The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: DataOverFlow2022 on November 08, 2022, 09:10:34 AM
-
(https://i.imgur.com/IMmKQ1s.jpg)
After being assured density can do work with no applied force, here’s a story problem challenge..
Say a 2X4 wood stud will break under 40N applied to its mid length.
Mathematically with a detailed account, please show how density with no force applied breaks the 2x4. As in a sledge hammer head dropped on the 2x4 in a no gravity flat earth model. Say a sledge hammer head of 7.86 g/cm3?
Thank you
-
Or substitute a pumpkin for the 2x4 if you like?
(https://i.imgur.com/xSD1UJ0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7MMmSWs.mp4)
-
Force = Mass × Acceleration.
Density does effect its penetrating power. That's why bullets are made out of lead, or depleted uranium, I guess.
Edit.
It's a good song.
I cannot stress how much I miss the far left that used to call people corporate whores, goodness I miss them. Where did they all go?
-
Anyway I've spoken to scepti about this, who is genuinely special. If I can speak for him things still fall because of boyuoncy and density. Like how objects rise and fall in liquid.
Using sceptis model I could easily show how the sledgehammer (I call them precision adjustment instruments) breaks the wood but it would be boring because the equations would be the same as using the equations for gravity, obviously.
The sledgehammer accelerates towards the wood and its mass creates a force large enough to break the wood.
It's boring but it's just how things work. This equation doesn't involve gravity at all if someone is swinging it and still technically doesn't involve gravity even if it is dropped. Just the observed acceleration we see when we drop everything plus the obvious and measurable mass of the sledgehammer. You can argue about what causes the acceleration of dropped objects but there is no account for curved space time in your equations.
I don't think it's that difficult to conceptualise.
-
The sledgehammer accelerates towards the wood and its mass creates a force large enough to break the wood.
I was wondering if someone would pick up on that. But three points..
One, The problem is to show that density it’s self has the property of a “force”.
Two. I guess with the pumpkin I moved the goalpost a bit by showing the sledge hammer sitting on the pumpkin. Then implying in a no gravity flat earth why the sledge hammer after sitting on the pumpkin can get the force to break the pumpkin by dropping.
Three. In the spherical earth, air resistance in this kind of experiment is negligible because the force of gravity is so much more of a factor than friction with the atmosphere.
But in a flat earth no gravity where there is no force acting on the object dropped, air resistance would be a major factor. In the flat earth model, what overcomes friction of the atmosphere to even get an object to move down.
But the challenge still stands. Might need to tweek it a bit.
How about this. Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.
-
The density alone cannot break the 2x4.
That is a correct assertion and easily measured. You're an interesting poster don't get me wrong.
-
The density alone cannot break the 2x4.
That is a correct assertion and easily measured. You're an interesting poster don't get me wrong.
This stemmed from another thread where an individual assured those participating in the thread density is a force on its self. No gravity needed. I was wanting to simplify the item, and see if they would take up the actual debate.
But they would rather just move goalposts and muddy the waters of the thread mentioned instead of meeting the challenge head on in this thread to add clarity.
You can lead a horse to water…
-
The density alone cannot break the 2x4.
That is a correct assertion and easily measured. You're an interesting poster don't get me wrong.
This stemmed from another thread where an individual assured those participating in the thread density is a force on its self. No gravity needed.
No gravity exists, nor WOULD be needed, if it DID exist at all, in some form, somewhere.
All things on Earth, originate on Earth, or it's waters, except those in the heavens ABOVE the Earth.
Objects do NOT originate in air, except those within the heavens. You cannot point to something that was NOT in air, first of all, then put INTO air, while totally IGNORING THAT PART, like it isn't true, or matters at all!
If objects DID originate in air, and THEN fell down to the surface, you could argue that it is due to some 'pulling down' force within Earth.
But objects do NOT originate within air, they originate on the surface.
You cannot ignore that, overlook it, or whatever...
This is the most important part of it, fact. Objects do NOT originate within air, they originate the surface, and the waters of Earth.
-
No gravity exists, nor WOULD be needed, if it DID exist at all, in some form, somewhere.
Then stop babbling and show through math how density is a force on to itself and requires no external force like gravity to produce the force/newtons to break the 2*4.
-
All things on Earth, originate on Earth, or it's waters, except those in the heavens ABOVE the Earth.
One word: Meteorites
-
No gravity exists, nor WOULD be needed, if it DID exist at all, in some form, somewhere.
If that was the case you would have been able to provide an alternative.
All things on Earth, originate on Earth, or it's waters, except those in the heavens ABOVE the Earth.
You have tried this delusional BS before, entirely failed, and then fled the scene to try and escape your failure.
Firstly, you have no justification at all for that claim.
Second, if this was the case, why doesn't it go back to the point of origin? Why does it magically go down instead? It makes no sense at all. Instead of a point of origin you need to claim it magically somehow goes to the surface of origin.
But it is trivial to refute with simple examples, examples you cannot address because you know it refutes your delusional BS.
Once more, water is a simple demonstration that your claims are pure BS.
You can take liquid water and pour it out of a bottle and observe it falling to the ground, so clearly it must have originated there.
But heat it up and it turns into a gas and starts moving upwards.
That would mean it needed to originate away from the surface.
And you can keep doing this in a cycle.
This shows a contradiction and shows that water is not simply going back to where it originated from.
Likewise, a rock in an outcrop shows the delusional BS. This relies on the fact that a surface is not always down.
A rock can be knocked loose from an outcrop, and instead of falling back up to the outcrop from where it originated, it falls down.
So it isn't falling towards any surface it originated from, instead it is falling down.
So once more, you have failed to provide an alternative for gravity.
And you have already had this BS exposed before. So why dishonestly spout the same refuted garbage again?
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.
Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.
Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.
Why?
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
And that displacement of the atmosphere results in an upwards bouyant force acting on it.
Not a downwards force.
You have had your BS refuted countless times. Unless you can address the multitude of issues already raised regarding it, (such as why the atmosphere magically pushes down in direct conflict to the observed, measured pressure gradient, and why there is a pressure gradient in the first place), then there really isn't any point in you bringing it up again.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
As above, the pressure from the atmosphere around the hammer head pushes it upwards, not down.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
Again, everything in that statement is wrong.
Firstly, there is nothing magical about gravity.
Secondly, unless you can explain how the atmosphere magically pushes down, rather than pushing up as the pressure gradient should cause (and explaining the directionality in the first place) you need gravity or something to replace it.
The RE is not fiction. It is supported by mountains of evidence, with all evidence that I know entirely consistent with a RE, and plenty which is entirely inconsistent with a FE.
And last, and most certainly least (although for your BS perhaps not), your delusional nonsense works just as well for a RE. So if your nonsense was true, gravity would not be needed for a RE.
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.
Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.
Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4
This is where the thread left off before you posted…
“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”
I guess start here.
Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.
Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.
Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4
This is where the thread left off before you posted…
“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”
I guess start here.
Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?
Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.
Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.
Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4
This is where the thread left off before you posted…
“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”
I guess start here.
Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?
Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.
Naaaaaa.
Density = Mass/Volume or mass per unit volume if you prefer. It been agreed by everyone, apart from YOU.
Thats what density is what you are talking about is not density.
You cant go and make up stuff to suit yourself ! The definition of density is spoken for. you'll have to go away and come up with a new name for what you are on about.
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.
Why?
Because there always has to be a counteraction to any applied energy offered by an object into resistance to it. There can never be zero resistance to any object.
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
And that displacement of the atmosphere results in an upwards buoyant force acting on it.
Not a downwards force.
The buoyant force stops if the object hits a foundation. If the object does not hit a foundation then that can be construed as a steady or continued buoyant force which basically means the object sits atop denser layers of mass or carries on being squeezed up, whether it's water, sand, or atmosphere and so on.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
As above, the pressure from the atmosphere around the hammer head pushes it upwards, not down.
No. It resists from below and is overcome from above along with the dense mass of the object (hammerhead).
It can still be construed as a push from below but the reality is, it's a squeeze down against a resistance to it by the dense mass below it.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
Again, everything in that statement is wrong.
Firstly, there is nothing magical about gravity.
There's everything magical about gravity. It has to be for it to work in the fiction we're led to believe is factual.
The RE is not fiction. It is supported by mountains of evidence, with all evidence that I know entirely consistent with a RE, and plenty which is entirely inconsistent with a FE.
There is no evidence at all for a global Earth but there are plenty of made-up efforts to proclaim Earth to be a globe.
And last, and most certainly least (although for your BS perhaps not), your delusional nonsense works just as well for a RE. So if your nonsense was true, gravity would not be needed for a RE.
Not at all.
Gravity is required for a Global Earth rotating in space and everything that goes with that because it wouldn't work in the model offered to take it out and replace it with the reality, which is simply density and buoyancy against the atmosphere within Earth. Denpressure.
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.
A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.
Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.
Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.
Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.
There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.
That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4
This is where the thread left off before you posted…
“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”
I guess start here.
Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?
Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.
Naaaaaa.
Density = Mass/Volume or mass per unit volume if you prefer. It been agreed by everyone, apart from YOU.
Thats what density is what you are talking about is not density.
You cant go and make up stuff to suit yourself ! The definition of density is spoken for. you'll have to go away and come up with a new name for what you are on about.
My definition is more bang-on than the one offered.
The one offered factors in gravity and a spinning Earth to aid it.
Mine does not and that's why it differs.
By all means, accept what's on offer as most do. I do not.
-
Density is not a force at all.
Which means it cannot explain why things move. You need something more, a force acting on the object to move it.
Because there always has to be a counteraction to any applied energy offered by an object into resistance to it.
Which in no way addresses the issue.
Firstly, that doesn't need resistance all around.
But more importantly, that is effectively just repeating the claim that it needs resistance without explaining why.
The counteraction required is the resistance of the object itself, applying a force back to the object imparting a force onto it.
In this case the resistance would be the 2x4 resisting the force applied by the hammer.
The buoyant force stops if the object hits a foundation.
No, it just goes through the foundation.
If you get a helium filled balloon and place it firmly against a surface, it will still float up due to the buoyant force.
It resists from below and is overcome from above
No, it pushes from all direction, and the push from below is greater, meaning the atmosphere is applying an upwards force.
along with the dense mass of the object (hammerhead).
i.e. It is not the atmosphere pushing it down, so stop pretending it is.
Instead you are just going back to claiming it is the mass of the object.
But we both know that the mass alone provides no motive to move. It is not a force, it has no directionality.
So yet again you are implicitly appealing to gravity.
There's everything magical about gravity.
Then why are you unable to show any of this magicalness and instead just repeatedly dismiss it as magical?
There is no evidence at all for a global Earth
You not liking the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You have been presented with a large amount of this evidence, and all you can do is run away from it, spout nonsense which is quickly refuted, or just dismiss it as fake.
Not at all.
Gravity is required for a Global Earth rotating in space and everything that goes with that
Why?
Why can't your delusional BS work just as well, with the atmosphere stacking outwards from the sphere to magically cause the mass itself (not the atmosphere) to push it down towards Earth?
Sure, it doesn't actually work as an explanation due to all the holes, but there is nothing about the shape of Earth which affects that.
My definition is more bang-on than the one offered.
No, it isn't.
Density is a scalar intensive property of the material which tells you its mass per unit volume.
So if you know the extensive property volume or mass you can determine the other.
The one offered factors in gravity and a spinning Earth to aid it.
You mean the one offered doesn't try to make density do something it doesn't?
Whereas your one makes no sense and instead tries to make density make things magically fall down for no reason at all?
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.
Do the experiment in a vacuum. Kills your BS dead.
The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.
One. Objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
Two. You missed the end discussion on this post…
The sledgehammer accelerates towards the wood and its mass creates a force large enough to break the wood.
I was wondering if someone would pick up on that. But three points..
One, The problem is to show that density it’s self has the property of a “force”.
Two. I guess with the pumpkin I moved the goalpost a bit by showing the sledge hammer sitting on the pumpkin. Then implying in a no gravity flat earth why the sledge hammer after sitting on the pumpkin can get the force to break the pumpkin by dropping.
Three. In the spherical earth, air resistance in this kind of experiment is negligible because the force of gravity is so much more of a factor than friction with the atmosphere.
