underlying principle is that the chain may be considered a rigid body once it has attained equilibrium. Equations which define the shape of the curve and the tension of the chain at each point may be derived by a careful inspection of the various forces acting on a segment using the fact that these forces must be in balance if the chain is in static equilibrium.
<< . . . . . . . you need to see the rest . . . . . . . >>
There are plenty of other references.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/CatenaryForceDiagram.svg/440px-CatenaryForceDiagram.svg.png)
The weight of a hanging rope or chain has to be supported by the vertical components tension at each end.
If we want to keep the sag small the angle the rope falls away at the end is quite small, and so the horizontal component will be much higher than the vertical component.
And it the horizontal component at each end that pulls the boats along.
Every "tow-rope" forms a catenary. The very long ones towing large ships can have quite a lot of sag.
Also the design of long spans of HV power cables is always a compromise between the very high force need to keep the sag to an acceptable amount and the weight and strength of the cables needed.
This is why many long span HV power cable use a steel core for strength and aluminium (light weight and high conductivity) outside for the conductors.
Hope you can work out "bending ropes" now.
-
Woah Jack, I can see how you earned that badge. I read the whole thing, and I agree. Sandy is essentially claiming that Newtons third law is false, as most of his claim does not abide by it.
However, just one thing. A force of A exerted by boat X will result in a force of -A being applied on the Boat Y end. This does not mean that boat Y is exerting a force of
-A on the rope.
UPDATE: Ok I think i understand now. The force on one end of the rope is not A-B, it is just A because A includes the -B force as well.
-
Plus we're getting a free lesson on action reaction force pairs, which is neato.
(https://s16.postimg.org/7y3ntqdol/2017-05-11-09-55-41-400559175.jpg)
-
jack, you are trying to fool your readers.
A = -B is not the same as A = B.
If we label the force exerted by boat X, directed from the left, as -A, THEN THE FORCE EXERTED BY BOAT Y IS LABELED THE SAME, AS B (directed from the right).
Then, your own equations amount to a piece of crap.
So now, X, pulling with a force of -A, is equal and opposite to Y pulling with a force of B.
That is NOT what your equations say at all.
This was your original analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
You labeled force A with the wrong direction. ONLY FORCE A.
Here is the correction.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
It is no different to claiming that if X is pulling on the rope with a force of -A, the rope will pull back with a force of B, which is different to force A.
See how you are desperately trying to surreptitiously dodge the fact that your analysis is a piece of crap?
It makes all the difference: your conclusion now reads as A = B, and not, A = -B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
Your analysis is a piece of crap jack.
That creates a quite explicit relationship between them of A=-B. There is no other option.
Not anymore.
Your analysis, properly labeled, reads now as follows:
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
So if you take note that your "A" is really -A, you end up with this:
(-A)=B.
i.e. A=-B, just like before and just like Newton's law dictates.
The other way is to teak Newton's law slightly, for example, having the action force be -A, and the reaction force be B.
Then -A=-B or A=B.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
With force A improperly labeled, we get A = -B.
With force A properly labeled, we get A = B.
Now, you no longer have A and B as OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
Your analysis is a piece of crap.
If you instead have X applying a force of -A and Y applying a force of B, the requirement changes such as -A=-B, or A=B.
NOW, THEY ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING FORCES.
REMEMBER WHAT YOU WROTE EARLIER? HOW CAN YOU BE SO FORGETFUL?
Now, the claims that jack has made here regarding A = -B are really going to come back and destroy even further his "analysis".
In order for these to be valid action-reaction pairs, this requires A=-B
So the total list of forces I have:
X pulls on rope with force A=-B.
Rope pulls on X with force -A=B.
Rope pulls on Y with force A=-B.
Y pulls on rope with force -A=B.
Reality dictates that for the ideal case, A=-B.
If it doesn't then Newton's third law is violated.
As such, you MUST have A=-B. Anything else is NOT describing this situation.
But for the ideal case of a massless rope, reality dictates that |A|=|B|. This is summarised in the third law of motion:
For every action (A) there is an equal but opposite reaction (B). i.e. |A|=|B| (or more specifically, A=-B).
That is what reality demands.
So it isn't surprising that the RE analysis ends with reality.
Let me remind you of Newton's third law expressed in a simple way:
A=-B.
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
The conclusion you are saying is a contradiction IS newton's third law.
So if my analysis is wrong, then Newton's third law is wrong.
It only so happens that the correct labeling of forces leads directly to the conclusion that A = B. A most troubling contradiction in view of the quotes referenced above.
You specifically stated:
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
BUT NOW, A = B.
NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
Your analysis is a piece of crap jack.
When I did label correctly force A, my analysis improved, a sure sign of a correct formula. No contradictions there.
It all comes down to the equations jack.
Yours lead to a magnificient contradiction.
You said that A = -B, nothing else would be correct.
BUT NOW A = B.
My equations work just fine.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what you are missing.
You and your relatives, neighbours, countrymen, will ALWAYS pull WITH DIFFERENT FORCES.
ALWAYS.
No two persons can pull with the exactly same force, as your analysis requires: A = B.
My analysis takes this wonderful fact into account, forces A and B are never the same.
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
I am sorry jack, the above law is another piece of crap.
I can bring here any number of experiments, Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Allais WHICH DEFY THIS "LAW".
Newton dismissed this law as pure insanity.
No. It leads directly to the requirement for the ONLY cases which can be experienced in reality, A=-B.
Not anymore. YOUR ANALYSIS, PROPERLY LABELED, READS NOW: A = B.
NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
And you still cannot have A = B exactly.
It won't happen in the real world.
You have X pulling on the rope with a force of A, but applying a force of A-B to the rope.
Does A=A-B? Only when B is 0.
You are acting delusional jack.
I never said any such thing.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what you are missing.
-
rabinoz, you are dreaming.
We are talking here about AN INVERTED CATENARY.
One which, as if by pure magic, stays suspended in midair, on a spherical earth.
Let us reduce the distance from six miles, to 500 meters.
The curvature will then measure a few centimeters.
Let us now place a mold (a hollow plastic shell, 500 meters in length, in the shape of an inverted catenary, which matches the curvature of the round earth exactly) between the two boats.
The rope then will be placed on this plastic shell, and both sides will pull as usual.
Let us now REMOVE THAT MOLD/PLASTIC SHELL from underneath the rope.
On a flat earth, the rope will straighten right away.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE ROPE WILL NOW HANG IN MIDAIR IN THE SHAPE OF A BENDING LINE?
If we remove that plastic mold/shell, it is only by PURE MAGIC that the rope will assume a bending line shape, no other explanantion is possible.
Explain how the Earth attracts that rope to shape it into an inverted catenary.
-
Woah Jack, I can see how you earned that badge. I read the whole thing, and I agree. Sandy is essentially claiming that Newtons third law is false, as most of his claim does not abide by it.
I am not claiming that Newton's third law is false.
This alone shows your superficial analysis of this thread.
That badge worn by jack is pretty silly given his piece of crap analysis.
Please read carefully.
Here is his original analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
He labeled force A with the wrong direction. ONLY FORCE A.
Here is the correction.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
How then can you write something like: I can see how you earned that badge.
jack specifically stated:
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
BUT NOW, A = B.
NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
jack's analysis is a piece of crap.
Perhaps you like this sort of crap.
Here is the correct analysis.
My equations work just fine.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what almost everyone here is missing.
My equations work.
jack's equations reach a contradiction immediately which means they are nothing but a piece of crap.
So who defeated who?
You might want to change your previous statement...
-
Woah Jack, I can see how you earned that badge. I read the whole thing, and I agree. Sandy is essentially claiming that Newtons third law is false, as most of his claim does not abide by it.
I am not claiming that Newton's third law is false.
You clearly are.
-
Newton's third law:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Let us now apply this law to the two boats on a lake situation.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
By contrast, the RE analysis turns out to be a piece of crap.
Please read carefully.
Here is jack's original analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
He labeled force A with the wrong direction. ONLY FORCE A.
Here is the correction.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
By his very own analysis we get: A = B.
But he requires that A = -B.
It doesn't get any worse than this for your side, disputeone...
-
sandokhan, you are a broken record. Give it a rest. No one believes or cares for your BS theories. Can we please get back to the original topic. There was actually some interesting information and discussions before your stupid boats and ropes nonsense
-
I agree. I think everyone else is pretty much in agreement here. Sandman will never change so we might as well move on.
-
jack, you are trying to fool your readers.
You go completely astray when you claim that the tension on a massless rope can be different at each end.
A rope can only connect a force from one end to the other. Even if the rope has (a reasonable) mass there is little difference if the two ends of the rope are at the same level.
This means that the two people cannot pull with different forces. Just because the stronger man has the strength to pull 350 N does not mean that he is able to pull 350 N in every circumstance. If the weaker man can only apply 200 N to the rope then that is the tension in the rope - there's nothing that the strong man can do, except to drag the rope through the hands of the weak man.
An example of applied force being limited is a drag force limited game fishing reel, such as (http://www.anglerswarehouse.com.au/webshots/shimano_forcemaster_9000_electric_reel_13945_10250045_M.jpg)
SHIMANO FORCEMASTER 9000 ELECTRIC REEL
If you pull too hard, you either break the line or rip the hook out and bingo, one big marlin joins the "ones that got away
and are t . . . . . . . . . h . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . s b . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . g!
Find a ".pdf" of the manual in Shimano DENDOUMARU 9000 Beast Master Instruction Manual. (http://www.normark.ru/IndexManuals/Shimano/Dendoumaru9000.pdf)
That reel can limit the drag to a maximum of 25 kg, or 245N, so it can be set to limit at your weak man's strength.
A line commonly used with such a rod is rated "PE8" or 80lb (356 N) breaking strain. So setting the reel to limit the drag to 200 N is quite reasonable.
Now, that marlin (our "strong man") can pull with a much larger force, but let's limit him to 350 N to fit.
(http://vanuatuinformation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vanuatu-fishing-2.jpg)
Vanuatu Fishing
That marlin would like nothing better that to break the line and escape, but the game fisherman (out weak man) sets the drag setting of his rod to 200 N.
This means that even though the marlin is strong enough exert a force of 350 N on the line (our "rope") the tension on the line is limited by the drag setting to 200 N, the fishing line is safe and the marlin finally tires out.
That's about as simple an analogy as I can work out - and it involves boats, sort of!
But, you clearly did not understand the following, so read it again:
This is never going to be resolved until we sort out some basic points. Newton's Laws are probably OK so let's look at men and ropes.
Primer for men and ropes- This is a "ROPE", "R" is for "ROPE": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Piece%20of%20Rope_zps5n9vfkf7.png)
An ideal rope is massless, of infinite strength and zero elasticity.
An ideal rope can transmit a force and change its direction, for example using an ideal pulley.
But . . . . . the tension is the same throughout its length, so that the rope won't have infinite acceleration. This means that if I draw a free body diagram of a infinitely small piece of the rope, I will have to show two tension forces of same magnitude and in opposite directions, cancelling each other.
Physics Stack Exchange, Interaction between an ideal pulley and an ideal rope (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315440/interaction-between-an-ideal-pulley-and-an-ideal-rope)
Hence if
the force applied to the left end is FW, the tension in the left end is TL = FW,
the tension in the right end is TR = TL and the force on the right end is FR = TR.
Hence FR = RL. - This is a "WEAK MAN", "W" is for "WEAK MAN": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Weak%20Man_zpsnpwzw2k4.png)
The "weak man" actually pulls on the rope with a force FW, though may may be able to pull with up to 200 N.
It makes no difference whether the WEAK MAN is on hard ground, ice, in a boat or even a helicopter,
if the WEAK MAN pulls with a force of FW he pulls with a force of FW.
I would have thought that axiomatic!
- This is a "STRONG MAN", "S" is for "STRONG MAN": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Strong%20Man_zps7oubtqtn.png)
The "strong man" actually pulls on the rope with a force FS, though may may be able to pull with up to 350 N.
