The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Nopadon on June 02, 2020, 02:43:49 PM
-
I've yet to come across a simple argument which counters this idea.
-
No. Surface tension is too weak a force.
-
Do you know that for certain? Is there a way of proving it because if there isn't a way of showing how surface tension is too weak a force it can't be excluded as an explanation for the alleged curve. Just saying it's too weak a force isn't really enough of an argument. Elsewhere I'm presently speaking to a globe proponent who's trying to tell me the oceans bend in the same way a drop of water bends. I need a succinct way of telling him why he's wrong in thinking that but TBH it's not absolutely clear to me. Which is why I'm here really.
-
Do you know that for certain? Is there a way of proving it because if there isn't a way of showing how surface tension is too weak a force it can't be excluded as an explanation for the alleged curve. Just saying it's too weak a force isn't really enough of an argument. Elsewhere I'm presently speaking to a globe proponent who's trying to tell me the oceans bend in the same way a drop of water bends. I need a succinct way of telling him why he's wrong in thinking that but TBH it's not absolutely clear to me. Which is why I'm here really.
Surface tension is far too weak to hold the oceans to the surface of the Earth, that is correct. You can show this easily by dipping any object in water and seeing how little sticks to it. Or turn a cup of water upside down (do this in a sink). Surface tension is a very weak force at large scales, and is only dangerous if you're an ant.
Gravity is what holds the oceans, and us, and the atmosphere to the Earth, and the moon in it's orbit. That's what he should be using to explain it, and what you would need to argue against.
I'm not sure why anyone would use surface tension instead of gravity. Your friend needs some physics lessons, maybe you could both take some online courses together. It's all very fascinating how everything works.
-
What in the hell is surface tension?
-
What in the hell is surface tension?
It's the thing you remove every time you squish washing up liquid into your washing up bowl.
Now I may be making some assumptions here like; do you actually know how to use crockery, eat with a knife and fork, or chopsticks, and need therefore to do washing up?
Strange question as its one of the earliest facts taught in elementary science....Water and its covalent bonds and all that jazz.
-
I've yet to come across a simple argument which counters this idea.
Try basic science and find out what a covalent bond actually is. That should sort you out.
-
What in the hell is surface tension?
It's the thing you remove every time you squish washing up liquid into your washing up bowl.
Now I may be making some assumptions here like; do you actually know how to use crockery, eat with a knife and fork, or chopsticks, and need therefore to do washing up?
Strange question as its one of the earliest facts taught in elementary science....Water and its covalent bonds and all that jazz.
So, what exactly is surface tension. Can you explain what it is?
-
So, what exactly is surface tension. Can you explain what it is?
[/quote]
I can, but I have tried explaining something to you before. You can check it for yourself:
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=surface+tension+definition&s=l (https://lmgtfy.com/?q=surface+tension+definition&s=l)
-
In the absense of other forces, surface tension will make a collection of water into a sphere.
However if you add additional forces, such as gravity, they will likely dominate, except at the very small scale.
What in the hell is surface tension?
Surface tension is a property of all matter which tries to eliminate the surface, effectively reducing it in size as much as possible.
This results in an isolated object trying to adopt a spherical shape.
The one exception is the extremely rare case of negative surface tension which acts in the exact opposite way and tries to drive the matter to increase the size of the surface.
However as it isn't really just about surfaces, and instead is about interfaces, a better general word is interfacial tension.
This now recognises that you typically have something else in contact with the surface, and surface tension is typically referring to the interfacial tension of that substance with air, and that can be negative.
This explains why when you put a water droplet onto a hydrophobic surface, it beads up into little balls, and thus why some people treat surfaces to make them hydrophobic.
It also explains why on other surfaces, which are hydrophilic, the water appears to stick to it.
As for a full explanation, there is no point in giving it to you as it contradicts your fantasy so you would just reject it.
-
What in the hell is surface tension?
It's the thing you remove every time you squish washing up liquid into your washing up bowl.
Now I may be making some assumptions here like; do you actually know how to use crockery, eat with a knife and fork, or chopsticks, and need therefore to do washing up?
Strange question as its one of the earliest facts taught in elementary science....Water and its covalent bonds and all that jazz.
So, what exactly is surface tension. Can you explain what it is?
Go ask a pond skater, they use it to walk on water. Or why not just look it up?
-
Dear Timmy, this is a forum. Talking to other people about things is the entire point.
-
In the absense of other forces, surface tension will make a collection of water into a sphere.
However if you add additional forces, such as gravity, they will likely dominate, except at the very small scale.
What in the hell is surface tension?
Surface tension is a property of all matter which tries to eliminate the surface, effectively reducing it in size as much as possible.
This results in an isolated object trying to adopt a spherical shape.
The one exception is the extremely rare case of negative surface tension which acts in the exact opposite way and tries to drive the matter to increase the size of the surface.
However as it isn't really just about surfaces, and instead is about interfaces, a better general word is interfacial tension.
This now recognises that you typically have something else in contact with the surface, and surface tension is typically referring to the interfacial tension of that substance with air, and that can be negative.
This explains why when you put a water droplet onto a hydrophobic surface, it beads up into little balls, and thus why some people treat surfaces to make them hydrophobic.
It also explains why on other surfaces, which are hydrophilic, the water appears to stick to it.
As for a full explanation, there is no point in giving it to you as it contradicts your fantasy so you would just reject it.
The words, surface tension...to me...means there is some kind of tension pushing onto a surface and that surface being a resistance to the push.
We know it can't be a pull, so what could that push be?
-
Go ask a pond skater, they use it to walk on water. Or why not just look it up?
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
-
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
I gave you what you need to read up and learn about surface tension. Read and learn.
-
Surface tension occurs in the surface film of the object.