But in a flat earth no gravity where there is no force acting on the object dropped, air resistance would be a major factor. In the flat earth model, what overcomes friction of the atmosphere to even get an object to move down.
But the challenge still stands. Might need to tweek it a bit.
How about this. Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.
Mathematically solve using only density of carbon steel snd 40n to break the 2x4. No assumptions.
You
Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.
Then state density in units of resistance. Which would make it like the force of friction. Which is a force that opposes motion..
So. You contradicted yourself.
What Is Friction?
https://sciencing.com/calculate-force-friction-6454395.html
Friction describes the force between two surfaces when you try to move one across the other. The force resists motion, and in most cases the force acts in the opposite direction to the motion.
Scales work just fine in a vacuum to measure the force gravity experts on a mass.
You can exert a force without even displacing anything…
2. Car Resting on a Bridge
A car resting on a bridge exerts a considerable amount of force and pressure on the contact surface between the bridge and the car. This force does not cause any change in the state, position, or shape of the car or the bridge. Hence, the type of force existing between the bridge and the car is known as static force.
https://studiousguy.com/static-force-examples/
Static load test on progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete structure in Korea
http://www.i-asem.org/publication_conf/structures22/9.CD/CD666/3.%20CD2666_7384F1.pdf
Test Procedure and Instrumentation
Fig. 3 shows the test setups and the linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) for the measurement of displacement. Using 1000 kN oil pressure machine, a vertical loading was applied to the top of the specimen. In the prototype model, the sub-frame is laterally supported by the adjacent beams and columns. To simulate such frame action, in the specimens, the top of the 2nd floor columns were laterally supported at the contraflexure point. The vertical displacements of the beam were measured at the four locations: middle of each span, and loading columns. The plastic hinge deformation of the beams and the deformation of the columns were measured.
-
i.e. It is not the atmosphere pushing it down, so stop pretending it is.
Instead you are just going back to claiming it is the mass of the object.
But we both know that the mass alone provides no motive to move. It is not a force, it has no directionality.
So yet again you are implicitly appealing to gravity.
Atmosphere squeezes any dense mass down or even up depending on where it's placed in the stacking system.
My definition is more bang-on than the one offered.
No, it isn't.
Density is a scalar intensive property of the material which tells you its mass per unit volume.
So if you know the extensive property volume or mass you can determine the other.
Mass is the amount of material making up an object, including volume within the structure.
The one offered factors in gravity and a spinning Earth to aid it.
You mean the one offered doesn't try to make density do something it doesn't?
Whereas your one makes no sense and instead tries to make density make things magically fall down for no reason at all?
Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy and be dense enough to overcome the resistance below it aided by the squeeze from above and around the vertical areas of it because this is what sits within the layered stacking system.
-
Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy and be dense enough to overcome the resistance below
You just contradict yourself.
So? I can raise an object just a bit and it will not fall?
For it to start to move down it has to overcome this resistance, that requires a force like gravity.
The three laws of motion still holds true.
Gravity lets us accurately and predictable model the energy because of height off the ground. It even has a name.
Gravitational Potential Energy
PEgrav = mass • g • height
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy
What’s the flat earth math and formal/modeling for the energy a object has due to its position above earth?
As pointed out. Air resistance is negligible in many applications because the force of gravity is so much more than the friction with the air.
In a flat earth model with no gravity. The only force on a dropped object is air resistance. This means the air friction is the major force/ factor, and in flat earth there is no motivation for an object above the ground to fall if dropped through the resistance.
-
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.
Do the experiment in a vacuum. Kills your BS dead.
Only if you think a vacuum offers zero resistance, meaning totally empty space, which it cannot ever do.
So you've killed nothing stone dead except your own assumption.
One. Objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
No they don't.
They may appear to do so in a low-pressure environment and using that Brian Cox setup is a complete and utter con job as far as I'm concerned.
The reality is a tennis ball and an iron ball dropped from waist height would appear to fall at the same rate but the truth is much different in a normal atmosphere and would be much different in lower pressure if there was enough distance to the drop rather than using small containers to supposedly show the same rate of fall.
But in a flat earth no gravity where there is no force acting on the object dropped, air resistance would be a major factor. In the flat earth model, what overcomes friction of the atmosphere to even get an object to move down?
The above atmosphere and what the dense mass sits inside, which would be what it takes up of the stacking system of the atmosphere above and around with only below as resistance to all of that.
Remember any dense mass placed into the atmosphere is already spring-loaded by its very own dense mass displacement of that atmosphere.
What Is Friction?
https://sciencing.com/calculate-force-friction-6454395.html
Friction describes the force between two surfaces when you try to move one across the other. The force resists motion, and in most cases the force acts in the opposite direction to the motion.
Friction is always around us. No friction means no life and no living Earth.
Everything is attached throughout Earth. No free space is ever available and cannot ever be available which rules out vacuums and is simply a case of lower pressures of friction.
Scales work just fine in a vacuum to measure the force gravity experts on a mass.
There never is any vacuum, just lower pressure and scales will work in that environment but will not work the same as in a higher pressure environment.
You can exert a force without even displacing anything…
You can't. Any force will always displace something. It has to or nothing works...ever.
2. Car Resting on a Bridge
A car resting on a bridge exerts a considerable amount of force and pressure on the contact surface between the bridge and the car. This force does not cause any change in the state, position, or shape of the car or the bridge. Hence, the type of force existing between the bridge and the car is known as static force.
The car alone displaces its own dense mass of the atmosphere whether it's on a solid land road or on a bridge or in sand or in water.
It still has to resist that pushback of its displacement which will see tyres take the brunt, visually on a solid road or even on a bridge but you would visually see the sand take the brunt of the resistance of that car by seeing those tyres sink a little and even more so in water where the displacement will see the car pushed into the less resistant water to its own displaced amount of atmosphere which will visually see it sink.
-
Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy and be dense enough to overcome the resistance below
You just contradict yourself.
There are no contradictions, at all.
So? I can raise an object just a bit and it will not fall?
As long as your energy holds it will not fall nor rise.
For it to start to move down it has to overcome this resistance, which requires a force like gravity.
For it to start to move down you must release your own energy keeping it up and then its very own displacement of its own dense mass against the atmosphere offers it a spring push back to the deck aided by the above atmosphere against the resistance of what is below it, atmospherically.
The three laws of motion still holds true.
Explain the three laws.
Gravity lets us accurately and predictable model the energy because of height off the ground. It even has a name.
Gravitational Potential Energy
PEgrav = mass • g • height
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy
Atmosphere offers the very same potential energy to any mass. No gravity is required.
As pointed out. Air resistance is negligible in many applications because the force of gravity is so much more than the friction with the air.
Air resistance is massively pertinent because nothing works without it. It really is as simple as that.
In a flat earth model with no gravity. The only force on a dropped object is air resistance. This means the air friction is the major force/ factor, and in flat earth there is no motivation for an object above the ground to fall if dropped through the resistance.
The only force needed is atmospheric resistance. It's always a push on push or push against resistance to push.
Nothing is ever truly equal. It always has to be unbalanced even by so much as the minutest amount. Action and equal and opposite reactions are by all accounts immediate in terms of following a force and reactive resistance to it but the reality is one had to follow the other to actually initiate work.
-
Action and equal and opposite reactions are by all accounts immediate in terms of following a force and reactive resistance to it but the reality is one had to follow the other to actually initiate work.
You know you always make me think.
You're right one always does follow the other.
I'm quite sure he was referring to newton's laws of motion for the "three laws"
You know an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
And every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
-
Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.
Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.
Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times?
Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.
Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.
If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.
Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.
-
Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.
Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.
Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times?
Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.
Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.
If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.
Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.
Are you retarded?
How the object came into motion is irrelevant. Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.
-
Action and equal and opposite reactions are by all accounts immediate in terms of following a force and reactive resistance to it but the reality is one had to follow the other to actually initiate work.
You know you always make me think.
You're right one always does follow the other.
I'm quite sure he was referring to newton's laws of motion for the "three laws"
You know an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
And every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Now when you look at them all, one does not exist and the other simply follows the same pattern as the last.
You know an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.
You see the saying appears to be reasonable until you actually realise that an external force always has to act upon anything in motion or you simply cannot have any motion in the first place.
The actual saying has no realistic meaning. It's basically offering a fantasy.
It's like saying if superman spun fast enough and turned the Earth he'd go back in time. Fantasy but people will use it as a theoretical possibility.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
And every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
These two are basically just one law.
They offer action and reaction in equal measures.
One law covers those two and the other does not exist as any legitimate law because it cannot exist.
-
Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.
Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.
Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times?
Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.
Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.
If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.
Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.
Are you retarded?
How the object came into motion is irrelevant. Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.
It will always be acted upon by an opposing force, in motion and as it's put into motion. It will never be in constant motion at any time.
The law is nonsense.
-
You see the saying appears to be reasonable until you actually realise that an external force always has to act upon anything in motion or you simply cannot have any motion in the first place.
The actual saying has no realistic meaning. It's basically offering a fantasy.
Than why dose a scale work in a vacuum.
-
Only if you think a vacuum offers zero resistance, meaning totally empty space, which it cannot ever do.
So you've killed nothing stone dead except your own assumption.
One a object doesn’t have to move to apply a force. Static force / load.
Two. The vacuum removes any meaningful resistance that you need.
Three. The “force” applied doesn’t change in any meaningful way as vacuum is drawn. It shows there doesn’t need to be opposition in the atmosphere for a sledge hammer to break a 2x4. In fact, less air resistance, the more force the sledge hammer can apply from the input energy to the 2x4 that wasn’t used in friction with the atmosphere.
So. No, atmosphere pressure on the sledgehammer is not required to break the 2x4. Less or no air resistance allows the input energy to be used more efficiently.
If there is no gravity. There is nothing to motivate a dropped object to overcome friction with the atmosphere to fall.
It’s no different than holding a ball open palm up. The ball doesn’t move parallel to the ground unless thrown it that way. You have to apply a force to get the ball to move parallel to the ground. Do it in a vacuum, the ball will travel farther. The ball will hit with more force.
The only difference from the ball being thrown parallel to the ground vs being dropped is gravity is always pulling on the ball while you have to supply the force to get the ball to travel out parallel to the ground. Don’t think there is no force of gravity. Hold a 50 pound weight straight out at arms length from your body. You can even use gravity and formulas for levers to calculate the force transmitted to your shoulder. And with a space suit, you could do it in a vacuum in a earth based vacuum chamber. There would still be the stain on your shoulder from gravity pulling on the 50 pound weight your holding out at arms length. And the strain on the shoulder will not change proportional to the amount in change in air pressure.
-
It doesn't. It works in low pressure just like it does in high pressure, as long as it has a foundation to resist any dense mass placed upon it.
A vacuum of zero pressure does not and never will exist.
-
It doesn't. It works in low pressure just like it does in high pressure, as long as it has a foundation to resist any dense mass placed upon it.
A vacuum of zero pressure does not and never will exist.
No. One. Show that a sledgehammer can’t break a 2x4 in a vacuum.
Two. You need to shown the ability of the sledgehammer to break the 2x4 becomes proportional degraded / inefficient as atmospheric pressure is reduced.
Three. Back to my example of holding a 50 pound weight straight out with your arm at shoulder height. The atmosphere has little to do with the strain transmitted to your shoulder from gravity pulling on the 50 pound weight held out at arms length at shoulder height.
-
Only if you think a vacuum offers zero resistance, meaning totally empty space, which it cannot ever do.
So you've killed nothing stone dead except your own assumption.
One a object doesn’t have to move to apply a force. Static force / load.
An object has to move to apply a force unless you wish to use force as a resistance of dense mass against its atmospheric displacement.
Two. The vacuum removes any meaningful resistance that you need.
No.
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.
Three. The “force” applied doesn’t change in any meaningful way as vacuum is drawn.
What do you mean by drawn?
A vacuum cannot ever be anything. Low pressure is created by energy pushing higher pressure away and compressing it, leaving a lower pressure.
It shows there doesn’t need to be opposition in the atmosphere for a sledgehammer to break a 2x4.
There has to be opposition for anything to work. The entire action and equal and opposite reaction must offer a force and a reply to that force in equal measures.