It makes no difference whether the STRONG MAN is on hard ground, ice, in a boat or is even a fish,
if the STRONG MAN pulls with a force of FS he pulls with a force of FS.
I would have thought that axiomatic!
The crux of this whole "discussion" is "the tension on an ideal rope is the same throughout its length".
Though another issue is that even though a person is able to pull with a certain force, they do not necessarily pull with that force. In many situations, it may not be possible, because of other constraints to do that.
This might arise when lifting a mass at a constant speed or pulling against a winch limited to a certain force.
Now, do you agree with those poimts. If not, where do we differ?
-
Woah Jack, I can see how you earned that badge. I read the whole thing, and I agree. Sandy is essentially claiming that Newtons third law is false, as most of his claim does not abide by it.
I am not claiming that Newton's third law is false.
You clearly are.
Newton's third law:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Let us now apply this law to the two boats on a lake situation.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
(Emphasis mine.)
Do you honestly not understand that your statement directly contradicts Newtons third law?
Why does this keep happening to me?
Edit. Quote.
-
disputeone, you are scientifically literate, are you not?
How then can you write something like this:
Newton's third law:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
Newton's third law works fine applied AT EACH END OF THE ROPE.
However, the NET FORCE ON THE STRING/ROPE WILL BE EQUAL TO ZERO.
You have already seen what jack's analysis, which you do accept as being valid, has led to: a total mess, a most direct contradiction.
That analysis is based only on a single force.
It does not work.
Forces A and b will always be different.
Please read carefully.
We are applying now Newton's third law to each end of the rope.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Newton's third law was applied CORRECTLY at each end of the rope.
The final equations confirm this view/analysis.
The net force on the string/rope will be zero.
-
disputeone, you are scientifically literate, are you not?
How then can you write something like this:
Newton's third law:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
You know that was a quote from you right?
Why does this keep happening to me?
Edit. Added quote tag.
-
This means that the two people cannot pull with different forces.
On a lake, two men situated in two boats, SURE THEY CAN.
Primer for men and ropes
You are on land now. Totally different situation, where now we have to deal with friction.
A rope can only connect a force from one end to the other.
Let us see what happens when you have it your way.
Here is jack's original analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
He labeled force A with the wrong direction. ONLY FORCE A.
Here is the correction.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
jack specifically stated:
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
BUT NOW, A = B.
NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
jack's analysis is a piece of crap.
marlin and the reel example
In your example, the marlin cannot break free.
Thus we have a situation entirely similar to this: a large boat is pulling on a smaller boat, the rope being tied to the second, smaller boat.
Boat X (the large boat) is pulling only with 200 N (certainly it could pull with a much larger force).
Boat Y (the smaller boat) is exerting a force of 350 N on the rope.
Let us now analyze your example using both sets of equations.
Boat X is pulling with force -200 N (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, 200 N.
Boat Y is pulling with force 350 N (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -350 N.
The net force on the string will be: -200 + 350
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -200 + 350 = 0, so -200 = -350, so 200=350.
rabinoz, does 200 = 350?
Certainly not.
Let us now apply the CORRECT set of equations.
We are applying now Newton's third law to each end of the rope.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: 200 N (the reaction force on the action force -200 N) and B = 350 N
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-200 and -350.
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -350 (the reaction force on the action force B) and -200.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B: A = 200, B = 350
Net force on boat X: A + B = 200 + 350
Net force on boat Y: -A - B = -200 - 350
Net force on the string: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350]
The string/rope will not move: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
disputeone, you are scientifically literate, are you not?
Sandokhan, you are scientifically literate, are you not?
How then can you write something like this?
"Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude."
An ideal rope can transmit a force and change its direction, for example using an ideal pulley.
But . . . . . the tension is the same throughout its length, so that the rope won't have infinite acceleration. This means that if I draw a free body diagram of a infinitely small piece of the rope, I will have to show two tension forces of same magnitude and in opposite directions, cancelling each other.
Physics Stack Exchange, Interaction between an ideal pulley and an ideal rope (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315440/interaction-between-an-ideal-pulley-and-an-ideal-rope)
Hence if
the force applied to the left end is FW, the tension in the left end is TL = FW,
the tension in the right end is TR = TL and the force on the right end is FR = TR.
-
Your previous paragraphs apply to a rope being pulled on land.
There we have to deal with friction.
As simple as this.
Now, read my previous message where I analyze your marlin/reel example using both sets of equations.
-
Two men can push or pull with different forces obviously.
If there were two ropes, and the men pulled on one rope each, of course the forces would be different.
The problem is that the men are both pulling on the same rope, therefore the rope has one foce (tension) on it. There's no getting past this.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
I have neither the desire nor the patience to argue this further with you. Also learn to use quotes man it's really easy and makes your posts legible.
www.bbcode.org
-
The problem is that the men are both pulling on the same rope, therefore the rope has one foce (tension) on it. There's no getting past this.
Let's see what happens when you have it your way.
Here is jack's original analysis:
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
He labeled force A with the wrong direction. ONLY FORCE A.
Here is the correction.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
jack specifically stated:
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
BUT NOW, A = B.
NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
jack's analysis is a piece of crap.
Using ONLY ONE FORCE, we reach a direct contradiction.
Therefore this kind of analysis is a piece of thrash.
You need to include BOTH FORCES acting on each end of the rope to obtain a correct result.
-
This means that the two people cannot pull with different forces.
On a lake, two men situated in two boats, SURE THEY CAN.
Rubbish!
Primer for men and ropes
You are on land now. Totally different situation, where now we have to deal with friction.
Ground, water or air, who cares! Friction has no effect of how much force a man can exert.
You said that the weak man could pull only 200 N and that's is the only force that can be applied to his boat.
I could redraw the diagram with the men in boats and it would make no difference at all to the argument.
If the weak man can pull only 200 N on his end of the rope, that is the tension in the rope and the force on his boat.
If the strong man tries to put more tension on the rope it must slip through the weak man's figures.
See my "marlin fishing" analogy.
-
Let us remember what I wrote earlier.
But the forces applied on each end will always be different.
It takes a single counterexample to show this.
By the very hypothesis, forces A and B are not equal.
They are of different magnitude.
Donald Trump will pull with a different force than Hillary Clinton.
Henry VIII will pull with a different force than Queen Elizabeth I.
You will pull with a different force than any of your relatives, neighbors, countrymen.
Forces A and B WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT.
Force A can never equal force B.
Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: A=B.
You can't even have this:
Force A = 100.000,000,001
and
Force B = 100.000,000,000
So jack wrote this:
The single counterexample needs to be physically possible.
Your friend rabinoz, HAS JUST PROVIDED THE PERFECT PHYSICAL SETTING WHERE NOW WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES ACTING ON EACH END OF THE ROPE.
An example of applied force being limited is a drag force limited game fishing reel, such as (http://www.anglerswarehouse.com.au/webshots/shimano_forcemaster_9000_electric_reel_13945_10250045_M.jpg)
SHIMANO FORCEMASTER 9000 ELECTRIC REEL
If you pull too hard, you either break the line or rip the hook out and bingo, one big marlin joins the "ones that got away
and are this big.
Find a ".pdf" of the manual in Shimano DENDOUMARU 9000 Beast Master Instruction Manual. (http://www.normark.ru/IndexManuals/Shimano/Dendoumaru9000.pdf)
That reel can limit the drag to a maximum of 25 kg, or 245N, so it can be set to limit at your weak man's strength.
A line commonly used with such a rod is rated "PE8" or 80lb (356 N) breaking strain. So setting the reel to limit the drag to 200 N is quite reasonable.
Now, that marlin (our "strong man") can pull with a much larger force, but let's limit him to 350 N to fit.
(http://vanuatuinformation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vanuatu-fishing-2.jpg)
Vanuatu Fishing
In the example provided by rabinoz, the marlin cannot break free.
Thus we have a situation entirely similar to this: a large boat is pulling on a smaller boat, the rope being tied to the second, smaller boat.
Boat X (the large boat) is pulling only with 200 N (certainly it could pull with a much larger force).
Boat Y (the smaller boat) is exerting a force of 350 N on the rope.
Let us now analyze this example using both sets of equations.
Boat X is pulling with force -200 N (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, 200 N.
Boat Y is pulling with force 350 N (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -350 N.
The net force on the string will be: -200 + 350
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -200 + 350 = 0, so -200 = -350, so 200=350.
Does 200 = 350?
Certainly not.
Let us now apply the CORRECT set of equations.
We are applying now Newton's third law to each end of the rope.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: 200 N (the reaction force on the action force -200 N) and B = 350 N
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-200 and -350.
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -350 (the reaction force on the action force B) and -200.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B: A = 200, B = 350
Net force on boat X: A + B = 200 + 350
Net force on boat Y: -A - B = -200 - 350
Net force on the string: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350]
The string/rope will not move: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
I'm going to try to stop repeating myself by refuting your repititions.
jack, you are trying to fool your readers.
A = -B is not the same as A = B.
Thanks for showing your dishonesty once again.
I never said it was.
You have 2 different descriptions of the one problem. To make it even clearly, unlike you who is intentionally trying to confuse people, I will use different letters.
My first analysis simplified a bit:
X is pulling with a force of A, Y is pulling with a force of B.
Thus the net force ont he rope is A+B.
Thus A=-B.
The second option, which is what you are trying to change it in to:
X is pulling with a force of -E, Y is pulling with a force of B.
Thus the net force ont he rope is -E+B.
Thus E=B.
In order to compare the 2 equations, you need to note what each variable is.
You can't just say "This has A, so does this, so these "A"s must be the same.
But E is not a direct replacement of A. Instead, you go from the force X applies being A, to the force X applies being -E.
This means that E=-A.
So subbing that in gives us -A=B, which is the same as saying A=-B.
No contradiction, no problem.
In both cases, you have the force applied by boat X being equal and opposite the force applied by boat Y.
In order for your claims to be true, you need to claim that A=-A.
That is you need to claim that X pulling with a force of A is the same as X pulling with a force of -A.
Are you going to claim that?
You labeled force A with the wrong direction. ONLY FORCE A.
No. I didn't.
A is a placeholder.
It can be positive, it can be negative, it can be 0.
With it just represented as A, it has no sign and thus has no direction.
In the case of your scenario, where say Henry, on boat X is pulling with a force of -350 N, A=-350 N.
A does not need to be a positive number.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
That's right.
But now X isn't applying a force of A, it is applying a force of -E (which you wish to call -A, but I will not allow anymore due to the confusion you are trying to make).
-E and B are opposing reaction forces as required by Newton's third law.
See how you are desperately trying to surreptitiously dodge the fact that your analysis is a piece of crap?
Again, you are the one dodging here.
I have repeatedly defended my argument and refuted yours.
So far all you have done is baselessly asserted that impossible situations are possible, outright lied about things (or made an extremely dishonest representation), and have just repeated the same refuted crap.
You are unable to answer simple yes or no questions as they would expose the contradictions in your analysis.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
Unlike you, I can, just not at the same time/with the same analysis.
With one way, X is pulling with a force of A.
With the other, X is pulling with a force of -E (which you wish to call -A).
In the first case, A=-B, as the opposing reaction forces are A and B.
In the second case, -E=-B, as the opposing reaction forces are -E and B.
Stop trying to treat the 2 different "A"s as if they are the same.
To further this point, stop calling the second one A, instead, call it E.
So with this situation, X is not pulling with -A, X is pulling with a force of -E.
Do you think you can do that, or will that make it to hard for you to come up with lies to spout to try and defend your claims or refute mine?
Yours lead to a magnificient contradiction.
No. Mine does not lead to a contradiction, not in the slightest. The only thing it contradicts is your blatant lies, such as your lies claiming that 2 entities can pull on the rope with forces that are not equal and opposite, and your blatant lies about the analysis where you pretend A is the same -A (or with the new labelling, where you pretend A=E).