In fact, less air resistance, the more force the sledge hammer can apply from the input energy to the 2x4 that wasn’t used in friction with the atmosphere.
Only if you raise the hammer and then allow air pressure to become lower and enabling the hammer to overcome the weaker resistance to it.
It would be minimal in the containers we can use to do that experiment.
So. No, atmosphere pressure on the sledgehammer is not required to break the 2x4.
Yes it is.
You can never raise a sledgehammer unless you raise it under pressure, even lower pressure.
Less or no air resistance allows the input energy to be used more efficiently.
No, not from an equal start without cheating it.
Less resistance to force means less push on the dense mass. Equal and opposite reaction to action.
If there is no gravity. There is nothing to motivate a dropped object to overcome friction with the atmosphere to fall.
The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.
-
Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.
Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.
Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times?
Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.
Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.
If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.
Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.
Are you retarded?
How the object came into motion is irrelevant. Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.
It will always be acted upon by an opposing force, in motion and as it's put into motion. It will never be in constant motion at any time.
The law is nonsense.
No the law isn't nonsense.
The irony of you saying such is that you can imagine your land of denspressure, but can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it.
-
An object has to move to apply a force unless you wish to use force as a resistance of dense mass against its atmospheric displacement.
No. A 50 pound weight held out at arms length is placing a measurable strain/force/load that your muscles have to exert energy to hold.
Then there is the whole thing where a reed can bend in the wind where the same wind might break a rigid tree.
Are you saying a car up on jack stands isn’t applying a force to the jack stands and the floor?
No.
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.
Ok. Show there is enough collusions from gas molecules in a near perfect vacuum to be a factor.
What do you mean by drawn?
A vacuum cannot ever be anything. Low pressure is created by energy pushing higher pressure away and compressing it, leaving a lower pressure.
External source
The best vacuum in a laboratory setting has a pressure around 13 picoPascals (13 x 10-12 Pa). A cryogenic vacuum system achieves a near-perfect vacuum with a pressure around 6.7 femtoPascals (6.7 x 10-15 Pa). In comparison, atmospheric pressure is around 100 kPa or 100,000 Pa.
https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-perfect-vacuum-is-it-possible/
Take a vacuum chamber. Fill it with nitrogen. Determine how many gas molecules in a given space. Draw or suck to a pressure where the number of gas molecules are reduced by half. See what factor it has on the force applied by a dropped sledgehammer.
Repeat until sucking / drawing out the gas molecules doesn’t create a noticeable change in pressure drop.
There has to be opposition for anything to work.
That is not the same as applying a force.
To do work you have to move a mass a distance with a force for example. That is not opposition, it’s displacement.
(https://i.imgur.com/BytRayY.jpg)
Opposition is friction.
More
Solutions:
For this question, the additional thing to note is the work done against friction. All the energy possesses by the box at bottom is KE. This KE will decrease and be converted to remaining KE at height h + gain in GPE + work done against friction.
Conservation of energy,
KE at bottom = KE at h + GPE at h + friction force
1/2mv2 = 1/2mv2 + mgh + F x d
(1/2 x 2 x 102) = (1/2 x 2 x 52) + (2 x 10 x h) + (2 x h/sin60)
h = 3.36 m
https://evantoh23.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/energy-calculation-involving-work-done-agains/
Verify the math. And notice gravity opposes the box being dragged up the inclined. If you did this experiment with a spring scale spliced into the rope, it’s going to read the force on the rope keeping the stationary box from sliding back.
Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. No friction is needed. The mass is treated as being in a perfect vacuum with no surface friction. friction and air resistance, it only takes from the force generated/ delivered. Is the ideal value of force you get. Real life is going to be less because of friction and air resistance.
Expending energy is different. I can hold a weight out steady at arms length, my body still expends energy fighting against the force of gravity.
The entire action and equal and opposite reaction must offer a force and a reply to that force in equal measures.
Where does the three laws of motion state your interpretation?
External
Newton's laws of motion are three basic laws of classical mechanics that describe the relationship between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it. These laws can be paraphrased as follows:[2]: 49
A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
When a body is acted upon by a force, the time rate of change of its momentum equals the force.
If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
You
Only if you raise the hammer and then allow air pressure to become lower and enabling the hammer to overcome the weaker resistance to it.
The only thing the atmosphere offers is opposing motion in the form of friction.
Yes it is.
Why? Dictated by what formula?
You can never raise a sledgehammer unless you raise it under pressure, even lower pressure.
Again. Because gravity is stronger than the force of friction with the atmosphere, air resistance is negligible. It becomes even more negligible in a vacuum chamber as pressure drops as more gas molecules are removed to bounce around. Which is what gas pressure is.
In fact…. You don’t understand gas pressure. Do you?’
(https://i.imgur.com/KTkCTBP.png)
You certainly can raise a sledgehammer under no atmospheric pressure.
For starters, the pressure around the sledgehammer is in equilibrium. The gas molecules hitting the top of the sledgehammer are the same number as hitting the bottom. They cancel each other out until you draw a vacuum where there are no molecules hitting the sledgehammer. Or a statically low chance of being hit by gas molecules.
Pressure is not the same as air resistance that can only oppose the motion of the hammer through the air.
No, not from an equal start without cheating it.
Less resistance to force means less push on the dense mass. Equal and opposite reaction to action.
Funny for a stationary mass you ignore, “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”
You
The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.
Ahh, no.
One. Laws of motions you like to invoke.. what’s the one usually first listed?
“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”
Two. For a mass sitting with zero motion. The pressure is the same all around. As many gas’s molecules are hitting the bottom of the sledgehammer as the top. Without gravity there is no force to break the equilibrium. No force to overcome friction with the atmosphere. No force to start motion in accordance with the first law of motion.
-
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.
You're right, a perfect vaccuum can't exist on earth. However, we can get very close...
The ambient pressure is altitude dependent. For example, at sea level, the maximum vacuum will be 760 Torr, in Omaha Nebraska (1000 feet altitude) it's 733 Torr...
An average rated acrylic vacuum chamber can get down to about 0.1 Torr. Yes, it's not a perfect vacuum but don't you see the vast difference between 760 and 0.1?
So yes, we can test these things in a 0.1 Torr vacuum chamber as opposed to regular atmosphere of 760 Torr. And in doing so, we can show that your theory does not hold any validity. A 0.1 vacuum chamber shows you are wrong. Simple as that.
-
Atmosphere squeezes any dense mass down or even up depending on where it's placed in the stacking system.
No, atmosphere pushes all mass up.
Even you accept it is the object itself causing it to go down.
Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
That's right, it needs something like gravity to act on it.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy
No, it just needs to have somewhere to fall to. It does not need to be raised first.
be dense enough to overcome the resistance below it aided by the squeeze from above and around the vertical areas of it because this is what sits within the layered stacking system.
And that appeal to "dense enough" is appealing to gravity.
If it was the air, the density of the object shouldn't matter.
I take it by you ignoring the section about the RE you now fully accept that your delusional BS works just as well on a FE or RE? That the shape of Earth doesn't matter.
So there would be no reason to reject it to try and save a RE?
Only if you think a vacuum offers zero resistance
No, it shows the air isn't important for explaining why things fall and just slows things down.
If the air was important reducing the air pressure so much should drastically reduce how quickly it falls.
No they don't.
Yes they do.
You dismissing the evidence as a con-job doesn't magically make it one.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide your own evidence showing that they do fall at different rates.
Remember any dense mass placed into the atmosphere is already spring-loaded by its very own dense mass displacement of that atmosphere.
Only in the sense that the air pressure is greater below, and thus will try to force the object up.
The atmosphere doesn't explain why things fall.
Everything is attached throughout Earth. No free space is ever available and cannot ever be available which rules out vacuums
No, that is just your baseless assertion which can't rule out anything.
The drastically different properties of gasses compared to liquids and solids, and the phase change between them, dictates there MUST be free space.
scales will work in that environment but will not work the same as in a higher pressure environment.
No, they work the same. The same principles are at work.
You can't. Any force will always displace something. It has to or nothing works...ever.
While a lack of displacement will mean no work is done, that doesn't mean a force ALWAYS has to displace something.
It isn't a dichotomy.
You can have the application of a force to an object resulting in that object accelerating or moving against friction to do work on the object. Or you can have the application of a force to an object, countered by another force acting on that object to result in no overall motion.
There are no contradictions, at all.
You contradict yourself all the time. It is a real problem for you.
You want to pretend the air alone is what is pushing the object down. But when faced with the reality that the air would push the object up as the pressure is greater below, and that that should mean it doesn't matter what the object is; you instead appeal to the object itself.
But then you jump straight back to it magically being the air, because you hate space and want to pretend the air is needed for everything.
Atmosphere offers the very same potential energy to any mass. No gravity is required.
No, it would offer the opposite, based upon the pressure gradient and how much energy would be provided by pushing it upwards out of that pressure gradient.
Importantly, this force depends upon the pressure, not the mass of the object.
Air resistance is massively pertinent because nothing works without it. It really is as simple as that.
Plenty works without it.
Air resistance is only important when you have a significant relative velocity between the air and the object.
That is because air resistance is based upon this relative motion.
No relative motion, no air resistance.
The only force needed is atmospheric resistance.
All that would cause is for the object to slow down relative to the air.
It would not explain why things fall.
Now when you look at them all, one does not exist and the other simply follows the same pattern as the last.
You mean you just don't understand them or their purpose?
You see the saying appears to be reasonable until you actually realise that an external force always has to act upon anything in motion or you simply cannot have any motion in the first place.
No, it needs to act to put it into motion, but then it can stop acting.
The point of it is that you need a force to change the motion of an object.
So it is quite realistic and quite accurate.
These two are basically just one law.
No, they are 2 separate laws.
If anything, it would be the first 2 laws which are effectively the same.
The second law provides a numerical relationship between the net force, mass and acceleration.
This can also be used to show if F=0, then a=0 (i.e. the first law).
The third law is stating how if you apply a force to an object, it will apply a force back to you.
-
An object has to move to apply a force
More nonsense. Why should it have to move to apply a force?
Consider a spring. It can apply a force while being held compressed or in tension, without moving.
The lack of motion doesn't magically cause it to stop applying a force.
(And no, the air has nothing to do with this).
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.
That is what it is defined as.
The point is all meaningful interaction with the air can be removed.
You can even get vacuums that are so good that the air doesn't act as a gas and instead it acts as a collection of particles bouncing off the walls.
Under these conditions the air is not part of the explanation for how things work.
There has to be opposition for anything to work. The entire action and equal and opposite reaction must offer a force and a reply to that force in equal measures.
That opposition does not need to come from the atmosphere.
In the example of the sledge hammer and 2x4, there are a few action-reaction pairs involved.
There is the action-reaction pair of the force between the hammer and Earth (gravity), with the hammer pulled down by Earth and the Earth pulled up by the hammer.
There is the action-reaction pair of the 2x4 and Earth in the same way.
There is the action-reaction pair of the hammer and the 2x4.
As the hammer isn't accelerating down, the net force is 0, so it must be supported by the 2x4 applying a force upwards to it, with a reaction of the hammer pushing down.
As the 2x4 isn't accelerating down, the net force is 0, so it must also have a force supporting it (and the weight of the hammer).
There is no need to invoke the air in this.
The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.
No, it doesn't.
The atmosphere pushes up.
It does explain why the hammer falls or breaks the 2x4 at all.
Even you accept that fact and appeal to the mass of the hammer.
Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force.
No, he didn't.
Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times?
Earth, the moon, the sun, technically everything on Earth as it is moving with Earth, and so on.
If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object
No, he wouldn't, as that is delusional BS.
The force acts to accelerate the object. When that force stops acting, the object continues until another force acts to change its motion.
The force doesn't magically keep acting on the object to keep it going.
-
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.
You're right, a perfect vaccuum can't exist on earth. However, we can get very close...
The ambient pressure is altitude dependent. For example, at sea level, the maximum vacuum will be 760 Torr, in Omaha Nebraska (1000 feet altitude) it's 733 Torr...
An average rated acrylic vacuum chamber can get down to about 0.1 Torr. Yes, it's not a perfect vacuum but don't you see the vast difference between 760 and 0.1?