BUT NOW A = B.
No. Now E=B, where A=-E.
The A you have in that equation is not the same as the one in A=-B.
Again, to avoid further confusion/lies, call it E from now on. (and after this post I will make no more clarifications regarding that substitution to you and may start editing the posts to show it correctly, especially when you are quoting me).
My equations work just fine.
No. They don't.
You have X applying a force of -E (to avoid any further confusion or your pathetic lies about the analysis, I am no longer using A when the force X applies is deemed to be a negative pro-numeral such as -E) to the rope, and the rope magically recieving a force of -E-B.
How can the rope receive a force of -E-B from X is X is only applying a force of -E?
It requires -E=-E-B.
You also have a complete violation of Newton's third law in a similar manner.
You have the X applying a force of -E to the rope, but the rope applies a force of E+B.
By Newton's third law, these forces must be equal and opposite.
Thus -(-E)=E+B or E=E+B or B=0.
The only way to avoid a contradiction with your analysis is if both E and B are 0.
The other option which will solve these problems is to instead have X applying a force of -E-B to the rope, but the situation demands it applies a force of -E.
So no matter what, as long as A or B is non-zero, you have a contradiction, something you are yet to address.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
But it can't.
X can only be acted upon by a single force, E.
Newton's third law dictates this.
You must have equal and opposite forces existing between any 2 entities.
So if X applies a force of -E to the rope, the rope MUST apply a force of EXACTLY E. Anything else is a direct violation of Newton's third law.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
Again, this is impossible.
X is the only thing acting on the rope, and by the very description of the situation (which you like to call a hypothesis for some reason), X is applying a force of -E to the rope, not -E-B.
As such, the forces acting on the left side of the rope will be -E, not -E-B.
The only way for it to be -E-B is if X is pulling with a force of -E-B, directly violating the description of the situation.
All forces balance out perfectly.
No. The don't.
The only way for them to balance out perfectly is if they are 0, or if X is actually pulling with a force of -E-B, directly contradicting the situation.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Yes, because you are counting them twice.
Just realise that E=B (By Newton's third law, for this situation which has a massless rope which thus can't have a net force applied to it)
That means you have X pulling with a force of -B, yet magically the rope is receiving a force from X of -B-B.
Similarly, the rope is magically exerting a force of B+B on X.
You are literally counting the forces twice.
That is why your analysis includes twice the forces.
Alternatively, you can consider it as only counting half the force X is applying to the rope in the original description of the situation.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
And it doesn't matter which is which.
There is no distinction between an action and a reaction force.
You pulling on the rope because you are pulling on it is no different to you pulling on the rope because someone else is pulling on it.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what you are missing.
No, it isn't.
I fully accept that.
The reaction force from boat X on the rope is -B. This is the force B is pulling on the rope with. This is the force -E.
That is what you are missing. This is the same force. It is not 2 separate forces acting independently.
You and your relatives, neighbours, countrymen, will ALWAYS pull WITH DIFFERENT FORCES.
No. Not when pulling a massless string. In that case we will always pull with the exact same magnitude force.
The easiest way to show this is to remove the string entirely and just have them pull on each other.
In this case they are pulling each other with an equal and opposite force as required by Newton's third law.
It is only when you go to real situations, where the rope has mass, which can allow it to have a net force on it and allow the tension to vary along it that you can start to pull with different forces.
I gave you the analysis for that as well (or something similar to it), and you just ignored it. Why was that? Did you not like how it showed you to be completely wrong?
Here it is again (again, with new letters to avoid any possible confusion):
2 boats, X and Y, masses mX and mY respectively, with X on the left (negative position) and Y on the right (positive position).
String of mass mS, with all the mass in the centre of the string for ease of analysis.
All on top of a frictionless lake (so superfluid helium-3? I recommend bring a coat It's a bit chilly, around 2 degrees if I recall correctly.)
X is pulling the rope with a force of -G (see, I'm even being nice and trying to help you understand by having this one be negative).
Y is pulling the rope with a force of H.
The rope is pulling back on X with a force of G, Thus X will be accelerated at a rate of G/mX.
The rope is pulling back on Y with a force of -H. Thus Y will be accelerated at a rate of -H/mY.
The net force on the string is H-G. Thus the string will be accelerated at a rate of (H-G)/mS.
No problem at all.
Notice how now we don't reach the conclusion that G=H?
That is because now the string can be accelerated.
We can also note the tension in the string.
On the left side, it will be |G|. On the right side, it will be |H|.
In reality, the tension in the string will vary along it's length, starting out at |G| on the left and finishing as |H| on the right.
My analysis takes this wonderful fact into account, forces A and B are never the same.
Except for the exact situation you are trying to use this analogy to solve, where the force from gravity will be exactly the same and the string will have no mass at all.
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
I am sorry jack, the above law is another piece of crap.
No, it isn't. That is just another of your baseless claims.
I can bring here any number of experiments, Lamoreaux, DePalma, Biefeld-Brown, Allais WHICH DEFY THIS "LAW".
Except none actually defy this law.
At best, they show there is some other law at work as well.
For example, the Casmir Effect (by Lamoreaux) has nothing at all to do with gravity.
The Casmir effect is a result of virtual particles due to quantum fluctuations, where 2 plates will restrict the various particles which can exist between the plates, resulting in a force pushing the plates together.
(that's right, something can come from nothing, but if you put something there among the nothing, you reduce what can come from nothing).
It is based upon AREA, not mass like gravity is.
If Gravity was based upon area, then if you took 2 almost identical objects, where one was made of aluminium and the other made of steel, the aluminium one would fall much faster than steel one. It would accelerate at roughly 3 times the rate, as they have the same force acting on them (due to the same area), but a different mass.
But lets not get into this now. I don't want to change the topic. Perhaps once we have dealt with your blatant lies about the laws of motion we can move on to that.
Newton dismissed this law as pure insanity.
No, he dismissed action at a distance with no medium or intermediary as insanity.
We have space itself taking up that role.
And you still cannot have A = B exactly.
It won't happen in the real world.
Like I told you before, go get a spring scale (or 2), get a helper (or 2) put the spring scale (or both in series) between you and one of your helpers, and have you both pull, until you are at a steady state.
See what the force on each scale reads.
Now switch the scales (or people) and try again.
Also note the error of the scales.
It will be the same within error.
In all cases it will be.
A single scale reflects this best.
Or eve better, just go take a basic mechanics class.
You have X pulling on the rope with a force of A, but applying a force of A-B to the rope.
Does A=A-B? Only when B is 0.
You are acting delusional jack.
I never said any such thing.
No, you did. You said X is applying a force of A, which now is -E.
But you said the force on the left side of the rope (which is the force coming from X) is A-B which is now -E-B.
So you have X pulling the rope with a force of A, but magically applying a force of A-B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
And look, you said it again.
The only place these can come from is boat X.
This means X must be applying a force of -E-B to the rope.
But X is just pulling with a force of -E.
rabinoz, you are dreaming.
We are talking here about AN INVERTED CATENARY.
No. WE are not.
YOU are the only one making such insane claims.
But like I said, deal with your ignorance on the force between the ropes before changing topic.
Newton's third law:
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
That is a somewhat poor understanding of it as shown by your blatant misuse.
This reaction force is not necessarily a separate force.
For example, if you have X pulling the rope, there can't be another force from X on the rope. The force X is pulling on the rope with is the X side of the action/reaction pair.
Here is an actual quote from Newton:
Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
I think the latter part says it best:
The mutation actions of 2 bodies upon each other are always equal but in opposite direction.
That means if X is applying a force of -E to the rope, and the rope is applying a force of B to X, then these forces must be equal but in opposite directions, i.e. -E=-B.
It is not saying you magically add additional forces.
Perhaps this is an even better quote based upon what we are discussing now:
If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.
i.e if you get a rope attached to another object (which can be another person) that object will pull you back equal to what you are pulling it.
i.e. A=-B=-E.
So yes, what you are saying goes directly against Newton's third law.
The single counterexample needs to be physically possible.
Your friend rabinoz, HAS JUST PROVIDED THE PERFECT PHYSICAL SETTING WHERE NOW WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES ACTING ON EACH END OF THE ROPE.
No. He didn't.
He provided a case where you or the fish can apply such a great force that you snap the rope.
It is made such that if you or the marlin tries to pull with a force greater than that specified by the setting of the reel, the reel will unwind itself, relaxing that force, in the ideal case, instantly, such that you can never apply a force greater than that.
So no, he has provided a case where the 2 forces are equal, and that they are limited.
Does 200 = 350?
Certainly not.
That's right. Thus your situation is physically impossible as it violate's Newtons' third law of motion.
-
The problem is that the men are both pulling on the same rope, therefore the rope has one foce (tension) on it. There's no getting past this.
Let's see what happens when you have it your way.
You do that, but make sure it is my way!
Here is jack's original analysis:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
If there was no rope and the two were simply pulling on each other A and B would be the reaction forces.
If a man pulls on a wall with force A, the reaction force applied by the wall is equal in magnitude to A, but opposite in direction.
Putting a rope in between makes no difference. A rope simply transmits force.
jack specifically stated:
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
BUT NOW, A = B.
NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
jack's analysis is a piece of crap.
Using ONLY ONE FORCE, we reach a direct contradiction.
No contradiction. The equal tensions at each end of the rope are the reaction forces.
Therefore this kind of analysis is a piece of thrash.
You need to include BOTH FORCES acting on each end of the rope to obtain a correct result.
No! If you have both forces at each end, you have both pulling with the sum of the forces.
This is contrary to the original hypothesis which stated that the "weak man" can only pull 200 N an the "strong man" only pull 350 N.
You have them each pulling 550 N.
So, try again.
-
jack, you are really desperate.
Do you really think that your alphabet soup kind of analysis holds with your readers?
The second option, which is what you are trying to change it in to:
Not me. Your own RE friends requested that all of the forces be properly labeled.
X is pulling with a force of -E, Y is pulling with a force of B.
Thus the net force ont he rope is -E+B.
Thus E=B.
By your own hypothesis, E must be equal to -B.
By your own analysis, we get E = B.
A total contradiction.
But E is not a direct replacement of A. Instead, you go from the force X applies being A, to the force X applies being -E.
This means that E=-A.
So subbing that in gives us -A=B, which is the same as saying A=-B.
See how you are trying to manipulate the intelligence of your readers?
IF A = -B, THEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS, SINCE E = -A, WE WILL GET: -E = -B, SO THAT E NOW EQUALS B, CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN HYPOTHESIS, WHERE YOU REQUIRE THAT -E = B.
With one way, X is pulling with a force of A.
With the other, X is pulling with a force of -E (which you wish to call -A).
In the first case, A=-B, as the opposing reaction forces are A and B.
In the second case, -E=-B, as the opposing reaction forces are -E and B.
Have you lost your mind jack?
Let us see what happens using your newly founded opposing forces -E and B.
Boat X is pulling with force -E (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, E.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -E + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -E + B = 0, so -E = -B, so E=B.
E AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
By your own hypothesis, you started with this requirement: -E = B.
Your own analysis leads to this: E = B.
A total contradiction!
Your analysis is a piece of crap jack.
-
jack, do you understand the meaning of an inverted catenary?
You have a rope being pulled by two boats, distance = 500 meters.
On a flat earth, the rope will be straight.
On a spherical earth, the rope will become a bending line, an inverted catenary.
As simple as this.
How does that rope stay in the shape of a bending line, suspened in midair? By pure magic?
If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.
So yes, what you are saying goes directly against Newton's third law.
It does not.
Even here there will be two forces acting on each end of the rope.
You had your way, where you only used one force to analyze this type of situation.
It led to a direct contradiction.
By contrast, my analysis leads to no such contradictions.
X end of the rope: horse is pulling with force -A, force A reacting on the horse, the stone is exerting through the rope a force B on the horse.
Forces acting on the rope at the X end: -A and -B (reaction forces)
Y end of the rope: -B, while the horse is pulling with force -A
Forces acting on the rope at the Y end: A and B
As simple as this.
By the way, this last example constitutes ANOTHER situation where different forces will be applied at end of the rope and where your piece of crap analysis leads to a direct contradiction, while my analysis works beautifully.
-
Do you really think that your alphabet soup kind of analysis holds with your readers?
I know that it may be confusing, but it is far less confusing than your dishonest ones where you are just using the same letters again and again.
If from the start you said the force X is applying needs to be negative so it is -E, instead of just pretending it is -A, you would then reach a conclusion of E=B, and thus not have the most recent mountain of crap you have been going on about.
It would be easily pointed out that -E=A, thus if E=B, -A=B.
Do you really think your dishonest tactics of pretending 2 different "A"s are the same will work?
The second option, which is what you are trying to change it in to:
Not me. Your own RE friends requested that all of the forces be properly labeled.
No. You. I am fine with it being A, as are all the other rational people here.
The issue was never it being A and B.
The issue was you having both A and B be positive.
If you have A be negative (e.g. -350 N) and B be positive (e.g. 350 N) there is no issue.
X is pulling with a force of -E, Y is pulling with a force of B.
Thus the net force ont he rope is -E+B.
Thus E=B.
By your own hypothesis, E must be equal to -B.
No. By Newton's third law and my analysis, A=-B, and E=B.
Never have I ever indicated that E=-B. It was A that equals -B.
This is because you have X pulling with a force of A, vs X pulling with a force of -E.
A and E are not the same. Instead A=-E.
See, this is why I am demanding you use -E instead of -A, so you can no longer pull this dishonest bullshit and pretend A=E, when it is actually A=-E.
By your own analysis, we get E = B.
A total contradiction.
No contradiction.
On one hand you have A=-B
On the other you have E=B, which is the same as -E=-B.
We note that -E=A and sub that in, then the second becomes A=-B.
No contradiction at all.
Just your pathetic lies.
But E is not a direct replacement of A. Instead, you go from the force X applies being A, to the force X applies being -E.
This means that E=-A.
So subbing that in gives us -A=B, which is the same as saying A=-B.
See how you are trying to manipulate the intelligence of your readers?
Nope. I'm not manipulating anything.
The original situation demanded X pulls with a force of A and Y pulls with a force of B.
In that case, A and B make an action-reaction pair and thus A=-B.
In your new situation you have X pulls with a force of -E and Y pulls with a force of B. (Note that A has been replaced by -E, i.e. A=-E).
In this case -E and B are an action-reaction pair and thus -E=-B.
You are the one trying to manipulate things.
You are changing the description of the situation and then pretending A=E, when it clearly doesn't.
IF A = -B, THEN BY YOUR OWN WORDS, SINCE E = -A, WE WILL GET: -E = -B, SO THAT E NOW EQUALS B, CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN HYPOTHESIS, WHERE YOU REQUIRE THAT -E = B.
Where have I ever required that -E=B?
It has always been -A=B, not -E.
Boat X is pulling with force -E (directed to the left).
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
E AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
That's right. Do you know why?
Because X isn't pulling with a force of E, it is pulling with a force of -E.
Do you notice the difference?
What this means is that now -E and B are an action-reaction pair. i.e. -E=-B.
By your own hypothesis, you started with this requirement: -E = B.
No. I started with the requirement that A=-B.
Subbing in the fact that -E=A, this gives you -E=-B and thus E=B.
There is no contradiction at all.
-
jack, do you understand the meaning of an inverted catenary?
Yes. It has nothing to do with reality.
Like I said, deal with your ignorance about the forces between the boat before moving on.
If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.
So yes, what you are saying goes directly against Newton's third law.
It does not.
Even here there will be two forces acting on each end of the rope.
No, there isn't.
You have the horse pulling with some force, and the stone/rope pulling back with an equal and opposite force.
By the way, this last example constitutes ANOTHER situation where different forces will be applied at end of the rope and where your piece of crap analysis leads to a direct contradiction, while my analysis works beautifully.
No, it doesn't. As per Newton's third law, the horse and stone are pulling with equal but opposite forces. There is no magic doubling of forces.
-
jack, you are truly delusional.
Do you really think that your tricks substituting various letters in your piece of crap analysis will work with me or with your readers?
Think again.
Let us now go back to your original piece of crap analysis.
The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
You told your readers specifically:
A is the action, B is the equal but opposite reaction.
You reached the following conclusion: B=-A.
You also specified:
For every action (A) there is an equal but opposite reaction (B). i.e. |A|=|B| (or more specifically, A=-B).
But your force was mislabeled.
Boat X is pulling with force -A.
Here is the correction.
Boat X is pulling with force -A (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, A.
Boat Y is pulling with force B (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -B.
The net force on the string will be: -A + B
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -A + B = 0, so -A = -B, so A=B.
A AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
And still you have the same problem as before: your analysis applies only to the case where A = B.
That is, where the forces applied at each end of the rope must be exactly the same.
Which can never be the case.
You deem yourself to be expert on Newton's third law, yet you are unable to understand the most basic facts about this law.
Your analysis leads to the case where you claim both forces applied must be the same.
In reality both forces will always differ, even if by an infinitesimal amount.
That is why you need an analysis which takes this very fact into account.
-
Now a specific example.
A large boat is pulling on a smaller boat, the rope being tied to the second, smaller boat.
Boat X (the large boat) is pulling only with 200 N (certainly it could pull with a much larger force).
Boat Y (the smaller boat) is exerting a force of 350 N on the rope.
Let us now analyze this example using both sets of equations.
Boat X is pulling with force -200 N (directed to the left).
Then the net force on boat X will be, according to jack, 200 N.
Boat Y is pulling with force 350 N (directed to the right).
The net force on boat Y will be -350 N.
The net force on the string will be: -200 + 350
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -200 + 350 = 0, so -200 = -350, so 200=350.
Does 200 = 350?
Certainly not.
Let us now apply the CORRECT set of equations.
We are applying now Newton's third law to each end of the rope.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: 200 N (the reaction force on the action force -200 N) and B = 350 N
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-200 and -350.
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -350 (the reaction force on the action force B) and -200.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B: A = 200, B = 350
Net force on boat X: A + B = 200 + 350
Net force on boat Y: -A - B = -200 - 350
Net force on the string: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350]
The string/rope will not move: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
-
Here it is again (again, with new letters to avoid any possible confusion):
2 boats, X and Y, masses mX and mY respectively, with X on the left (negative position) and Y on the right (positive position).
String of mass mS, with all the mass in the centre of the string for ease of analysis.
All on top of a frictionless lake (so superfluid helium-3? I recommend bring a coat It's a bit chilly, around 2 degrees if I recall correctly.)
X is pulling the rope with a force of -G (see, I'm even being nice and trying to help you understand by having this one be negative).
Y is pulling the rope with a force of H.
The rope is pulling back on X with a force of G, Thus X will be accelerated at a rate of G/mX.
The rope is pulling back on Y with a force of -H. Thus Y will be accelerated at a rate of -H/mY.
The net force on the string is H-G. Thus the string will be accelerated at a rate of (H-G)/mS.
Wrong example.
My equations state quite clearly that the net force on the string will be zero.
Equations do not lie.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.
Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.
Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.
Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-A and -B.
What are the forces acting boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B.
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Boat Y is pulling on the rope and thus boat X with force B.
Reaction force from boat X on the rope: -B.
This is what you are missing.
The net force on the string will be zero.
-
Moreover, we have been through this before: the "massless" rope approximation.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Do you understand these basic things?
The rope can be stretchy/springy.
This is as yet an unaccounted for problem in modern physics.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
This is what you put before your readers jack.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.
That is: |A|=|B|
Do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
|A|=|B|
No exceptions.
No other possibilities.
ONLY ONE CASE IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UNDER JACK'S PIECE OF THRASH ANALYSIS: |A|=|B|.
But, in reality that could never be the case.
Again, do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
Even if boat X was pulling with a force 100.000,000,000,000,021 N and boat Y was pulling with a force of 100.000,000,000,000,334 N, the requirements of jack's piece of garbage analysis COULD NEVER BE FULFILLED.
In each and every instant/situation where two people pull on a rope, two on a lake, the FORCES APPLIED WILL BE DIFFERENT.
This means the RE analysis, the piece of thrash posted by jack, IS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY REAL LIFE SITUATION.
-
Do you really think that your tricks substituting various letters in your piece of crap analysis will work with me or with your readers?
You, I highly doubt it. You seem to be too fixed on ignoring reality. But for other people, it does show your dishonesty far more clearly.
With making the force A and -E instead of A and -A, it is much clearer that the 2 are different, and means your analysis of my arguments doesn't work at all, so now you are reduced to blatantly lying about them.
You reached the following conclusion: B=-A.
Yes, I know that. So far you have been unable to refute it.
You also specified:
For every action (A) there is an equal but opposite reaction (B). i.e. |A|=|B| (or more specifically, A=-B).
Yes, I know that. That is Newton's third law.
But your force was mislabeled.
No it wasn't.
One is a positive force one is a negative force.
If you think they are mislabelled, feel free to explain why rather than continually assert that they are.
Remember, A and B can be positive or negative (but you must have one of each).
For example, you can have A being -350 N and B being 350 N. Or you can have it the other way around (now with boat X on the right for it to be pulling), and thus A is 350 N and B is -350 N.
So if A is -350 N and thus is a force directed to the left, how is it mislabelled?
Here is the correction.
No, here is the blatant lie about it, where you mix up boat X pulling with a force of A and -E.
Boat X is pulling with force -E.
Boat Y is pulling with force B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, then -E + B = 0, so -E = -B, so E=B.
E AND B ARE NO LONGER OPPOSING REACTION FORCES.
Again, that is correct.
This isn't surprising at all.
As you have boat X pulling with a force of -E and boat Y pulling with a force of B, the action-reaction pair will be the forces -E and B. They will not be E and B.
What this means is that -E=-B, thus E=B.
And still you have the same problem as before: your analysis applies only to the case where E = B.
Yes, I have the same "problem" as before, where my analysis only works for the physically possible cases, where the forces obey Newton's third law. It wont work for the impossible cases where the massless rope gets a net force applied to it and accelerates to infinity and beyond.
In reality both forces will always differ, even if by an infinitesimal amount.
Not for the situation we are describing.
They will differ for the case of a rope with mass which has the tension vary across it.
This is not the situation we are describing. But I have provided that analysis.
Now a specific example.
A large boat is pulling on a smaller boat, the rope being tied to the second, smaller boat.
Boat X (the large boat) is pulling only with 200 N (certainly it could pull with a much larger force).
Boat Y (the smaller boat) is exerting a force of 350 N on the rope.
And yet again it is an impossible situation where the forces violate Newton's third law.
Does 200 = 350?
Certainly not.
That's right, it doesn't. This indicates the situation is physically impossible.
Let us now apply the CORRECT set of equations.
You mean your blatantly incorrect one?
We are applying now Newton's third law to each end of the rope.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: 200 N (the reaction force on the action force -200 N) and B = 350 N
And there you go throwing Netwon's third law out the window.
By Newton's third law, the force X is applying (-200 N) must be equal and opposite the force the rope is applying (350 N + 200 N).
i.e. 250=550.
Is that possible?
Certainly not.
As such, your analysis results in a direct violation of Newton's third law of motion.
-200 and -350.
But the only place this can come from is boat X.
Boat X is applying a force of -200 N to the rope.
Thus your analysis requires -200 N (the force X is applying to the rope)is equal to-200 N -350 N (the force the rope is receiving from X).
i.e. -200=-550.
Is that possible?
Certainly not.
As such, your situation is entirely impossible.
Equations don't lie, and they show your situation to be impossible.