So yes, we can test these things in a 0.1 Torr vacuum chamber as opposed to regular atmosphere of 760 Torr. And in doing so, we can show that your theory does not hold any validity. A 0.1 vacuum chamber shows you are wrong. Simple as that.
There should also be some correlation in increasing pressure in a pressure chamber if sceptimatic’s ideas had any validity?
A diving chamber is a vessel for human occupation, which may have an entrance that can be sealed to hold an internal pressure significantly higher than ambient pressure, a pressurised gas system to control the internal pressure, and a supply of breathing gas for the occupants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_chamber
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Nasa_decompression_chamber.jpg)
The decompression chamber at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab
-
No the law isn't nonsense.
The irony of you saying such is that you can imagine your land of denspressure, but can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it.
I can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it because it simply cannot happen and anyone who cares to take a bit of time to realise it will see it's utter nonsense.
Here's the simplicity of motion. To create motion you need to create friction/energy and to do this you absolutely need something to push off of.
No matter what you look at or use you will see it requires resistance to offer work and equal resistance to counter it for every effort/energy put into that force of motion.
We are being coaxed into a belief system of somehow being offered something magically getting into motion and immediately staying in exact motion with absolutely no reactionary force applied to the object put into motion.
It's impossible.
The law is a nonsense law. It's magical fantasy and will never become a reality so it's basically a law that can be scrubbed leaving only two laws left which can be merged into one simple law.
-
No. A 50 pound weight held out at arms length is placing a measurable strain/force/load that your muscles have to exert energy to hold.
Yes and that's because you hold the dense mass of the hammer away from its original solid foundation and now your grip and muscles become the new foundation and will expend energy keeping the potential energy of that dense mass aloft until you release it which will allow the atmosphere to basically spring crush it down as it overcomes the atmospheric stacked resistance below aided by the atmosphere above to its own dense mass.
Then there is the whole thing where a reed can bend in the wind where the same wind might break a rigid tree.
The bending reed is a massive clue. It does not become a wind barrier and actually bends to flow with that wind at its weakest points. A tree being more rigid cannot offer the same generally so may break.
Are you saying a car up on jack stands isn’t applying a force to the jack stands and the floor?
The car raised on jack stands is applying its own dense mass displacement of the atmosphere and that very same compressive atmosphere back onto the car pushed it against the resistance of the jack stands and the foundation of which they rest.
Ok. Show there is enough collusions from gas molecules in a near perfect vacuum to be a factor.
Nothing ever separates to leave free space. You can break down molecules but you can never break them down to offer free space between them. There will always be an attachment of less dense molecules or more dense molecules depending on the pressure applied.
There will never be any near-perfect vacuum, just extremely low pressure.
The best vacuum in a laboratory setting has a pressure around 13 picoPascals (13 x 10-12 Pa). A cryogenic vacuum system achieves a near-perfect vacuum with a pressure around 6.7 femtoPascals (6.7 x 10-15 Pa). In comparison, atmospheric pressure is around 100 kPa or 100,000 Pa.
https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-perfect-vacuum-is-it-possible/
It doesn't matter what you use you can never offer a true vacuum or a near vacuum.
You can offer lower pressure to the extreme but that's it.
Take a vacuum chamber. Fill it with nitrogen. Determine how many gas molecules in a given space. Draw or suck to a pressure where the number of gas molecules are reduced by half.
You can never suck pressure. Lower pressure has to be caused by pushing away higher pressure to allow higher pressure to become lower pressure behind that push by allowing natural molecular expansion which leaves less dense molecules behind as they actually compress themselves by expansion into themselves.
See what factor it has on the force applied by a dropped sledgehammer.
Less resistance to the drop is all you get but it would be on such a minuscule offering that it becomes negligible in any controlled environment.
Repeat until sucking / drawing out the gas molecules doesn’t create a noticeable change in pressure drop.
A pressure drop will always occur if you use energy to push high pressure away and allow molecules behind that push to expand out, as above.
To do work you have to move a mass a distance with a force for example. That is not opposition, it’s displacement.
Opposition is friction.
It's everything. It's the displacement with every motion and friction with every motion and obvious equal reaction to that action.
Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration. No friction is needed.
Force is friction, Mass is always moving which means it's friction. and acceleration is simply more friction pushing on mass to move the mass more quickly over time.
The mass is treated as being in a perfect vacuum with no surface friction.
It's impossible.
friction and air resistance, it only takes from the force generated/ delivered.
There will always be air resistance and always friction. You cannot move without it. Nothing can.
Expending energy is different. I can hold a weight out steady at arms length, my body still expends energy fighting against the force of gravity.
Your arms and body expend energy holding the dense mass displacing the atmosphere along with your own arms and body. No gravity is ever required in any magical form.
A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
A body is never at rest, it's always expanding and contracting by agitation or friction, or vibration. Take your pick.
There is no unless acted upon by a force. It's always acted upon by a force and never ever would it be not acted upon so the law is make-believe. It's a fantasy.
When a body is acted upon by a force, the time rate of change of its momentum equals the force.
If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
It's very simple. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. One law to fit everything.
You do not get more out of something than you put in.
The only thing the atmosphere offers is opposing the motion in the form of friction.
It's all it ever has to offer. It's what keeps everything working. It's what keeps this Earth working and everything in it.
Again. Because gravity is stronger than the force of friction with the atmosphere, air resistance is negligible.
Gravity is a fantasy, made up to keep a spinning globe and planets and a universe alive in people's minds.
It becomes even more negligible in a vacuum chamber as pressure drops as more gas molecules are removed to bounce around. Which is what gas pressure is.
They only bounce around because they are pressurised against each other and vibrate by expansion and contraction depending on pressure applied or released.
You certainly can raise a sledgehammer under no atmospheric pressure.
No you can't.
For starters, the pressure around the sledgehammer is in equilibrium.
It never truly is.
The gas molecules hitting the top of the sledgehammer are the same number as hitting the bottom.
No they aren't. Not quite, hence why we have a layered and stacked atmosphere. Close to our primitive heads but still not exact.
They cancel each other out until you draw a vacuum where there are no molecules hitting the sledgehammer.
It'll never happen.
Or a statically low chance of being hit by gas molecules.
You're offering free-flowing gas molecules in free space. It's impossible and simply gives rise to fictional space vacuums. It's literally utter fantasy.
Pressure is not the same as air resistance that can only oppose the motion of the hammer through the air.
Pressure is exactly that.
Funny for a stationary mass you ignore, “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”
It's always acted upon. Always.
The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.
Ahh, no.
Ahhh yes.
One. Laws of motions you like to invoke.. what’s the one usually first listed?
“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”
It is always acted upon, as above.
It can never ever be at a constant speed no matter what.
Two. For a mass sitting with zero motion. The pressure is the same all around.
Not quite but close.
As many gas’s molecules are hitting the bottom of the sledgehammer as the top.
No.
You see the sledgehammer can only sit on stacked layers and requires holding. All it's doing is resting its bottom on those layers. They are not pushing it up, just more resisting mildly due to another force/energy allowing this which could be your arm and grip, and body and feet are being that foundation.
Without gravity there is no force to break the equilibrium.
No need for fictional gravity.
No force to overcome friction with the atmosphere. No force to start motion in accordance with the first law of motion.
The atmosphere is the force against the energy applied by whatever force is placed against it, which requires it in order to do any work in the first place.
-
I can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it because it simply cannot happen and anyone who cares to take a bit of time to realise it will see it's utter nonsense.
Used this in another thread
Let’s start with, what does changes in atmospheric pressure have to do with an object’s gravitational potential energy? And that potential energy being converted to kinetic energy…
Because it didn’t have the force until it was raised to a certain hight and released.
Where in the flat earth model where g is zero, the dropped sledgehammer should apply the same amount of force as when it sits on the pumpkin. There is nothing in the flat earth model to motivate the sledgehammer to move against the friction of the air to even move down in accordance with the three laws of motion.
Again…
The higher that an object is elevated, the greater the gravitational potential energy. These relationships are expressed by the following equation:
PEgrav = mass • g • height
Then when the hammer was released, the stored potential energy from gravity and height was converted to kinetic energy.
Example
When an object falls, its gravitational potential energy is changed to kinetic energy. You can use this relationship to calculate the speed of the object’s descent. Gravitational potential energy for a mass m at height h near the surface of the Earth is mgh more than the potential energy would be at height 0. (It’s up to you where you choose height 0.)
For example, say that you lift a 40-kilogram cannonball onto a shelf 3.0 meters from the floor, and the ball rolls and slips off, headed toward your toes. If you know the potential energy involved, you can figure out how fast the ball will be going when it reaches the tips of your shoes. Resting on the shelf, the cannonball has this much potential energy with respect to the floor:
(https://www.dummies.com/wp-content/uploads/331445.image0.png)
The cannonball has 1,200 joules of potential energy stored by virtue of its position in a gravitational field. What happens when it drops, just before it touches your toes? That potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. So how fast will the cannonball be going at toe impact? Because its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, you can write the problem as the following:
(https://www.dummies.com/wp-content/uploads/331446.image1.png)
Plugging in the numbers and putting velocity on one side, you get the speed:
(https://www.dummies.com/wp-content/uploads/331447.image2.png)
The velocity of 7.7 meters/second converts to about 25 feet/second. You have a 40-kilogram cannonball — or about 88 pounds — dropping onto your toes at 25 feet/second. You play around with the numbers and decide you don’t like the results. Prudently, you turn off your calculator and move your feet out of the way.
The velocity of 7.7 meters/second converts to about 25 feet/second. You have a 40-kilogram cannonball — or about 88 pounds — dropping onto your toes at 25 feet/second. You play around with the numbers and decide you don’t like the results. Prudently, you turn off your calculator and move your feet out of the way.
Now you try to solve the same story problem with the flat earth model where g is zero.
And again…
(https://i.imgur.com/OmvX2Ov.jpg)
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class02/notes2_freefall.html
What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?
Why does the force of gravity effect how high an object will reach if there is no gravity. And to an extent greater than what is accounted for by air resistance?
****Why is it with gravity and Newton’s three laws of motion precise models can be constructed and accurate predictions made. How do you think physics simulation software works and provides accurate simulations?***
Numerous mathematical models have been cited to show gravity exists, and gravity must be taken in account for accurate modeling of simple machines, spring scales, and simple ballistics. What accurate flat earth models with g being zero have you offered that make accurate predictions concerning friction, inclined planes, a ball thrown straight up, and a cannon ball dropped?
Note. Added…
Please show using the three laws of motion how a stationary sledgehammer overcomes the friction of air uses “momentum” to become motivated to move and accelerate down.
It’s no different if you hold the sledgehammer off the ground and use a force to throw the sledgehammer out instead of down.
If you hold the sledgehammer in your open palm up, why doesn’t it just start to go out away from you? You claim there is no gravity, no force to make it fall down. Why can’t I make the sledgehammer go out away from me with no force. Like how you say there is no force to make the sledgehammer go down.
Or up? There is less air resistance up. Why can’t I just hold the sledgehammer in my open palm and make it go up with no force. I can even place my hand on top and remove it. It takes a force to make the sledgehammer to raise up off my hand. Why does it not take a force to motivate a sledgehammer to move from no momentum/inertia to overcome friction with the atmosphere to not only move down, but accelerate down.
-
Let’s start with, what does changes in atmospheric pressure have to do with an object’s gravitational potential energy? And that potential energy being converted to kinetic energy…
Because it didn’t have the force until it was raised to a certain hight and released.
It always has a force but a foundation offers that force only potential energy at that point because that atmospheric displacement by the object cannot be realised because the density of the ground is far greater and so resists the effort.
Where in the flat earth model where g is zero, the dropped sledgehammer should apply the same amount of force as when it sits on the pumpkin.
No.
Each stacked layer the sledgehammer is raised into offers more resistance below it but the displacement above it of its own dense mass and energy produced to raise it ensures the sledgehammer is sprung back down against that resistance and is crushed further with each layer advanced into by that very same layer which is now compromised.