Unlike my analysis which just requires the situation to be physically possible and have A=-B (or E=B), your analysis requires they are both 0.
Here it is again (again, with new letters to avoid any possible confusion):
2 boats, X and Y, masses mX and mY respectively, with X on the left (negative position) and Y on the right (positive position).
String of mass mS, with all the mass in the centre of the string for ease of analysis.
All on top of a frictionless lake (so superfluid helium-3? I recommend bring a coat It's a bit chilly, around 2 degrees if I recall correctly.)
X is pulling the rope with a force of -G (see, I'm even being nice and trying to help you understand by having this one be negative).
Y is pulling the rope with a force of H.
The rope is pulling back on X with a force of G, Thus X will be accelerated at a rate of G/mX.
The rope is pulling back on Y with a force of -H. Thus Y will be accelerated at a rate of -H/mY.
The net force on the string is H-G. Thus the string will be accelerated at a rate of (H-G)/mS.
Wrong example.
My equations state quite clearly that the net force on the string will be zero.
Yes, your equations do state that, and guess what? They are wrong.
The only way for the net force on the string to be 0 is if the 2 boats are pulling it with equal but opposite force.
If they are not, then there will be a net force on the string and the string will be accelerated.
You can't have it both ways.
In a real situation the forces will differ at each end and thus there will be a net force on the rope.
Equations do not lie.
But you do, and you have done so repeatedly.
Here is how the balance of forces are to be properly applied.
You mean where you leave out the mass of the string, and just assert that there will always be a net force of 0?
What you are claiming is that if you get 1000 ships pulling a boat in one direction, and a single ship pulling it in the other, that boat wont move, regardless of what force is applied by the ships.
Do you really want to go down that path?
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
Again, that is because you are counting them twice.
For example, while X pulls on the rope with a force of A=-E=-B, you have the rope magically receive a force of 2A (or -2B or -2E) and boat X receive a force of -2A (or 2B or 2E) from the rope.
It isn't that surprising that if you count the forces twice, you end up with twice the force.
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Yes, and that isn't a magic extra force.
Moreover, we have been through this before: the "massless" rope approximation.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
That's right, and that is why I provided my analysis where the rope has a mass and thus can have a net force be applied to it, but you just rejected that.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Yes, and thus it is assumed that the difference in magnitude of the forces is negligible and using the massless approximation where the forces are equal in magnitude wont cause too big of an error.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
The correct analysis only works out fine when A=-B=-E. Anything else results in a physical impossibility for a massless rope.
The force applied at each end is the tension in the rope.
For a massless rope, it cannot change throughout the length of the rope.
For a real rope, with mass, in a real situation, the tension will vary, so if you had one end pulling with a force of -350 N and the other pulling with a force of 250 N, the rope will have a tension of 350 N at one end and 250 N at the other end. Only the lower force of 250 N will be transmitted through the rope. The rest, the remaining 100 N, will be a net force on the rope causing the rope to accelerate.
Do you fully understand the meaning of an equal sign?
Yes. Do you fully understand the meaning of the massless rope approximation and how it varies from reality?
ONLY ONE CASE IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UNDER JACK'S PIECE OF THRASH ANALYSIS: |A|=|B|.
Yes, one case, which is physically possible, with a massless rope. Try getting that.
Instead you just repeatedly appeal to physically impossible situations that do nothing to disprove my analysis.
Even if boat X was pulling with a force 100.000,000,000,000,021 N and boat Y was pulling with a force of 100.000,000,000,000,334 N, the requirements of jack's piece of garbage analysis COULD NEVER BE FULFILLED.
And that couldn't happen in reality with a massless rope.
Only in reality, where the rope has a mass, the tension varies accross it and it is experiencing a net force of 0.000000000000313 causing it to be accelerated.
If the rope was massless, then it would need to accelerate at an infinite rate.
In each and every instant/situation where two people pull on a rope, two on a lake, the FORCES APPLIED WILL BE DIFFERENT.
And the rope wont be massless and thus a net force will apply to it, and thus the massless rope approximation wont work, and thus you wont end up with A=-B and no net force on the rope.
Instead you get a net force on the rope of A+B.
-
jack, slow down.
You are demanding of your readers to believe in the impossible.
Here is what you wrote.
That's right, it doesn't. This indicates the situation is physically impossible.
You have constructed your own little universe, your own reality, where two different persons, of different strengths, are to pull with the very same forces on both ends of the rope.
But those two persons will always pull with a different force, no matter what you say.
You will pull with a different force, than say, your relatives, your neighbours, or your own countrymen.
Your analysis requires this: that the absolute value of A equal the absolute value of B.
In my simple example we have boat X pulling with 200 N, while the second boat will exert a force of 350 N.
Using your analysis we reach the point where 200 = 350.
A contradiction.
My equations, by contrast, work just fine.
No contradiction.
Both forces are included.
And there you go throwing Netwon's third law out the window.
By Newton's third law, the force X is applying (-200 N) must be equal and opposite the force the rope is applying (350 N + 200 N).
i.e. 250=550.
Is that possible?
Certainly not.
As such, your analysis results in a direct violation of Newton's third law of motion.
Nothing was thrown out the window jack.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: 200 N (the reaction force on the action force -200 N) and B = 350 N
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-200 and -350.
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -350 (the reaction force on the action force B) and -200.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B: A = 200, B = 350
Net force on boat X: A + B = 200 + 350
Net force on boat Y: -A - B = -200 - 350
Net force on the string: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350]
The string/rope will not move: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
These equations do not lie jack.
The net force on the string will be zero, as required.
But the only place this can come from is boat X.
Boat X is applying a force of -200 N to the rope.
Thus your analysis requires -200 N (the force X is applying to the rope)is equal to-200 N -350 N (the force the rope is receiving from X).
i.e. -200=-550.
Is that possible?
Certainly not.
As such, your situation is entirely impossible.
No such thing happened.
Please read carefully, if you can.
What are the forces acting on boat X?
To the left we will have a negative direction.
Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: 200 N (the reaction force on the action force -200 N) and B = 350 N
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-200 and -350.
What are the forces acting on boat Y?
To the right we will have the positive direction.
Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -350 (the reaction force on the action force B) and -200.
What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?
A and B: A = 200, B = 350
Each and every force is being taken into account, using Newton's third law.
By hypothesis, the forces applied by the two boats will differ in magnitude, the very case your own analysis cannot handle.
The net force on the string will be zero, as required.
HAD THERE BEEN ANY CONTRADICTIONS, THE FINAL NET FORCE ON THE ROPE EQUATION WOULD HAVE REFLECTED ANY POSSIBLE INCONSISTENCIES.
If they are not, then there will be a net force on the string and the string will be accelerated.
Guess what?
My equations have different forces applied at each end, and the net force on the string will be zero.
Net force on boat X: A + B = 200 + 350
Net force on boat Y: -A - B = -200 - 350
Net force on the string: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350]
The string/rope will not move: [-200 - 350] + [200 + 350] = 0
You have to apply Newton's third law AT BOTH ENDS OF THE ROPE.
This is what you are missing.
You tried the BS with the massless rope before it did not work out, it won't work now either.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Do you understand these basic things?
The rope can be stretchy/springy.
This is as yet an unaccounted for problem in modern physics.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
Here is how nicely my equations account for all of these forces:
Net force on boat X: A + B
Net force on boat Y: -A - B
Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]
The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0
All forces balance out perfectly.
But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.
By contrast, you are requiring that |A|=|B|.
In the real world, the two persons will apply different forces on each end of the rope.
-
You are demanding of your readers to believe in the impossible.
No. That would be you.
You are demanding everyone believe that 2 different (in magnitude) forces can act on the ends of a massless rope.
That is physically impossible.
You have constructed your own little universe, your own reality, where two different persons, of different strengths, are to pull with the very same forces on both ends of the rope.
Again, a massless rope requires it, just as if they were puling directly on each other.
But those two persons will always pull with a different force, no matter what you say.
Only when the rope has a mass.
In my simple example we have boat X pulling with 200 N, while the second boat will exert a force of 350 N.
Yes, your simple, physically impossible example. The only way for that to work is if the rope has a mass and thus has a net force of 150 N.
Using your analysis we reach the point where 200 = 350.
A contradiction.
And using yours we get 200=550.
A contradiction.
I claim this situation is impossible, so it isn't a problem for me.
You claim it is possible, so it is a problem for you.
My equations, by contrast, work just fine.
No. They don't.
The reach a claim that 200=550.
A contradiction.
And there you go throwing Netwon's third law out the window.
By Newton's third law, the force X is applying (-200 N) must be equal and opposite the force the rope is applying (350 N + 200 N).
i.e. 250=550.
Is that possible?
Certainly not.
As such, your analysis results in a direct violation of Newton's third law of motion.
Nothing was thrown out the window jack.
Yes it was.
You have the rope and boat X, 2 entities, which according to Newton's third law of motion have an action-reaction pair existing between them.
For this to hold the force applied by one must be equal and opposite the force applied by the other.
In your case, the force applied by one is -200 N. The force applied by the other is 550 N.
Thus you need 200 N to equal 550 N. If it doesn't, you have violated Newton's third law.
What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?
-200 and -350.
Yes, and that is another contradiction.
You have X applying a force of -200 N to the rope, yet the rope magically receives a force of -550 N.
Does -200=-550? No. So yet again, a contradiction.
Your analysis is full of them.
These equations do not lie jack.
That is right. These equations do not lie.
Your analysis requires 200=550.
It does not. Thus your analysis is wrong.
But the only place this can come from is boat X.
Boat X is applying a force of -200 N to the rope.
Thus your analysis requires -200 N (the force X is applying to the rope)is equal to-200 N -350 N (the force the rope is receiving from X).
i.e. -200=-550.
Is that possible?
Certainly not.
As such, your situation is entirely impossible.
No such thing happened.
But it did. You have X applying a force of -200 N, but the rope is receiving a force of -550 N.
The only way out is to admit your analysis is wrong, either the force on the rope from X is -200 N, and thus there is a net force on the rope, or X is actually pulling on the rope with a force of -550 N.
Repeating the same refuted bullshit again and again won't make it right.
You need to tell us how X can apply a force of -550 N to a rope, when it is only applying (pulling on it) with a force of -200 N.
You need to tell us how 200=550.
Each and every force is being taken into account, using Newton's third law.
And you throw in some magic forces as well.
By hypothesis, the forces applied by the two boats will differ in magnitude, the very case your own analysis cannot handle.
Yes, as my analysis is a massless rope approximation, which is only valid when the forces are so close the difference can be neglected and the mass of the rope can be neglected.
If you have a massless rope, the tension MUST remain constant throughout and thus the forces on each end MUST be equal, i.e. A=-B.
So it isn't surprising that my massless rope approximation has all the requirements for the massless rope approximation.
Meanwhile, your analysis only works when the 2 forces are 0.
HAD THERE BEEN ANY CONTRADICTIONS, THE FINAL NET FORCE ON THE ROPE EQUATION WOULD HAVE REFLECTED ANY POSSIBLE INCONSISTENCIES.
And the correct analysis does give that. You have a force of A+B.
If A is -200 N and B is 350 N, then the final net force on the rope will be 150 N.
You can add all sorts of bullshit to it without getting any inconsistencies in the net force on the rope.
You can also add them in to change it so you do get net forces on the rope.
For example, with your bullshit analysis, just appropriately add 100 N to every term (either as plus or minus)
Then you have this:
The net force on boat X is (200 N + 350 N + 100 N)=650 N.
The net force on boat Y is (-200 N -350 N -100 N)=-650 N.
The net force on the rope is (200 N + 350 N + 100 N)-(200 N + 350 N + 100 N)=0N.
Does that mean that analysis is correct?
No. It has a magic extra force thrown in, just like yours.
If they are not, then there will be a net force on the string and the string will be accelerated.
Guess what?