****Why is it with gravity and Newton’s three laws of motion precise models can be constructed and accurate predictions made. How do you think physics simulation software works and provides accurate simulations?***
Numerous mathematical models have been cited to show gravity exists, and gravity must be taken in account for accurate modeling of simple machines, spring scales, and simple ballistics. What accurate flat earth models with g being zero have you offered that make accurate predictions concerning friction, inclined planes, a ball thrown straight up, and a cannon ball dropped?
Note. Added…
Please show using the three laws of motion how a stationary sledgehammer overcomes the friction of air uses “momentum” to become motivated to move and accelerate down.
What instrument shows gravity?
Explain the simple instrument that offers accuracy due to gravity.
It’s no different if you hold the sledgehammer off the ground and use a force to throw the sledgehammer out instead of down.
If you hold the sledgehammer in your open palm up, why doesn’t it just start to go out away from you? You claim there is no gravity, no force to make it fall down. Why can’t I make the sledgehammer go out away from me with no force. Like how you say there is no force to make the sledgehammer go down.
If you throw the hammer away from you you're still displacing the atmosphere by that dense mass of hammer and that hammer along with your own applied energy now compresses the atmosphere with more force and compresses it more, meaning more spring horizontally meaning the atmosphere above cannot force it down as quickly to overcome the stacked layers below because it also has the horizontal stack to overcome causing an arc to the ground.
Or up? There is less air resistance up. Why can’t I just hold the sledgehammer in my open palm and make it go up with no force.
Because the hammer itself massively displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere as I explained and that has the equal and opposite reaction along with the above push down.
I can even place my hand on top and remove it. It takes a force to make the sledgehammer to raise up off my hand. Why does it not take a force to motivate a sledgehammer to move from no momentum/inertia to overcome friction with the atmosphere to not only move down, but accelerate down.
As above.
-
It always has a force but a foundation offers that force only potential energy at that point because that atmospheric displacement by the object cannot be realised because the density of the ground is far greater and so resists the effort.
Sorry. Meaningless word salad by you.
Now. Let’s take your delusion the extra steps.
Remember this?
Let’s start with, what does changes in atmospheric pressure have to do with an object’s gravitational potential energy?
And this formula;
The higher that an object is elevated, the greater the gravitational potential energy. These relationships are expressed by the following equation:
PEgrav = mass • g • height
With no meaningful correlation with atmospheric pressure. The amount of potential energy and why a falling object has force is negligible concerning atmosphere in most cases. And the atmosphere is not responsible why an object falls to earth, and why it has force.
Let’s take a 1kg mass with potential energy .152 meters off a surface and calculate the potential energy..
The solution should be 1.470998 j
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy
In a compression chamber at twice the normal atmosphere, your saying potential energy should be double? As atmospheric pressure increases, so should potential energy. If not. Why?
So. In your model. If this is the scenario. The vacuum chamber is purged with nitrogen. The pressure is drawn off until almost zero. The vacuum chamber is chilled to cooler than the point nitrogen turns to liquid.
What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure? Is potential energy almost zero? If the 1kg weight is let loose? Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?
No. The F’n weight is going to drop as fast, if not faster. With the same force. If not more force from lack of air friction. Like dropping a feather in a vacuum.
The notion items fall to earth because of air pressure, and not gravity is bollocks. It’s not seen in the modeling and math behind things falling to earth. And not in ballistics other than opposition as in air friction.
-
Let’s take a 1kg mass with potential energy .152 meters off a surface and calculate the potential energy..
The solution should be 1.470998 j
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy
In a compression chamber at twice the normal atmosphere, your saying potential energy should be double? As atmospheric pressure increases, so should potential energy. If not. Why?
No I'm not saying that.
If you raise the pressure you raise it throughout and placing your dense mass within it is still going to offer a higher spring back to the ground against a higher resistance beneath.
So. In your model. If this is the scenario. The vacuum chamber is purged with nitrogen. The pressure is drawn off until almost zero. The vacuum chamber is chilled to cooler than the point nitrogen turns to liquid.
Purging it with nitrogen is going to do what?
It will still have pressure within.
What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure? Is potential energy almost zero? If the 1kg weight is let loose? Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?
What you have to remember is, you're placing the dense mass into that chamber and that lower pressure in that chamber still offers a spring for the object that's displaced that part of the lower pressure so all you do is have less of a spring but also much less resistance to it beneath.
No. The F’n weight is going to drop as fast, if not faster. With the same force. If not more force from lack of air friction. Like dropping a feather in a vacuum.
Of course it'll drop faster because there's much less resistance to the very same dense mass.
The notion items fall to earth because of air pressure, and not gravity is bollocks. It’s not seen in the modeling and math behind things falling to earth. And not in ballistics other than opposition as in air friction.
It's bollocks to you because you believe in a fictional force.
The reality is, the truth of it is all around us and in anyone's face who wishes to bother to take the time to see past the coerced learning of a fantasy gravity.
-
Let’s take a 1kg mass with potential energy .152 meters off a surface and calculate the potential energy..
The solution should be 1.470998 j
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy
In a compression chamber at twice the normal atmosphere, your saying potential energy should be double? As atmospheric pressure increases, so should potential energy. If not. Why?
No I'm not saying that.
If you raise the pressure you raise it throughout and placing your dense mass within it is still going to offer a higher spring back to the ground against a higher resistance beneath.
Meaningless. If things fall because of atmospheric pressure, then there should be a direct correlation between potential energy and atmospheric pressure.There is not.
As shown in a vacuum changer where a feather and a bowling ball fall at the same rate and have different potential energies.
So. In your model. If this is the scenario. The vacuum chamber is purged with nitrogen. The pressure is drawn off until almost zero. The vacuum chamber is chilled to cooler than the point nitrogen turns to liquid.
Purging it with nitrogen is going to do what?
It will still have pressure within.
Purge with nitrogen pushes out items like argon gas that take a lower temperature to turn to liquid. You can just about purge all other gas out to where the vacuum chamber probably 99.99 percent nitrogen. Draw out as much pressure as possible. Drop the temperature to where the nitrogen turns to nitrogen. Then no more gas pressure in the vacuum chamber.
Again…
What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure? Is potential energy almost zero? If the 1kg weight is let loose? Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?
What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure? Is potential energy almost zero? If the 1kg weight is let loose? Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?
What you have to remember is, you're placing the dense mass into that chamber and that lower pressure in that chamber still offers a spring for the object that's displaced that part of the lower pressure so all you do is have less of a spring but also much less resistance to it beneath.
How does it act like a spring. It acts like the force of friction. The only time gas acts like a “spring” is if it’s confined in a piston like a gas shock. Would you say a ship sailing through water acts like a spring. No, the water provides friction because the ship cuts through the water. It doesn’t compress it like a trapped hydraulic cylinder. Like the 1kg weight can fall through and cut through the gas in a vacuum chamber. Where a piston cannot cut trough a gas because the trapped gas has nowhere to escape. The piston pushes it to compression that can be read. What is the increase pressure of dropping a sledgehammer in a closed box where the sledgehammer makes no kind of seal to trap pressure?
Friction opposes motion. Springs work within Hooke’s law.
Where in open atmosphere does the atmosphere act like a spring in accordance with Hooke’s law
In physics, Hooke's law is an empirical law which states that the force (F) needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance (x) scales linearly with respect to that distance—that is, Fs = kx, where k is a constant factor characteristic of the spring (i.e., its stiffness), and x is small compared to the total possible deformation of the spring.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law
No. The F’n weight is going to drop as fast, if not faster. With the same force. If not more force from lack of air friction. Like dropping a feather in a vacuum.
Of course it'll drop faster because there's much less resistance to the very same dense mass.
Then if there is less resistance where you state….
For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.
Air resistance is negligible in most simple physics problems. We can statistically take away almost, if not all gas molecules collisions, in a cold vacuum chamber for a dropped object.
In your model in a vacuum chamber with zero pressure, there is no reason for an item to fall. No reason the item should transmit any appreciable force. That is how we know your model is false. And just plain BS.
The notion items fall to earth because of air pressure, and not gravity is bollocks. It’s not seen in the modeling and math behind things falling to earth. And not in ballistics other than opposition as in air friction.
It's bollocks to you because you believe in a fictional force.
Again. Force should be dependent on atmospheric pressure in your model, and it’s not. Air resistance is negligible. There is no meaningful correlation between potential energy and atmosphere pressure.
Tthe reality is, the truth of it is all around us and in anyone's face who wishes to bother to take the time to see past the coerced learning of a fantasy gravity.
Then show how to model atmosphere pressure with potential energy in a predictable and meaningful way that is more accurate than the gravitational model.
And…
In accordance with the three laws of motion.
Where gravity is zero.
What motivates the sledgehammer to overcome friction / resistance from the atmosphere with a starting point of zero inertia/ momentum to fall? Why is it always down. Why can’t I take something like a apple. Place a hand below and above the apple. Remove both hands at the same time to have it always fall straight down? There is less air resistance above than below. Why can’t I trick the apple to fall up?
-
The reality is, the truth of it is all around us and in anyone's face who wishes to bother to take the time to see past the coerced learning of a fantasy gravity.
Actually the reality is that a vacuum chamber experiment blows up your theory. A device with an accelerometer blows up your theory. A roller coaster blows up your theory. Things are designed, engineered, built everyday that use gravity and gravity calculations at their core and funny enough, they work spectacularly well as intended. Zero things use denpressure.
Now if you could demonstrate how all these things should be using denpressure instead and with equal or better results, that would be something. But as it stands, denpressure is useless to everyone around the globe.
But let's try this out. How do I calculate for denpressure when, say, designing/engineering a roller coaster drop? It can't have too much force, neg or pos, or my passengers will suffer, but needs to have enough neg & pos forces to provide a thrill.
- It has 5 cars, 2 passengers each, for a total combined estimated weight of 1360 kilos
- First drop is 30 meters at an angle of 75°
How might I use denpressure to calculate the forces exerted throughout the run to make sure it's safe and provides a thrilling experience? What speed will the 5 cars achieve at the end of the drop?
-
I can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it because it simply cannot happen
Prove it.
Are you sure this isn't based upon your fantasy of a vacuum being impossible because you want to pretend molecules/atoms are unpoppable balloons which just inflate to always fill the gap so such an object will always be being pushed on by these atoms if it tries to move through them?
Here's the simplicity of motion. To create motion you need to create friction/energy and to do this you absolutely need something to push off of.
And that can simply be the object you are putting into motion.
It is only if you want to remain where you are that you need something to push off.
Imagine a hypothetical world where there is a compressed spring sitting right up against a solid block with a similar mass to the spring, with nothing else there.
What happens?
Does it all just magically sit there, or does the compression of the spring cause it to expand, with this expansion hitting the solid block pushing the solid block and spring apart?
If you want, you could even have 2 identical compressed springs sitting directly adjacent.
No matter what you look at or use you will see it requires resistance to offer work and equal resistance to counter it for every effort/energy put into that force of motion.
Only in the sense that you need to apply a force to accelerate an object and that object pushes back, resisting that change in motion.
We are being coaxed into a belief system of somehow being offered something magically getting into motion and immediately staying in exact motion with absolutely no reactionary force applied to the object put into motion.
No, we are not.
Instead we just aren't be coaxed into a ridiculous belief of needing to push against something else.
-
will expend energy keeping the potential energy of that dense mass aloft
Why?
This makes perfect sense with gravity. But makes no sense in your model.
Especially as you want to claim it is just the air (even though you repeatedly contradict that) which should just push the object up, not down.
until you release it which will allow the atmosphere to basically spring crush it down
Again, as the pressure of the atmosphere is greater below the object, it should push the object up, not down.
Why should it magically overcome the atmosphere below?
aided by the atmosphere above to its own dense mass.
And yet again, you wish to claim it is the mass causing it.
So why bother with the atmosphere at all?
Why not just appeal to the mass and only deal with the atmosphere when it comes to buoyancy where the force of the atmosphere pushing up is significant?
Repeatedly appealing to the atmosphere as if it pushes objects down doesn't help your case at all.
But even with this, you still need to explain what is causing that mass to want to go down, and you can't use the atmosphere.
Nothing ever separates to leave free space.
Again, the massive difference in properties of a gas compared to the same substance as a liquid or a solid; and the phase transition to the gas clearly demonstrates that you can.
Brownian motion clearly demonstrates that you can.