My equations have different forces applied at each end, and the net force on the string will be zero.
Yes, completely contradicting reality. If you have 2 forces acting on a rope which do not add to 0, there will be a net force on the rope. There is no way around that.
You have to apply Newton's third law AT BOTH ENDS OF THE ROPE.
This is what you are missing.
No. I'm not.
At one end (X's end), force on rope from X=A.
Force on X from Rope=B.
Thus A=-B.
Force on rope from Y=B.
Force on Y from rope=A.
Thus A=-B.
No contradiction at all.
You tried the BS with the massless rope before it did not work out, it won't work now either.
No. Now instead of using a massless rope, I am using a real rope with mass, to show the net force quite explicitly when they 2 forces are different.
The tension in a rope HAS TO vary across its length in reality, but this is overlooked in modern physics.
Which is only possible for a rope with mass, where the rope can have a net force on it.
Look at the tension in your rope?
On the left it is 550 N, on the right it is 550 N.
Does that look different? No.
Can it change at all? No.
Your analysis dictates that there will NEVER be any net force on any rope, making it completely impossible to move ropes, and it requires the tension is constant.
On the other hand, my analysis works fine (the one with the mass of the rope).
The tension on the left side is 200 N, the tension on the right side is 350 N.
The net force on the rope is 150 N.
No problem at all.
So it is assumed the mass of a rope is negligible, and using the massless approximation won't cause too big of an error.
Do you understand these basic things?
Do you?
The massless approximation requires that the difference in forces is negligible and the mass of the rope is negligible.
If the difference in forces are significant it will require the rope's mass to be considered.
This is as yet an unaccounted for problem in modern physics.
No. It is easily accounted for.
I did it a simple way.
You are the one that seems unable to account for it.
Certainly the rope HAS TO TRANSMIT BOTH FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, SINCE THE NET FORCES, IN THE CORRRECT ANALYSIS WORK OUT FINE.
Only if the tension remains constant, requiring the forces at each end to be equal, in which case my massless rope approximation (the correct one), works fine.
On the other hand, if the forces differ then the tension in the rope will vary and the rope will thus not carry both forces all the way across the rope, it will only carry the weaker of the 2. The other will be spread out across the rope to accelerate the rope.
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
For a massless rope, it must be.
Here is a better question for you:
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would the rope be massless? Certainly not.
Forces A and B can never be the same.
But they have to be equal in magnitude (or be close enough that the differences negligible) for the massless rope approximation to hold. Otherwise it produces a net force on the rope and you need to consider the acceleration of the rope.
-
rabinoz, you are dreaming.
We are talking here about AN INVERTED CATENARY.
Who is talking about "AN INVERTED CATENARY"? I never mentioned it!
The rope falls into a catenary.
Try again.
-
This means that the two people cannot pull with different forces.
On a lake, two men situated in two boats, SURE THEY CAN.
Primer for men and ropes
You are on land now. Totally different situation, where now we have to deal with friction.
You don't like it on land, well we'll put our men into boats!
We want to examine the situation with a massless rope and unequal forces applied to each end.
Now, I (we) have claimed that this is an impossible situation, but let's
hypothesise a system with unequal forces, a massless rope and a mass in the middle of the rope
and then test if the zero mass case is valid.
With mass M in the middle, the system is now quite amenable to analysis as follows:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mzvzfbirg6u8ou/Two%20men%20pulling%20rope%20%20mass%20%20boats%20AB.png?dl=1)
Now with a mass dividing the rope, the forces applied by the men can be different.
Any difference in the forces is applied to the Mass, which can accelerate.
The Strong man applies a force B to the right-hand end of the rope, so the tension all along the right hand rope is TR[/b] and
the Weak man applies a force A to the left-hand end of the rope, so the tension all along the left hand rope is TL[/b].
Hence TR = A and TL = B.
So the nett force applied to the mass is given by TR - TL so FM = B - A
Now, with a nett force applied to the mass, it must accelerate with aM = FM/M
Clearly as M is decreased, the acceleration aM increases and as M -> 0, aM -> ∞.
Hence our initial hypothesis that the forces are unequal must be invalid
and B = A note that B is not the force that strong man is capable of, but the force he is actually applying.
If the strong man tries to pull any harder, presumably he must wind in rope
and the weak man must let the rope slip through his hands, but the strong man cannot put any more tension on the rope that the weak man is capable of pulling.
But the force the weak man applies, the tension in the rope and the force the strong man actually is able to apply are all equal.
-
I always save the best for the last, as my readers know by now.
Jack, you have made a grievous error: a terrible mistake.
And this time it will prove to be fatal for your presentation, that is, for RE side.
Everything comes down to this: in the example featuring the two boats on a lake, connected by a rope, are forces A and B different, or are they the same? Can a rope transmit forces which are different in magnitude?
Certainly any two persons in the world will apply forces of a different magnitude to each end of the rope, but it seems the RE have a hard time understanding this.
But jack has offered us a way out of this quandary.
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
There is no turning back now.
Jack has just told us that IF the equation F=GMm/r^2 is correct, they THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE THE SAME.
BUT, IF THAT EQUATION TURNS OUT TO BE INCORRECT, THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE DIFFERENT.
It is as simple as this.
Everything that we have discussed here comes down to this argument.
Should there be a way to prove that F=GMm/r^2 is blatantly false, then we would have at our disposal the most direct demonstration, that the forces on both ends of the rope must be different in magnitude.
Let us remember jack's statement:
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT
Dr. Bruce DePalma, MIT and Harvard
One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:
If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?
After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.
This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.
"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:
Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.
The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.
The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....
When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.
DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....
The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/DePalma%27s--Spinning-Ball--2-grid.jpg)
Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!
An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!
Dr. Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.
The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."
The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.
The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.
With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.
A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.
The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.
More experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma, one of the America's greatest physicists of the 20th century:
A prime example of this is provided by the spinning ball experiments of Bruce DePalma.
He projected two metal balls upwards inside a vacuum container, one spinning at some 20,000 rpm and the other non-spinning, and observed any differences.
He discovered that the spinning ball moved higher and further and also fell faster than the non-spinning one.
(http://www.esotericscience.com/spinball.gif)
Back in the 70's Bruce Depalma did a series of tests involving spinning objects. In his published findings he goes on to describe that a ball spun at a high rate of speed will actually travel higher (sometimes 20% higher) and fall faster then a ball that is not spinning. Now of course the balls are identical and launched at the same trajectory. This test was also done in a vacuum to go on and prove that drag couldn't have an effect on it.
DePalma’s experiment with steel balls in 1972 showed that certain physical properties of an object are radically altered—both its mass and inertia—if it is rotated. According to DePalma, rotation produces a force field, specifically around the main axis of the rotating object, that he measured and called a torsion field or spin field. Time-lapse stroboscopic photographs revealed that the steel ball rotating at ~27,000 rpm flew higher and fell faster than the companion ball that was not rotating. DePalma had since conducted experiments on “bodies in rotation” including massive objects (e.g., over 30 lbs), spinning at very high velocities (~7600 revolutions/minute).
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT
"In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) . He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative. The project was named Project Montgolfier in honor of the two French brother inventors who performed early aircraft flights. The project continued for several years until the company changed ownership resulting in a final report which was written up in 1959.
Details of the Project Montgolfier experiments remained a closely guarded secret for many years until Jacques Cornillon courageously decided to make them public prior to his death in July 2008. Brown’s proposal, the project’s top secret final report, and an assortment of revealing diagrams and photos are posted on the Cornillon website at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/
https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf
(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.
These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.
PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER
When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FULL DETAILS/VIDEOS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363
Thomas Townsend Brown, the greatest American physicist of the 20th century:
http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/preface.html
-
marlin and the reel example
In your example, the marlin cannot break free.
Thus we have a situation entirely similar to this: a large boat is pulling on a smaller boat, the rope being tied to the second, smaller boat.
Boat X (the large boat) is pulling only with 200 N (certainly it could pull with a much larger force).
Boat Y (the smaller boat) is exerting a force of 350 N on the rope.
The tension in the line is limited to 200 N so the marlin (or boat Y) cannot apply more that 200 N tension to the line.
You seem to totally ignore the fact the fisherman or man in boat X cannot apply a tension of more than 200 N to the line, either due to the drag limiting reel of the capability of the man in boat X.
<<< same old invalid argument >>>
You really should do some elementary courses if statics.
-
No problem.
Here is a simple example, using two boats, where the forces applied on each end of the rope are 200N and respectively 350N.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1908947#msg1908947
-
I always save the best for the last, as my readers know by now.
Jack, you have made a grievious error: a terrible mistake.
And this time it will prove to be fatal for your presentation, that is, for RE side.
Everything comes down to this: in the example featuring the two boats on a lake, connected by a rope, are forces A and B different, or are they are same? Can a rope transmit forces which are different in magnitude?
Certainly any two persons in the world will apply forces of a different magnitude to each end of the rope, but it seems the RE have a hard time understanding this.
You ask "Can a rope transmit forces which are different in magnitude?" No, hence |B| = |A| and the man in boat B cannot apply all the force he is capable of.
"Certainly any two persons in the world" are capable of applying" forces of a different magnitude to each end of the rope".
That is true.
But, here the forces are constrained to be equal, not by the men's capabilities, but because one force is simply the reaction force to the other.
It's just as if a man is pulling in a rope anchored to a brick wall.
The brick wall can sustain much more force that the man can apply, but the reaction force is constrained to be exactly equal to the force the man actually applies.
There is no significant difference here.
-
rabinoz, it is too late now for your useless commentaries.
I have discovered the fatal flaw in jack's bizarre arguments.
Here is what he wrote:
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
Should this law prove to be false, then the rope must transmit TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.
It is as simple as this.
Jack has just offered us a way out of this quandary, where we argue back and forth.
Now we have a precise way to prove who is right.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1909009#msg1909009
-
No problem.
Here is a simple example, using two boats, where the forces applied on each end of the rope are 200N and respectively 350N.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1908947#msg1908947
Again, that starts with an invalid hypothesis. If the tug applies a force of 200 N, that is the force on the tow-rope and the boat being towed cannot apply a bigger force.
My 4WD (in low range) has a towing capability (at low speed, on a solid surface) of 1 tonne force (purely guessed), but my caravan only needs 200 kg force to pull it.
What is the force on the tow-bar? 200 kg force of course! NOT 1 tonne force.
Same thing, being in water does not change things.
-
No problem.
Here is a simple example, using two boats, where the forces applied on each end of the rope are 200N and respectively 350N.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1908947#msg1908947
that is not an example that is repeating your wrong assumption.
and example would be the documentation of an real experiment.
but you don't have that.
-
rabinoz, it is too late now for your useless commentaries.
I have discovered the fatal flaw in jack's bizarre arguments.
Here is what he wrote:
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
That's quite independent of the matter we are discussing!
Bye bye.
-
No independence at all.
The following comment on gravity was made by jack just the other day. Right here.
Responding to my assertion that the forces at both ends must be different.
You cannot turn back now.
Everything comes down to this: in the example featuring the two boats on a lake, connected by a rope, are forces A and B different, or are they the same? Can a rope transmit forces which are different in magnitude?
Certainly any two persons in the world will apply forces of a different magnitude to each end of the rope, but it seems the RE have a hard time understanding this.
But jack has offered us a way out of this quandary.
Quote from: JackBlack on May 10, 2017, 03:37:11 PM
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
There is no turning back now.
Jack has just told us that IF the equation F=GMm/r^2 is correct, they THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE THE SAME.
BUT, IF THAT EQUATION TURNS OUT TO BE INCORRECT, THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE DIFFERENT.
It is as simple as this.
Everything that we have discussed here comes down to this argument.
Should there be a way to prove that F=GMm/r^2 is blatantly false, then we would have at our disposal the most direct demonstration, that the forces on both ends of the rope must be different in magnitude.
Let us remember jack's statement:
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
The following two classic experiments prove that the law described above by jack is blatantly false:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1909009#msg1909009
Which means that the rope must be transmitting two forces.
-
Well, of course the rope is transmitting two forces, if force A is on one side and force B on the other. Even if the person on one side pulls at a force of 100n and the person on the other pulls at a force of 200n, forces A and B will be the same, and the rope will not move. As a result, the boats will move towards each other at the same rate.
Force A: 100n-200n
Force B: 200n-100n
l-100nl=l100nl
Whether the forces of the two people are the same or different, the rope will not move as long as they pull at the same rate, and the rope remains completely taught.
-
Sandokhan, this is bizarre. You've got all these people explaining to you why you're wrong, and what they're saying makes perfect sense. Why are you still insisting that you're right?
Are you still unable to understand how two people can apply the same force onto something? Do you agree that two people pushing each other's hands are applying the same force? What is your disagreement with Rab's example? Do you not see that you haven't convinced anyone at all?
-
Well, of course the rope is transmitting two forces, if force A is on one side and force B on the other. Even if the person on one side pulls at a force of 100n and the person on the other pulls at a force of 200n, forces A and B will be the same, and the rope will not move. As a result, the boats will move towards each other at the same rate.
Force A: 100n-200n
Force B: 200n-100n
l-100nl=l100nl
Whether the forces of the two people are the same or different, the rope will not move as long as they pull at the same rate, and the rope remains completely taught.
Exactly.
forces A and B will be the same
You mean the net forces will be the same.
Why are you still insisting that you're right?
Because your beliefs (all of the RE) will be put to the most diffficult test yet.
Quote from: JackBlack on May 10, 2017, 03:37:11 PM
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
There is no turning back now.
Jack has just told us that IF the equation F=GMm/r^2 is correct, they THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE THE SAME.
BUT, IF THAT EQUATION TURNS OUT TO BE INCORRECT, THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE DIFFERENT.
It is as simple as this.
Everything that we have discussed here comes down to this argument.
Should there be a way to prove that F=GMm/r^2 is blatantly false, then we would have at our disposal the most direct demonstration, that the forces on both ends of the rope must be different in magnitude.
Let us remember jack's statement:
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
The following two classic experiments prove that the law described above by jack is blatantly false:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1909009#msg1909009
Which means that the rope must be transmitting two forces.
-
No need for the copy pasta, we already read it, no need to repeat yourself
-
No need for the copy pasta, we already read it, no need to repeat yourself
sandy thinks that if he repeats it often enough it will be accepted.
but ignoring facts does not change facts.
like sandy ignores the facts of reality
-
Because your beliefs (all of the RE) will be put to the most diffficult test yet.
But everyone can see you're wrong except of you, nothing is challenged. Are you under the impression you can never be wrong?
-
Why are you still insisting that you're right?
Because of this.
A letter to Bentley:
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton (or the group of people who wrote the works attributed to him) considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity".
He believed it is totally incorrect.
Instead he thought the following hypothesis is the cause of terrestrial gravity.
4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
(Newton letter to Boyle, 1679)
-
Why are you still insisting that you're right?
Because of this.
A letter to Bentley:
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton (or the group of people who wrote the works attributed to him) considered the attraction concept "so great an absurdity".
He believed it is totally incorrect.
Instead he thought the following hypothesis is the cause of terrestrial gravity.
4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
(Newton letter to Boyle, 1679)
really? you base your complete believe in the shape of the world and the reality on that on sentence from Newton.
Thousand of scientists have proven that he was correct and that sentence is false.
-
You haven't done your homework on Newton.
'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion. For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says
“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”
Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.
Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.
Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.
His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."
Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:
“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”
The Cartesians immediately recognized that Newton’s gravity relied on the principle of action and reaction with the new conception that the action occurred at a distance. So for them the new gravitational force was merely the old concept of occult force and hidden qualities in a new form. While the principle of action and reaction was not vulnerable, because the Cartesian vortex relied upon the notion of a communication of motion, through action and reaction of impact. The idea of action at a distance by attraction, however, was a vulnerable idea.
If you are wondering, dear reader, what all this has to do with magnetism, the answer is as follows. Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism. Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.
Huygens dismissed the attraction idea:
”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."
Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.
-
Why are you still insisting that you're right?
Because of this.
A letter to Bentley:
1) Τhis has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is ropes and boats.
2) You've said this again many times in the past. But really, no one cares what Newton's subjective opinion on the subject was ages ago, when it's obvious scientific knowledge has advanced a LOT from then. That is, if you're not quoting out of context.
-
You haven't done your homework on Newton.
May I remind you again that the topic is
Distances in the universe
If you want a thread in gravitation and other bizarre things from Sandokhanian Physics go and make you own thread(s).
In the meantime, noting the actual topic "Distances in the universe", please answer:
What is the distance to the moon, planets, sun and closest stars on your theory?
If you have no idea, please just be honest and say so!
Now, get off this thread!
-
Thanks for that, but we're in the middle of a discussion about two boats and a rope.
And Sandy, we're talking about two people pulling on a rope, not the force of gravity on objects A and B as you are referencing.
-
we're talking about two people pulling on a rope, not the force of gravity on objects A and B as you are referencing.
Not anymore.
Your friend jack has made sure of that.
Quote from: JackBlack on May 10, 2017, 03:37:11 PM
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
There is no turning back now.
Jack has just told us that IF the equation F=GMm/r^2 is correct, they THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE THE SAME.
BUT, IF THAT EQUATION TURNS OUT TO BE INCORRECT, THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE DIFFERENT.
What should be of utmost importance to the RE is the fact that both Huygens and Leibniz rejected the concept of "attraction".
Huygens dismissed the attraction idea:
”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."
-
Well, of course the rope is transmitting two forces, if force A is on one side and force B on the other. Even if the person on one side pulls at a force of 100n and the person on the other pulls at a force of 200n, forces A and B will be the same, and the rope will not move. As a result, the boats will move towards each other at the same rate.
Force A: 100n-200n
Force B: 200n-100n
l-100nl=l100nl
Whether the forces of the two people are the same or different, the rope will not move as long as they pull at the same rate, and the rope remains completely taught.
By the laws of motion (specifically Newton's third law in this case), if you have no net force on the rope, such that it can be modelled as a massless rope, it is physically impossible for 2 people to pull on the same rope, making it taught, and have them be applying a different force.
It is effectively the same as them just pulling directly against each other, the rope is just acting as a link.
If one person pulls with a force of -100 N and the other with a force of 200 N there will be a net force of 100 N on the rope and thus it will move towards one of them more than it will move towards the other.
-
I always save the best for the last, as my readers know by now.
You mean you keep trying to come up with more and more pathetic excuses.
Jack, you have made a grievous error: a terrible mistake.
Really? You are yet to point out a single problem with what I have said.
I assume this is just another blatant lie from you to pretend you aren't completely wrong.
Everything comes down to this: in the example featuring the two boats on a lake, connected by a rope, are forces A and B different, or are they the same? Can a rope transmit forces which are different in magnitude?
And like I said, it comes down to if the rope is massless and thus has a constant tension, or it has a mass and thus the tension can vary along its length.
Then you also get issues like delay in propagation of tension across the rope.
But at steady state, a massless rope must have the same magnitude force applied at each end.
I gave you the case for a rope with mass where the tension can vary.
I am only discussing the steady state so there will be no need for the force to propagate along the rope.
Let me ask you this:
In an example featuring 2 boats on a lake, connected by 2 people, are the people pulling with equal and opposite forces?
Certainly any two persons in the world will apply forces of a different magnitude to each end of the rope, but it seems the RE have a hard time understanding this.
Jack has just told us that IF the equation F=GMm/r^2 is correct, they THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE THE SAME.
Yes, such as for any 2 masses held together by gravity.
If you notice even your BS claims about other things like the Casmir effect has the same kind of result. It is a mutual force. The 2 forces have the same origin and thus are equal and opposite in magnitude.
BUT, IF THAT EQUATION TURNS OUT TO BE INCORRECT, THE FORCES APPLIED MUST BE DIFFERENT.
No. Do you not understand logic at all?
You just committed the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Perhaps this is a simpler example for you to understand:
If it is a cat, it is a mammal.
Thus according to you, if it isn't a cat it isn't a mammal.
Does that sound right to you?
Because last time I checked there were plenty of mammals that weren't cats.
Similarly, you can have 2 forces produced by something other than gravity which are equal and opposite.
For example, electrostatics, magnetism, the Casmir effect or 2 people pulling on each other.
It is as simple as this.
Everything that we have discussed here comes down to this argument.
In that case you fail massively and may as well just give up and admit defeat now, as that argument is pure bullshit based upon a massive logical fallacy equivalent to saying dogs can't be mammals because they aren't cats.
Should there be a way to prove that F=GMm/r^2 is blatantly false, then we would have at our disposal the most direct demonstration, that the forces on both ends of the rope must be different in magnitude.
And this is not the place for that.
First deal with the forces on the rope, then we can move on to other areas you are ignorant in.
So if you wish to discuss them, first admit you were wrong about the forces in this situation and that our analysis is correct.
(Especially as I have already pointed out the pure bullshit in those claims before, or did you forget?)
No problem.
Here is a simple example, using two boats, where the forces applied on each end of the rope are 200N and respectively 350N.
And once again, you are just making up physically impossible situations.
Prove that such a situation can actually exist, making sure the massless rope approximation can hold and the system is at steady state.
Just making up numbers is not proving an example, not when you are trying to show something is possible.
Certainly any two persons in the world will apply forces of a different magnitude to each end of the rope, but it seems the RE have a hard time understanding this.
And certainly any rope in the real world will have a mass.
As such, the massless rope approximation will be just an approximation and in reality the tension will vary across the rope and there will be a net force on the rope.
The only way you will get a situation where the rope has a force of 200 N at one end and 350 N at the other is if the rope is very heavy or is experiencing some serious drag.
But jack has offered us a way out of this quandary.
That's right. I did. By using an approximation which takes into consideration the mass of the rope, allowing the tension to be different at each end and allowing a net force to act on the rope.
Problem solved.
You sure do seem to like repeating the same refuted nonsensical bullshit.
Because of this.
A letter to Bentley:
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
And of course, you emphasis the wrong part.
Here is the key part people didn't like:
one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else
They didn't like the idea of "spooky" action at a distance, where doing something here could potentially change something heaps far away with nothing to carry that change.
But we have a solution to that. Particle physics tries it with gravitons, but I prefer the simpler idea of distortion of space time. The very fabric of space time is the thing that provides the mediation between them.
The other key part that they disliked was that this action at a distance was meant to be instantaneous.
So no, they didn't find gravity absurd, they found action at a distance to be absurd.
But again, this is just getting off topic.
Stop trying to hide from your blatant mistakes concerning ropes and boats and forces and the laws of motion.
-
You haven't done your homework on Newton.
May I remind you again that the topic is
Distances in the universe
If you want a thread in gravitation and other bizarre things from Sandokhanian Physics go and make you own thread(s).
In the meantime, noting the actual topic "Distances in the universe", please answer:
What is the distance to the moon, planets, sun and closest stars on your theory?
If you have no idea, please just be honest and say so!
Now, get off this thread!
To be fair, one of the key objects seemed to be what holds it all together which can act as such great distances.
And when gravity was explained, Sandy jumped to his "double forces of I'm a moron".
So that part at least is somewhat related.
The crap on Newton isn't though and is just him trying to hide is failure.
As is the stuff on the catenary.
-
we're talking about two people pulling on a rope, not the force of gravity on objects A and B as you are referencing.
Not anymore.
Your friend jack has made sure of that.
No, you made sure of that, with just a word from Jack who mentioned gravitation!
;D Like a red rag to a bull isn't it! ;D
In the meantime, noting the actual topic "Distances in the universe", please answer:
What is the distance to the moon, planets, sun and closest stars on your theory?