If your nonsense was true, there should not be a clear barrier between liquids and gasses.
Instead, as you heat a liquid up it should just expand, becoming less and less dense as it does so as the molecules expand, with no clear transition to the gas phase.
But back in reality, we have a quite clear transition. As you heat a substance, the liquid becomes slightly less dense, but typically only changes by a very small amount. Until it reaches the boiling point, where it sits at the same temperature as more and more of the molecules overcome the intermolecular forces holding them together as a liquid, breaking free with plenty of free space between the molecules in the gas phase, until it has all boiled, at which point the gas then continues heating.
That large amount of energy needed to turn it into gas (for water, it is more energy to turn it into gas than it is to take it from ice to its boiling point) is the energy required to overcome the intermolecular forces holding it together.
Again, if the molecules simply expanded and remained held together, there would not be this large energy requirement as the intermolecular forces would not be overcome.
We can even demonstrate the kind of behaviour expected under your nonsense with the transition to a supercritical fluid where the volume is so small and the pressure is so great there the free space between molecules is insignificant.
So no, we know that in the gas phase, the molecules are not tightly held together like they are in a liquid or solid phase. Instead we know that there is free space between them. But because the molecules are contained, there is no expansion as it turns to gas.
You repeatedly rejecting this when you have no explanation at all for the observed properties shows that you are happy to wilfully reject reality to pretend your fantasy is true.
Less resistance to the drop is all you get
Why?
If it is the air pushing the hammer down, why don't we also get less of a push down?
Again, you are effectively appealing to gravity. You are appealing to gravity acting on the mass of the hammer to pull it down, with the air just resisting the subsequent motion.
Force is friction, Mass is always moving which means it's friction.
No, friction is a specific type of force. Not all forces are friction.
Friction is a force based upon relative lateral motion (or preventing that).
i.e. if you have a plate sitting on a table, friction tries to prevent that plate sliding on the table. But it isn't friction preventing that plate going through the table or flying up into the air.
And as objects in motion do not need a force to continue their motion, that means it definitely doesn't need friction.
The mass is treated as being in a perfect vacuum with no surface friction.
It's impossible.
While it is impossible to get to that perfect state, we can get to a state where the amount of air and friction is entirely negligible.
Your arms and body expend energy holding the dense mass displacing the atmosphere along with your own arms and body. No gravity is ever required in any magical form.
Of course it isn't required in a magical form. You are the one trying to use magic.
Gravity is required in a quite normal form. Gravity is what you are fighting to hold the dense mass up.
It clearly isn't the atmosphere as less atmosphere (by mass) is displaced at this higher altitude, and the atmosphere is trying to push the hammer up to reduce that displacement as much as possible.
So what are you fighting that requires you to provide that energy? Gravity.
A body is never at rest, it's always expanding and contracting by agitation or friction, or vibration.
That is the individual components of the object, not the object as a whole.
But what if the object is a single atom? Or a single proton?
The only thing the atmosphere offers is opposing the motion in the form of friction.
It's all it ever has to offer.
So you accept that it does not push things down.
Gravity is a fantasy, made up to keep a spinning globe and planets and a universe alive in people's minds.
Gravity is a reality, backed up by mountains of evidence, with no one able to provide a viable alternative.
And as pointed out, your delusional BS works just as well on a RE.
For starters, the pressure around the sledgehammer is in equilibrium.
It never truly is.
The gas molecules hitting the top of the sledgehammer are the same number as hitting the bottom.
No they aren't. Not quite, hence why we have a layered and stacked atmosphere.
That's right. It is never truly equal, at least not in a gravity well.
Instead you have a greater pressure at the bottom. This greater pressure acts to push the hammer up. Not down, UP!
This means if it was just the air, the hammer should be going upwards.
We can also demonstrate this by weighing substances in various fluids, where we see the lower the density of the fluid the more the object appears to weigh, and if we do that with a gas, we can see that as the pressure drops the density does as well, and the weight approaches the true weight of the object, that is the weight the object would have without being immersed in a fluid.
You're offering free-flowing gas molecules in free space.
i.e. REALITY!
You should not be surprised by this.
Your inability to refute it means people will continue to use it.
Without gravity there is no force to break the equilibrium.
No need for fictional gravity.
But a real need for real gravity.
Unless you can provide an alternative.
And as we have already firmly established, the air pushes up, not down, so the alternative cannot be the air.
We also know it isn't the atmosphere magically resisting a force that was applied earlier.
This is easy to demonstrate by moving the hammer sideways instead. The air doesn't magically push it back. So why should it magically push it back down?
-
@ceptimatic
The Fundamentals Of Vacuum Theory
https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
Under lower and lower pressure, the molecules spread out further and further, until, at ultra-high vacuum (10-12 mbar), there are only 2.65 x 104 or 26,500 molecules per cubic centimeter. At this density, there is only one molecule roughly every 0.33 mm in space. Since the diameter of each gas molecule is much less than this (4 x 10-8 cm for air, for example), there is a great deal of space between molecules. To put it into proportion, if gas molecules were grains of sand, at ultra-high vacuum they would be 1,650 meters apart. At these extremely low pressures, the collisions between molecules, which normally dictate the properties of gases, become very infrequent and a different theoretical model is required to explain their properties (the so-called Kinetic Theory of Gases).
https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
-
@sceptimatic
(https://i.imgur.com/Q0d9euU.mp4)
I can place a hand under the ball and above the ball.
No mater how I move my hands away, the ball goes from a state of zero velocity, zero momentum, zero inertia to end up moving down. Why in the zero gravity flat earth model.
Let me know if you need a YouTube video.
-
Are you retarded?
How the object came into motion is irrelevant. Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.
It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!
Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.
-
Are you retarded?
How the object came into motion is irrelevant. Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.
It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!
Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.
Oceans are in motion. How did the oceans first become in motion? I'll wait.
-
Are you retarded?
How the object came into motion is irrelevant. Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.
It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!
Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.
Oceans are in motion. How did the oceans first become in motion? I'll wait.
Um, no, Newton was referring to objects in general, here on Earth. Not about clouds, or stars, or humans, which ARE 'objects', that DO move, he wasn't referring to humans, as objects in motion, which stay in motion unless acted on by another force, but let's say he was.....
When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'? No, we just stop walking ourselves, there's no 'force' that MAKES us stop walking, right?
Nothing makes us STOP moving, if we want to stop moving, it's OUR energy that CAUSED our moving, our walking, and our ENDING of energy that stops our moving around, too!
Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.
Nice try at twisting it, but no dice!
So he was talking about objects, after put into motion, will tend to STAY in motion, unless acted on BY ANOTHER FORCE!
There ARE NO OBJECTS IN MOTION, without being PUT into motion by a FORCE acting on them, BEFORE they ARE in motion, AFTERWARDS.
Why would THAT possibly be RELEVANT to this? Hmm, any idea?
Because 'when objects are in motion', is complete BS, and is just another TRICK! They use many tricks, like this, over and over again.
Objects 'in motion' - let's start with that - ignore WHY they're 'in motion', TO BEGIN WITH!
All good to go, after that point, right?
-
It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!
That also relies upon something you haven't supported. What makes you say objects magically began to exist at rest? How do you know objects didn't magically begin to exist already in motion, and then slow down?
But regardless, what put them into motion is quite irrelavent to discuss what happens once they are in motion.
When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'?
Yes.
An easy way to see this is if you are walking quickly, and something stops your feet.
You see how the top of your body keeps moving, because the force hasn't acted on that, resulting in you faceplanting into the pavement.
You can also see it to some extent on ice.
If you want to stop, you apply a force, typically to the ground, which applies a force back to you.
Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.
How many times will you repeat this garbage?
There is absolutely no reason at all to think a force keeps on acting after it has already acted to put the object in motion.
Again, all the available evidence indicates that objects stop because of forces acting to stop them.
-
It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!
That also relies upon something you haven't supported. What makes you say objects magically began to exist at rest? How do you know objects didn't magically begin to exist already in motion, and then slow down?
But regardless, what put them into motion is quite irrelavent to discuss what happens once they are in motion.
When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'?
Yes.
An easy way to see this is if you are walking quickly, and something stops your feet.
You see how the top of your body keeps moving, because the force hasn't acted on that, resulting in you faceplanting into the pavement.
You can also see it to some extent on ice.
If you want to stop, you apply a force, typically to the ground, which applies a force back to you.
Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.
How many times will you repeat this garbage?
There is absolutely no reason at all to think a force keeps on acting after it has already acted to put the object in motion.
Again, all the available evidence indicates that objects stop because of forces acting to stop them.
Why would you think the force acting on the object, making it move, doesn't make it move throughout the time?
When using MORE force than before, the object moves faster, and for longer than it did when LESS force was used on it, right?
The more force was used, which proves it IS the initial force acting on it, of course. Other forces like friction are a minor factor in it, mainly it is the initial force that dies out, which makes it stop moving, primarily.
How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on. It doesn't just make it START to move, and that's all.
-
Why would you think the force acting on the object, making it move, doesn't make it move throughout the time?
Because you stop applying a force.
If I throw a ball, after the ball has been released, my hand is no longer in contact with it.
I can move my hand around all I want, without affecting the ball.
So how is my hand meant to keep the ball moving?
When using MORE force than before, the object moves faster, and for longer than it did when LESS force was used on it, right?
The more force was used, which proves it IS the initial force acting on it, of course.
No, it doesn't prove that at all.
If anything, it proves the opposite.
If it was the initial force dying out, why should the magnitude of that force make a difference?
Why shouldn't the force just magically die out after some time and cause the object to stop?
Also, the same can be achieved by applying the same force, but for longer.
So what that really is is the impulse, which is really just how much the momentum has changed.
So that is just appealing to momentum.
But again, there is no reason at all to think that means the momentum is magically dying for no reason causing the object to slow down.
Perhaps the most significant reason why is that all motion is relative. What is the momentum meant to die relative to?
If you throw something into water, it doesn't just magically stop moving relative to some magical absolute reference frame, instead it stops moving relative to that water.
Other forces like friction are a minor factor in it, mainly it is the initial force that dies out, which makes it stop moving, primarily.
Pure BS.
The fact that the geometry of the object and various things which influence friction and the like, and most importantly for this topic, the directionality play such a large role in how long the object takes to stop makes it abundantly clear that it is NOT just the initial force dying out. Instead it is another force acting to stop it.
There are plenty of tests you can do to demonstrate this.
If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
If your nonsense was true, cars and other objects would not be designed to be aerodynamic.
If your nonsense was true, gliders would not exist.
Again, take a brick, slide it along a rough surface, like dirt; slide it along a smooth, low friction surface like smooth ice, place it on an object with wheels and roll that, throw it straight up with, and throw it horizontally.
Drive your car along a straight private road/open area reaching 100 km/hr, and then put it in neutral, and see how long it takes to coast to a stop.
Then repeat, but this time slam on the breaks and see how long it takes to stop.
You will see a different behaviour each time.
This shows it is another force acting to stop the object, not just the object magically stopping because the magical force which magically put it into magical motion magically died out and cause it to stop.
-
How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on.
Take a car moving at 55 mph on a flat surface with the computer showing the calculated gas mileage of about 26 miles per gallon.
For a no gravity delusion for the car transitioning from a flat surface to a steep hill. Why does the gas mileage drop to around 10 miles per gallon, the transmission gear down, RPMs come up, and the car uses fuel at an increased rate to just keep its speed at 55 mph? To go up hill.
The car is able to mechanically set the curse control to keep power output the same and constant. Yet, because the force of gravity is pulling at the car going up hill, the car’s curse control must increase fuel consumption and power output to keep the same speed. As kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy.
-
Because you stop applying a force.
If I throw a ball, after the ball has been released, my hand is no longer in contact with it.
I can move my hand around all I want, without affecting the ball.
So how is my hand meant to keep the ball moving?
Because it applied all the force TO the ball, at first contact. If that force stopped acting on the ball immediately after contact, the ball would immediately stop moving. But it keeps moving, AFTER the force acted on it, which means the force is STILL acting on it. Otherwise, the ball would stop moving the instant after the force acted on it.
If it was the initial force dying out, why should the magnitude of that force make a difference?
Why shouldn't the force just magically die out after some time and cause the object to stop?