If you have no idea, please just be honest and say so!
And I will take "no answer" as meaning
that you haven't a clue on the "distance to the moon, planets, sun and closest stars"
-
Yeah I don't know how we got into gravity, which has little to nothing to do with this problem...
-
Here's a thought:
I think everyone but Sandman is pretty much in agreement here. Sandman will never change so we might as well move on.
FWIW
-
jack, when you are going to learn some real physics?
But we have a solution to that. Particle physics tries it with gravitons, but I prefer the simpler idea of distortion of space time. The very fabric of space time is the thing that provides the mediation between them.
But you don't.
Because there is no such thing as the spacetime continuum.
H. Minkowski used a sponge on a blackboard, to erase Riemann's x4 variable and then replaced it by t (time).
A mathematical pipe dream.
G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.
(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Riemann_surface_log.jpg/220px-Riemann_surface_log.jpg)
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html
the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'
Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.
How was this done?
In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.
Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...
EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:
Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.
ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf
However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.
Moreover, jackblack, Einstein made a terrible blunder.
Einstein, 1905:
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”
We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.
"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.
If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."
Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:
(http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/annotations/annot1420a.gif)
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/maxwell1_zps50d1cc1a.jpg)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (more information on the set of original Maxwell equations)
http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf
(also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D)
E = vXB − ∂Α/dt +gradψ
The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.
http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."
http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.pdf
"Maxwell’s [modified] equations are a brilliant formulation of the laws of electromagnetism. However, they were derived for static systems, i.e.; where there was no motion relative to the relevant coordinate system (RCS). At the turn of the twentieth century some scientists assumed that these equations pertain also to dynamic systems, wherefrom it follows that the speed of light is constant in all inertial coordinate systems. This in turn led to the Lorentz transformation and to Einstein’s theory of relativity.
The complete set of the EM (corrected Maxwell) equations is presented in chapter 1. It is shown that the notion of the speed of light being constant in all inertial coordinate systems stems from the wrong application of Maxwell's [modified] equations to dynamic systems. It is also pointed out that due to terms restored to the corrected Maxwell equations they do not equate under the Lorentz transformation rendering it, along with the theory of relativity which is based on this transformation, invalid.
A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.
Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.
The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.
The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."
J.C. Maxwell used a dynamical model to derive his famous equations.
So there you have it jack.
You have no knowledge whatsoever of real physics, you base your entire system of beliefs on ONE QUOTE from 1905 which used the WRONG EQUATIONS to arrive at a very erroneous conclusion.
-
Similarly, you can have 2 forces produced by something other than gravity which are equal and opposite.
For example, electrostatics, magnetism, the Casmir effect or 2 people pulling on each other.
But you did not use the words: electrostatics, magnetism, the Casimir effect, now did you jack?
You specifically stated:
Quote from: JackBlack on May 10, 2017, 03:37:11 PM
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
You mentioned Newtonian gravity, NOTHING ELSE.
You made use of a single equation, F=GMm/r^2, NOTHING ELSE.
You made the direct claim that, given your belief in the correctness of this equation, THE FORCES EXERTED ON EACH BODY MUST BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
This is what you said.
You can't take it back now.
Therefore, if I can prove that your cherised equation turns out to be a piece of crap, that means the forces exerted on each end of the rope MUST BE DIFFERENT, and that the rope will transmit the two forces.
On page 20 of this thread I posted the DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, which totally defies the law of gravity as posted by you.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1909009#msg1909009
The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.
Included in that very same message, the celebrated Biefeld-Brown effect which again makes a mockery out of your equation.
These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.
PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER
When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FULL DETAILS/VIDEOS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363
Here is your statement again jack black.
Note the situation you are trying to model, the gravitational attraction between the 2 objects.
This force is given by the equation:
F=GMm/r^2.
This will be the same for each body, they must be EXACTLY the same.
Your equation, F=GMm/r^2, has just been proven to be totally false, which means that the forces on each end can be and will be different to start with.
Here is another experiment, carried out by Professor Francis Nipher, which again defies your worthless equation.
Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
New York Times (19 September 1917)
"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."
A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.
"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."
New Gravitation Theory ~
Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.
Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.
However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.
In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.
Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."
Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.
-
On second thought, we could have a copy-n-paste contest! It'd be fun!
-
boots, your signature line mentions Descartes.
Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668):
Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend.
‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.
As for the bibliographical references which rip into shreds the universal law of gravitation, let me worry about that.
-
boots, your signature line mentions Descartes.
Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668):
Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend.
‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.
As for the bibliographical references which rip into shreds the universal law of gravitation, let me worry about that.
My sig is actually a quote from Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. What do you think of that?
-
When Carroll first wrote it down he called it Alice’s Adventures Underground .
Here is an even better idea, use this for a signature line:
"When reading Newton I have to look twice at the cover, to be sure I am not reading Swift by mistake. "
-
boots, your signature line mentions Descartes.
Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668):
Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend.
‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.
As for the bibliographical references which rip into shreds the universal law of gravitation, let me worry about that.
So you are still living in 1668!
Of course Newton might query where his and Hooke's theories were leading, so what?
But, since than, gravitation has been verified so many times, by direct experimental work in the lab and in the observation of the planets.
And I do not mean simply Kepler's Laws. They are accurate only for a 2-body system.
What I mean is that astronomy "works" and while you might doubt that predictions can be made millions of years ahead, planets and stars are certainly close to their expected locations over many centuries.
But, on gravitation, Newton was not alone. A lot of the research and ideas that lead to the "Law of Universal Gravitation" was done by Robert Hooke and others.
Hooke's work and claims
Robert Hooke published his ideas about the "System of the World" in the 1660s, when he read to the Royal Society on March 21, 1666, a paper "On gravity", "concerning the inflection of a direct motion into a curve by a supervening attractive principle", and he published them again in somewhat developed form in 1674, as an addition to "An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations". Hooke announced in 1674 that he planned to "explain a System of the World differing in many particulars from any yet known", based on three "Suppositions": that "all Celestial Bodies whatsoever, have an attraction or gravitating power towards their own Centers" [and] "they do also attract all the other Celestial Bodies that are within the sphere of their activity"; that "all bodies whatsoever that are put into a direct and simple motion, will so continue to move forward in a straight line, till they are by some other effectual powers deflected and bent..."; and that "these attractive powers are so much the more powerful in operating, by how much the nearer the body wrought upon is to their own Centers". Thus Hooke clearly postulated mutual attractions between the Sun and planets, in a way that increased with nearness to the attracting body, together with a principle of linear inertia.
That is from Wikipedia, but this draft has more of Robert Hooke writings Hooke Gravitation. (http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hsci161/Sci._Rev._Reader/03-P8_Hooke_Gravitation.pdf)
Newton was rather ambitious and was keen keep to get plenty of the credit, though he did say: Newton's work and claims
Newton, faced in May 1686 with Hooke's claim on the inverse square law, denied that Hooke was to be credited as author of the idea. Among the reasons, Newton recalled that the idea had been discussed with Sir Christopher Wren previous to Hooke's 1679 letter. Newton also pointed out and acknowledged prior work of others, including Bullialdus, (who suggested, but without demonstration, that there was an attractive force from the Sun in the inverse square proportion to the distance), and Borelli (who suggested, also without demonstration, that there was a centrifugal tendency in counterbalance with a gravitational attraction towards the Sun so as to make the planets move in ellipses). D T Whiteside has described the contribution to Newton's thinking that came from Borelli's book, a copy of which was in Newton's library at his death.
Newton further defended his work by saying that had he first heard of the inverse square proportion from Hooke, he would still have some rights to it in view of his demonstrations of its accuracy. Hooke, without evidence in favor of the supposition, could only guess that the inverse square law was approximately valid at great distances from the center. According to Newton, while the 'Principia' was still at pre-publication stage, there were so many a-priori reasons to doubt the accuracy of the inverse-square law (especially close to an attracting sphere) that "without my (Newton's) Demonstrations, to which Mr Hooke is yet a stranger, it cannot believed by a judicious Philosopher to be any where accurate."
Newton certainly did not work in a vacuum and he wrote to Hooke in 1676 "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton. Whether Hooke received it is another matter.
But believe in your own reality if you wish.
The trouble is that you do not seem to have a model of your universe that fits observations without the most outlandish assumptions with no experimental evidence to back it up.
Yet it was Isaac Newton that wrote: I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676)
Yet almost all of your "Advanced Flat Earth Theory" seems to hypotheses.
A tiny point is the distances to and the motions of the moon, planets, sun and closer stars!
You seem to have not the slightest idea of these, yet they things that we see with our eyes day and night!
-
Yeah I don't know how we got into gravity, which has little to nothing to do with this problem...
It was more the other way around.
The OP asked about distances in the universe and how the objects are held together by forces acting over such a great distance.
This involves gravity, which resulting in Sandy bring up his delusional nonsense about gravity.
The part that was chosen to discuss was his alleged double forces of gravity paradox, which he uses the boats on an ocean pulling on ropes to model, claiming that there will be 2 times the force.
-
jack, when you are going to learn some real physics?
Many years ago, when I started learning real physics.
When will you? So far all you have spouted is delusional nonsense which anyone who knows what you are talking about and has a basic understanding could easily refute.
Because there is no such thing as the spacetime continuum.
And that is just another baseless claim of yours, where it once again seems to be based upon denying the antecedent.
But this is not the place for it. If you want to change subject, first admit your mistakes with the boats and ropes.
So there you have it jack.
Yep, there I have it, you have nothing rational and honest to say on the topic at hand, and instead need to continually try to change the subject to run away from your failures.
But you did not use the words: electrostatics, magnetism, the Casimir effect, now did you jack?
No. I didn't. I am using these to show other situations which also work to produce equal forces, showing you the error of your ways.
This is what you said.
You can't take it back now.
I know what I said. I'm not trying to take it back.
I'm just pointing out that your claim about it is pure bullshit and based upon a logical fallacy akin to suggesting dogs can't be animals because they aren't cats.
Do you notice the insanity of that line of reasoning (claiming dogs can't be animals because they aren't cats)?
Because that is effectively what you are doing.
Therefore, if I can prove that your cherised equation turns out to be a piece of crap, that means the forces exerted on each end of the rope MUST BE DIFFERENT, and that the rope will transmit the two forces.
Only if you can prove that because a dog isn't a cat, it can't be an animal.
That is what that line of reasoning is.
It is a completely irrational and illogical argument of the form:
If A then B.
Not A.
Therefore not B.
It is pure bullshit.
There can be plenty of times when B is the case when A is not.
As such even if gravity is completely fictional, it doesn't mean the forces must be different.
Do you understand that?
Or are you so insane you think dogs can't be animals because they aren't cats?
On page 20 of this thread I posted the DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, which totally defies the law of gravity as posted by you.
I don't give a shit. Like I said, stop trying to change topic to escape your pathetic failures.
Especially when you are trying to change it to a topic where you are already were a complete failure.
I have refuted that bullshit before.
If you wish to change the subject, you need to admit you were wrong about the forces and the ropes.
Now then, do you have anything rational and honest to say about the subject at hand?
Perhaps an admission that you were completely wrong, and that my analysis works fine for the massless rope approximation where the rope has no net force, the tension is constant throughout and the force on each end is equal and opposite, while your analysis, being full of contradictions, only works when no force is applied?
-
Sandokhan we extensively debunked the depalma spinning ball experiment, memba?
It's caused by the rotation of the ball causing less resistance as it moves through the atmosphere.
It doesn't defy physics, it's similar to why a spinning bullet travels much further than an old style musket.
Come on man.
-
So... can we consider this thread to be over?
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
Just wait until Sandy sees these posts.
-
I kind of gave up after gravity became mentioned, because I thought we were just discussing the forces transmitted on the rope from both boats. Great job guys... or maybe I misspoke...
DEFEATERS OF SANDOKHAN!