The initial force does NOT die out immediately, that's why more force makes the ball move faster, and for longer, than with LESS force applied to it. There's nothing else that accounts for the ball moving faster and for longer, right?
If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
No, that is what YOU believe, that the force stops acting right away on the object, which is NOT the case. You're very confused about you own argument here.
There is only ONE force which makes the object move in the first place, and KEEPS it in motion, afterwards, until it dies out. Force is simply applied energy. Energy does not stop acting on objects the instant it is gone, it acts on objects long afterwards, until it dies out.
When you apply one second of force to an object, and it moves at 20 mph hour, for a distance of 30 feet, and stops moving after 10 seconds, what happens to the object when you apply MORE force to the SAME object, for the SAME one second? Does it move at the same speed, over the same distance, for the same 10 seconds time?
No, of course not. It moves FASTER than before, over MORE distance than before, for a LONGER period of time, right?
Why? The force acted on it for 1 second in both cases, right? If the force only acts on it for that 1 second, it would move at the SAME speed, over the SAME distance, for the SAME period of time, no? Why doesn't that happen? Because the FORCE applied to the object is different, over the SAME one second of time.
-
Because it applied all the force TO the ball, at first contact.
Which accelerated the ball.
Just like if you put a knife through an apple to cut it in 2, it doesn't magically stick itself back together after you take the knife away.
The force makes it move, it doesn't keep it moving.
If that force stopped acting on the ball immediately after contact, the ball would immediately stop moving.
No, it would stop accelerating.
All you are doing now is just repeatedly asserting the same delusional BS.
If it was still acting, it should feel as if you are still pushing on the ball, and if you pull your hand back, the ball should stop, and if the ball hit a wall, it should feel like you smashed your hand into the wall.
In reality, there is no longer a connection between the ball and your hand. Your hand has stopped acting on the ball, the force has stopped acting.
If it was the initial force dying out, why should the magnitude of that force make a difference?
Why shouldn't the force just magically die out after some time and cause the object to stop?
The initial force does NOT die out immediately, that's why more force makes the ball move faster, and for longer, than with LESS force applied to it. There's nothing else that accounts for the ball moving faster and for longer, right?
Try actually answering the question.
Why should the magnitude of the force matter at all?
Why shouldn't they all just die out after some time?
The ball moves faster because it received a larger impulse, and it takes longer to stop because it has more momentum which must be acted against to slow it down.
No need for any magical connected forces.
If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
No, that is what YOU believe
No, that is a direct consequence of the delusional BS you have spouted.
If you want to claim the main cause of things stopping is because the force dies out, that means breaks on a car are useless as they do not significantly impact how long it takes the car to stop.
With my belief, which is based upon all the available evidence that I know of, the car needs a force to stop it moving, which can be either the forces associated with deforming the tyres, or the force of air resistance, or the force of friction on the countless components of the car that are rotating, or the force of the breaks. Because cars are designed to minimise losses, without breaks, it can continue for quite some time, while using the breaks will stop it quite quickly.
So my belief matches reality quite well.
Your belief directly contradicts it.
There is only ONE force which makes the object move in the first place, and KEEPS it in motion, afterwards, until it dies out. Force is simply applied energy. Energy does not stop acting on objects the instant it is gone, it acts on objects long afterwards, until it dies out.
Force is a particular type of applied energy. But energy doesn't act, at least not in that sense.
The force accelerates the object, increasing its kinetic energy.
In order to stop, that energy has to go somewhere.
For example, it could go to heat due to frictional forces.
But with your delusional BS, that energy just magically vanishes.
Your delusional BS doesn't even need that force to keep acting, as there is nothing trying to stop it, so why should it need to act?
When you apply one second of force to an object, and it moves at 20 mph hour, for a distance of 30 feet, and stops moving after 10 seconds, what happens to the object when you apply MORE force to the SAME object, for the SAME one second? Does it move at the same speed, over the same distance, for the same 10 seconds time?
No, of course not. It moves FASTER than before, over MORE distance than before, for a LONGER period of time, right?
Why?
If the force magically dies in 10 seconds, why shouldn't it just die in 10 seconds? Why should the magnitude of the applied force have any impact on how long it magically lives for?
If you apply a force twice as large to an object twice the mass, what should happen? Should it still die out after a longer time, or should it now magically die out in the same amount of time?
And of course, yet again you just ignore all the simple observations which so trivially demonstrate that you are spouting nonesnse.
If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
If your nonsense was true, cars and other objects would not be designed to be aerodynamic.
If your nonsense was true, gliders would not exist.
Again, take a brick, slide it along a rough surface, like dirt; slide it along a smooth, low friction surface like smooth ice, place it on an object with wheels and roll that, throw it straight up with, and throw it horizontally.
Drive your car along a straight private road/open area reaching 100 km/hr, and then put it in neutral, and see how long it takes to coast to a stop.
Then repeat, but this time slam on the breaks and see how long it takes to stop.
You will see a different behaviour each time.
This shows it is another force acting to stop the object, not just the object magically stopping because the magical force which magically put it into magical motion magically died out and cause it to stop.
-
How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on.
Take a car moving at 55 mph on a flat surface with the computer showing the calculated gas mileage of about 26 miles per gallon.
For a no gravity delusion for the car transitioning from a flat surface to a steep hill. Why does the gas mileage drop to around 10 miles per gallon, the transmission gear down, RPMs come up, and the car uses fuel at an increased rate to just keep its speed at 55 mph? To go up hill.
The car is able to mechanically set the curse control to keep power output the same and constant. Yet, because the force of gravity is pulling at the car going up hill, the car’s curse control must increase fuel consumption and power output to keep the same speed. As kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy.
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
-
How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on.
Take a car moving at 55 mph on a flat surface with the computer showing the calculated gas mileage of about 26 miles per gallon.
For a no gravity delusion for the car transitioning from a flat surface to a steep hill. Why does the gas mileage drop to around 10 miles per gallon, the transmission gear down, RPMs come up, and the car uses fuel at an increased rate to just keep its speed at 55 mph? To go up hill.
The car is able to mechanically set the curse control to keep power output the same and constant. Yet, because the force of gravity is pulling at the car going up hill, the car’s curse control must increase fuel consumption and power output to keep the same speed. As kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy.
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
No. Gravity is demonstrably real. Because we have this…. Regenerative Braking
These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking
They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022
https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp
Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!
-
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
If it is getting less resistance, shouldn't it be easier for it to move?
But regardless, the orientation clearly doesn't matter, as people, even standing upright, find it harder to go up a hill.
And it clearly isn't what part of the stack they are in, as if it was, it would be harder walking at the top of a hill (even going down) than at the bottom.
Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
Until you can provide a viable alternative, gravity, and the entirely non magical force it actually is, is needed.
-
How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on.
Take a car moving at 55 mph on a flat surface with the computer showing the calculated gas mileage of about 26 miles per gallon.
For a no gravity delusion for the car transitioning from a flat surface to a steep hill. Why does the gas mileage drop to around 10 miles per gallon, the transmission gear down, RPMs come up, and the car uses fuel at an increased rate to just keep its speed at 55 mph? To go up hill.
The car is able to mechanically set the curse control to keep power output the same and constant. Yet, because the force of gravity is pulling at the car going up hill, the car’s curse control must increase fuel consumption and power output to keep the same speed. As kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy.
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
No. Gravity is demonstrably real. Because we have this…. Regenerative Braking
These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking
They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022
https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp
Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!
That offers nothing for magical gravity.
-
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
If it is getting less resistance, shouldn't it be easier for it to move?
It is easier to move once it stops in the stacked layers and becomes returned energy or what's known as potential energy.
But regardless, the orientation clearly doesn't matter, as people, even standing upright, find it harder to go up a hill.
Nobody stands upright when going up a hill without angling their bodies to resist the push back down via the hill foundation.
And it clearly isn't what part of the stack they are in, as if it was, it would be harder walking at the top of a hill (even going down) than at the bottom.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you expound upon it?
Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
Until you can provide a viable alternative, gravity, and the entirely non magical force it actually is, is needed.
I already have provided it and gravity is a magical fantasy force.
-
That offers nothing for magical gravity.
It’s practical engineering solution that uses the very real force of gravity to use regenerative braking. Gravity is a force being used to motivate the reluctance of electrons to move in a regenerative breaking circuit to charge batteries. The force of gravity being converted to electrical potential, or the force to cause electrical current to flow.
And Hooke’s law as used in a hanging spring scale also kills your no gravity delusion.
Springs follow Hooke's Law which states that the restoring force, FR exerted by the spring is equal to the stretch or compression distance, known as the displacement (Δx), multiplied by spring stiffness (k) and the direction of the force is opposite to the direction of the displacement.
(1) quicklatex.com-4240bd39c525f948de5148fce9d6c5d9_l3.png
A higher spring stiffness means the spring shows a greater resistance to stretching or compressing. Spring stiffness is often called the spring constant.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Conceptual_Physics/Book%3A_Body_Physics_-_Motion_to_Metabolism_(Davis)/07%3A_Strength_and_Elasticity_of_the_Body/7.05%3A_Measuring_Weight#Springs
Regenerative braking and Hooke’s Law are engineering principles that harness the very real, and demonstrably gravity, and has a level of predictability in ways your butchered version of gravity cannot reach.
That’s the funny thing like individuals like you a turbo. You claim no gravity. Then bend over backwards trying to butcher gravity to claim it isn’t gravity. Just to make some delusional version of gravity.
So. Three individuals posting about “no gravity”. bulmabriefs144, turbonium2, and sceptimatic? And yet there is no real coherent explanation for what gravity does between the three of you.
-
It is easier to move once it stops in the stacked layers and becomes returned energy or what's known as potential energy.
You mean gravitational potential energy, the very thing you are trying to reject?
Nobody stands upright when going up a hill without angling their bodies to resist the push back down via the hill foundation.
Well if you want to go to that level of detail, people angle themselves forwards when going up a hill, which would be comparable to a car angling itself down as it goes down a hill.
So that should make it easier to walk up a hill than walk on a flat surface.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you expound upon it?
If you are saying the car being in a higher up part of the stack makes it harder for it to move, then this should be based upon altitude. i.e. if you are in a higher up part of he stack, it is harder to move, regardless of if you are going up or down.
So collectively, the only thing left is the upwards motion. But as the air should be pushing things up, and without a force like gravity trying to push/pull things down, that shouldn't be the case at all.
Until you can provide a viable alternative, gravity, and the entirely non magical force it actually is, is needed.
I already have provided it and gravity is a magical fantasy force.
You are yet to provide any coherent explanation for why things fall.
Instead you claim one thing, which is outright contradicted by reality, and you then proceed to contradict it.
You can't even remain consistent on if it is the object itself trying to go down, or if it is just the air trying to push it down.
Likewise, you are yet to show anything magical or fantastical about gravity.
-
That offers nothing for magical gravity.
It’s practical engineering solution that uses the very real force of gravity to use regenerative braking. Gravity is a force being used to motivate the reluctance of electrons to move in a regenerative breaking circuit to charge batteries. The force of gravity being converted to electrical potential, or the force to cause electrical current to flow.
And Hooke’s law as used in a hanging spring scale also kills your no gravity delusion.
Springs follow Hooke's Law which states that the restoring force, FR exerted by the spring is equal to the stretch or compression distance, known as the displacement (Δx), multiplied by spring stiffness (k) and the direction of the force is opposite to the direction of the displacement.
(1) quicklatex.com-4240bd39c525f948de5148fce9d6c5d9_l3.png
A higher spring stiffness means the spring shows a greater resistance to stretching or compressing. Spring stiffness is often called the spring constant.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Conceptual_Physics/Book%3A_Body_Physics_-_Motion_to_Metabolism_(Davis)/07%3A_Strength_and_Elasticity_of_the_Body/7.05%3A_Measuring_Weight#Springs
Regenerative braking and Hooke’s Law are engineering principles that harness the very real, and demonstrably gravity, and has a level of predictability in ways your butchered version of gravity cannot reach.
That’s the funny thing like individuals like you a turbo. You claim no gravity. Then bend over backwards trying to butcher gravity to claim it isn’t gravity. Just to make some delusional version of gravity.
So. Three individuals posting about “no gravity”. bulmabriefs144, turbonium2, and sceptimatic? And yet there is no real coherent explanation for what gravity does between the three of you.
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
-
It is easier to move once it stops in the stacked layers and becomes returned energy or what's known as potential energy.
You mean gravitational potential energy, the very thing you are trying to reject?
Atmospheric reaction to action against it by any dense mass.
-
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
Again…
Then where is the force coming from to drive the regeneration braking circuit? Why does the process work in this example because the weight in the cars with gravity is supplying the force to charge the batteries to drive the empty train back up hill.
What force is driving the weighted train downhill to motive the electrons in the regenerative braking system to provide enough electrical potential to charge the batteries for the unloaded return trip uphill?
In a normal fuel / motor/ generator system, energy from gas/diesel would be used to drive an engine to drive the generator to charge the battery. The more depleted the battery, the more energy required to charge the battery, thus more fuel.
In the example of just weighted trains and gravity, where is the energy coming from to drive the regenerative braking “generators” to charge the batteries.
-
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
What's the motive for millions of people to hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves?
How do millions of people get away with using gravity in designing everything from airplanes to the accelerometer in your smartphone all using gravity and not just atmospheric pressure against any dense mass?
What are your calculations for atmospheric pressure against any dense mass that they all should be using instead?
-
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
There is no full explanation of why because gravity is a fundamental force, and like all forces there is the question of why.
Why do opposite electric charges attract, why do like electric charges repel?
But once you have either the simple Newtonian explanation of mass attracts mass or the relativistic explanation of mass/energy curves spacetime with objects following a geodesic through space time unless acted upon by another force, we do have an explanation for what gravity does.
What is quite clear, is that it is not the atmospheric pressure.
Once more, if it was pressure, then it would be a push upwards, on everything, due to the greater pressure below.
If you instead want the atmosphere to magically defy that, and push in some other direction, then you need an explanation for why it should, and you have none.
It also means that the atmosphere should then push everything down. So why should anything go up?
It also means that the weight of an object should depend on atmospheric pressure.
And it means you shouldn't be able to have things like a mercury filled barometer.
Even you recognise the atmosphere can't explain it by repeatedly appealing to the dense mass of the object at least helping it overcome the push from below.
Gravity is the best explanation we have.
Your nonsense doesn't even come close to an explanation.
Atmospheric reaction to action against it by any dense mass.
You mean like how if you push an object to the left, the atmosphere pushes it back to the right?
Except it doesn't.
Or do you mean how the atmosphere tries to push all objects upwards, out of the atmosphere?
-
At least when you explain something obvious to a box of rocks, it accepts what you say. But not Scepti.
-
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
Again…
Then where is the force coming from to drive the regeneration braking circuit? Why does the process work in this example because the weight in the cars with gravity is supplying the force to charge the batteries to drive the empty train back up hill.
What force is driving the weighted train downhill to motive the electrons in the regenerative braking system to provide enough electrical potential to charge the batteries for the unloaded return trip uphill?
In a normal fuel / motor/ generator system, energy from gas/diesel would be used to drive an engine to drive the generator to charge the battery. The more depleted the battery, the more energy required to charge the battery, thus more fuel.
In the example of just weighted trains and gravity, where is the energy coming from to drive the regenerative braking “generators” to charge the batteries.
As I mentioned about the massive amount of energy needing to be applied in the first place and then regular additions to ensure a working setup.
You seem to be omitting this.
-
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
What's the motive for millions of people to hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves?
How do millions of people get away with using gravity in designing everything from airplanes to the accelerometer in your smartphone all using gravity and not just atmospheric pressure against any dense mass?
What are your calculations for atmospheric pressure against any dense mass that they all should be using instead?
If you can actually tell me what exactly is used to show this gravity I'll have something to go on.
Do you actually know?
-
There is no full explanation of why because gravity is a fundamental force, and like all forces there is the question of why.
There's no explanation because it's a made-up force to basically hide the reality (my opinion) of what's really happening which is any dense mass displacing atmosphere, including denser liquids (water as an instance) of it.
Why do opposite electric charges attract, why do like electric charges repel?
To understand this you only need to understand water flow.
But once you have either the simple Newtonian explanation of mass attracts mass or the relativistic explanation of mass/energy curves spacetime with objects following a geodesic through space time unless acted upon by another force, we do have an explanation for what gravity does.
Mass attracts mass? What exactly does that mean?
It's nonsense.
What is quite clear, is that it is not the atmospheric pressure.
What is quite clear is, it's all to do with atmosphere but most people can't grasp it because they only think of moveable air as if it was the only thing we negotiate of the atmosphere.
Once more, if it was pressure, then it would be a push upwards, on everything, due to the greater pressure below.
It squeezes either up or down depending on any dense mass displacement of it.
If you instead want the atmosphere to magically defy that, and push in some other direction, then you need an explanation for why it should, and you have none.
It pushes in all directions as long as there's an imbalance which there always is but some imbalances are so mild we actually do not register them in everyday life.
It also means that the atmosphere should then push everything down. So why should anything go up?
Any dense mass will be squeezed up if that dense mass is less dense than the stacked atmospheric layers it is energetically placed into.
Basically, a dense mass that's broken down to become less dense than the environment it is placed into which will then be squeezed into a stacked layer that fits that broken-down molecular makeup.
Helium is one such breakdown of more dense matter.
It also means that the weight of an object should depend on atmospheric pressure.
It does, absolutely.
As long as you understand that weight is a person-made measurement of dense mass displacement of the atmosphere by use of a scale.
And it means you shouldn't be able to have things like a mercury filled barometer.
Mercury is no different against atmospheric displacement except it is denser a liquid and so, less porous, meaning it offers a better atmospheric reading without allowing seepage into the low pressure gap that already exists within the tube.
Even you recognise the atmosphere can't explain it by repeatedly appealing to the dense mass of the object at least helping it overcome the push from below.
I am explaining it but you seem to brush it aside and basically set yourself back to the start.
You of all people should grasp it but you're far too set in your ays to dare to understand it.
Gravity is the best explanation we have.
There is no explanation which is why you can't explain it, except to say, gravity.
Your nonsense doesn't even come close to an explanation.
To you, I agree. I wouldn't expect any difference and I'm answering to you to offer others the opportunity to actually pay attention.
Atmospheric reaction to action against it by any dense mass.
You mean like how if you push an object to the left, the atmosphere pushes it back to the right?
Except it doesn't.
Except it does but it doesn't equally push it back because generally you push something on the open which allows compression of the atmosphere in front to be pushed out of teh way rather than compressed directly to the front, meaning much less reaction to that initial force of dense mass pushed against that.
However, if you try to push a plunger down a shaft that has no exit, you will get exactly what you argue against, which is a near-equal reaction to the force (action) to put on the plunger and it will be pushed right back.
Try it with a bicycle pump and hold your finger over the exit hole and then plunge it and leave go. See it spring back.
Or do you mean how the atmosphere tries to push all objects upwards, out of the atmosphere?
The atmosphere squeezes and if you took the time to understand the layering system of the stacking then you'd see why.
-
At least when you explain something obvious to a box of rocks, it accepts what you say. But not Scepti.
Maybe that's your problem. Try not to converse with boxes of rocks and thinking they talk back.
-
There is no full explanation of why because gravity is a fundamental force, and like all forces there is the question of why.
There's no explanation because it's a made-up force to basically hide the reality (my opinion) of what's really happening which is any dense mass displacing atmosphere, including denser liquids (water as an instance) of it.
I just explained why there is no full explanation of gravity.
It has nothing to do with your opinion.
Dense mass displacing atmosphere provides no incentive for it to go down.
Why do opposite electric charges attract, why do like electric charges repel?
To understand this you only need to understand water flow.
No, no one knows, it is simply a fundamental property of the universe.
Due to how dipoles act, we know it isn't water flow or anything like that.
Mass attracts mass? What exactly does that mean?
It's nonsense.
Pretty much the same thing as opposite charges attract.
If you have 2 objects, with mass, they will attract each other, with a force proportional to the product of the masses.
Just like if you have 2 opposite charges, they will attract each other, with a force proportional to the product of the charges.
And in both cases, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Just why do you say it is nonsense?
Because with this one thing, so much can be explained?
Or because you can't figure out how to make a FE work with it?
What is quite clear is, it's all to do with atmosphere but most people can't grasp it because they only think of moveable air as if it was the only thing we negotiate of the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this. It wont make it true.
People can grasp what you claim, and people can recognise that it is wrong and doesn't work.
It squeezes either up or down depending on any dense mass displacement of it.
And you can provide no justification for how or why it does this, and more importantly, why it entirely defies the known ways gasses interact, the known ways pressure interacts with matter.
The air squeezes objects inwards, and pushes them up, or in more general terms, it pushes them from high pressure to low pressure.
It pushes in all directions as long as there's an imbalance which there always is but some imbalances are so mild we actually do not register them in everyday life.
And that imbalance pushes upwards due to a greater pressure below.
Any dense mass will be squeezed up if that dense mass is less dense than the stacked atmospheric layers it is energetically placed into.
Why?
If it is the atmosphere, why should the density matter at all?
Why isn't it just the atmosphere pushing everything?
It also means that the weight of an object should depend on atmospheric pressure.
It does, absolutely.
No, it doesn't, at least not in the sense discussed.
We observe a buoyant force pushing objects upwards, which does depend on atmospheric pressure due to the relationship between pressure and density.
But with your model we should expect the weight of an object to decrease drastically when the pressure is reduced.
This is not observed at all.
Mercury is no different against atmospheric displacement except it is denser a liquid and so, less porous, meaning it offers a better atmospheric reading without allowing seepage into the low pressure gap that already exists within the tube.
The issue is how the barometer works, which only functions with gravity.
You have a pressure gradient due to the weight of the mercury.
I am explaining it but you seem to brush it aside and basically set yourself back to the start.
You of all people should grasp it but you're far too set in your ays to dare to understand it.
I don't brush it aside, I explain the fault with it.
That is me grasping it and recognising that it is wrong.
You just say I am setting myself back to the start, because I recognise it doesn't work.
There is no explanation which is why you can't explain it, except to say, gravity.
Or as above, the attraction of mass.
But this then explains a lot more, including things like buoyancy.
Your nonsense doesn't even come close to an explanation.
To you, I agree. I wouldn't expect any difference and I'm answering to you to offer others the opportunity to actually pay attention.
Not just to me, to everyone.
I do pay attention, which is why I was able to describe key parts of it to others.
But because I don't agree with what you say, you accuse me of not paying attention or not understanding it.
Except it does but it doesn't equally push it back because generally you push something on the open which allows compression of the atmosphere in front to be pushed out of teh way rather than compressed directly to the front, meaning much less reaction to that initial force of dense mass pushed against that.
Unless you are pressing it into a sealed container, or pushing it very quickly, it doesn't push back any significant amount. So why should we expect it to push back when we push something up?
The atmosphere squeezes and if you took the time to understand the layering system of the stacking then you'd see why.
I have taken the time to understand. Perhaps you should try the same instead of acting like anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot that can't understand?
-
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
What's the motive for millions of people to hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves?
How do millions of people get away with using gravity in designing everything from airplanes to the accelerometer in your smartphone all using gravity and not just atmospheric pressure against any dense mass?
What are your calculations for atmospheric pressure against any dense mass that they all should be using instead?
If you can actually tell me what exactly is used to show this gravity I'll have something to go on.
Do you actually know?
Already been provided. But you still haven't answered the questions as to how one can practically apply Denpressure to real world efforts. E.g., the accelerometer in a smart phone. It has been provided to you how gravity is used in the calculations used to engineer and code such an instrument. How might engineers utilize Denpressure instead? You don't need to know how gravity is used, you need to explain the calculations needed for how Denpressure should be used instead. A simple question you should be able to easily answer. Unless Denpressure has no practical use.
-
At least when you explain something obvious to a box of rocks, it accepts what you say. But not Scepti.
Maybe that's your problem. Try not to converse with boxes of rocks and thinking they talk back.
Ha. I'd rather explain something to a box of rocks than try to explain it to you. I don't get back nonsense from the rocks.