The surface layer is tensed and tries to reduce its area by compressing the drop of the liquid into a sphere.
It could be visualised as the tension of a pumped up balloon that tries to compress back.
We can talk about surface tension in a non-liquid object, but I don't see any simple practical reason to do it.
Now, if you observe small drop of water, you can see it is compressed into a bead nearly ball shaped.
As the size gets bigger, the bead of water gets more flattened.
The surface tension is still keeping it together, but the water inside is heavier and at some point the surface tension is not stron enough to keep the water together.
The size of the drop where the surface tension is not strong enough is just at the level of a big drop.
That size is way too small to be compared with the quantity of water held on the Earth by gravity.
So, as we can see, surface tension is not strong enough to keep all the seas where are they now.
-
To be honest I'll get more sense from a pond skater that any user on this forum.
That brush is a bit too broad, don't you think?
-
The words, surface tension...to me...means there is some kind of tension pushing onto a surface and that surface being a resistance to the push.
We know it can't be a pull, so what could that push be?
Probably because you don't understand what tension is and complete reject pulling.
Tension means it is being pulled.
This is why I said it is pointless explaining it to you considering just how much of reality you reject.
You reject the extremely simple phenomenon of "pulling" such as the interactions involving in holding together.
So no, we don't "know" it can't be a pull, you just baseless assert it can't be in your quest to reject reality.
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
It spreads it's legs over the water such that in order for it to fall into the water, the water would need to create a lot of surface.
As surface tension acts to minimise the surface, this prevents the pond skater from falling into the surface.
-
Go ask a pond skater, they use it to walk on water. Or why not just look it up?
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
Pond skaters use the existence of surface tension on water to make their way over the surface of a pond, as do a variety of other insects and even a few specially adapted birds.
-
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
I gave you what you need to read up and learn about surface tension. Read and learn.
How about you explain it or why post?
-
Surface tension occurs in the surface film of the object.
The surface layer is tensed and tries to reduce its area by compressing the drop of the liquid into a sphere.
It could be visualised as the tension of a pumped up balloon that tries to compress back.
We can talk about surface tension in a non-liquid object, but I don't see any simple practical reason to do it.
Now, if you observe small drop of water, you can see it is compressed into a bead nearly ball shaped.
Ass the size gets bigger, the bead of water gets more flattened.
The surface tension is stil keeping it together, but the water inside is heavier and at some point the surface tension is not stron enough to keep water together.
The size of the drop where the surface tension is not strong enough is just at the level of a big drop.
That size is way too small to be compared with the quantity of water held on the Earth by gravity.
So, as we can see, surface tension is not strong enough to keep all the seas where are they now.
In essence you're basically saying it's compressed air of atmosphere that keeps the droplet of water from falling apart, held by the solid resistance of a small part of the deck/floor/ground.
To be fair, surface tension makes no real sense. Surface resistance seems more appropriate.
-
The words, surface tension...to me...means there is some kind of tension pushing onto a surface and that surface being a resistance to the push.
We know it can't be a pull, so what could that push be?
Probably because you don't understand what tension is and complete reject pulling.
Tension means it is being pulled.
This is why I said it is pointless explaining it to you considering just how much of reality you reject.
You reject the extremely simple phenomenon of "pulling" such as the interactions involving in holding together.
So no, we don't "know" it can't be a pull, you just baseless assert it can't be in your quest to reject reality.
There is no pull when you put your mind to it.
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
It spreads it's legs over the water such that in order for it to fall into the water, the water would need to create a lot of surface.
As surface tension acts to minimise the surface, this prevents the pond skater from falling into the surface.
So it's a push.
-
There is no pull when you put your mind to it.
No, when I put my mind to it, a pull is the simplest explanation for most things and you need to go through so much mental gymnastics to avoid it.
If "pull" wasn't real, no material would have tensile strength. If you grabbed the 2 ends of a rope and tried to separate them, the rope would just fall apart.
-
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
I gave you what you need to read up and learn about surface tension. Read and learn.
How about you explain it or why post?
Like I said, I've tried explaining things to you before. I gave you what you need to learn about it if you want to learn.
-
Try basic science and find out what a covalent bond actually is. That should sort you out.
Covalent bonds are responsible for the formation of the water molecule itself, not for the inter-molecular attraction that causes the surface tension of liquid water, which is hydrogen bonding in this case. A hydrogen bond is the attraction between the negatively charged oxygen atom of one molecule with the positively charged hydrogen atom of another.
Hydrogen bonds are really cool and are the reason why water is one of the very few substances that is less dense in solid form that its liquid state. That's the reason water ice floats, why oceans freeze from the top rather than the bottom.
Good vid on surface tension here....
-
There is no pull when you put your mind to it.
No, when I put my mind to it, a pull is the simplest explanation for most things and you need to go through so much mental gymnastics to avoid it.
If "pull" wasn't real, no material would have tensile strength. If you grabbed the 2 ends of a rope and tried to separate them, the rope would just fall apart.
Pull is impossible when looked at properly.
Everything is push.
Your separate ends of a rope are pushed taut, not pulled.
You just need to understand how your body is doing it.
-
Like I said, I've tried explaining things to you before. I gave you what you need to learn about it if you want to learn.
If you can't explain it then just say so.
-
There is no pull when you put your mind to it.
No, when I put my mind to it, a pull is the simplest explanation for most things and you need to go through so much mental gymnastics to avoid it.
If "pull" wasn't real, no material would have tensile strength. If you grabbed the 2 ends of a rope and tried to separate them, the rope would just fall apart.
Pull is impossible when looked at properly.
Everything is push.
Your separate ends of a rope are pushed taut, not pulled.
You just need to understand how your body is doing it.
There is no pull, only push.
That has to be one of the strangest concepts I've seen yet here, and I've debated about UA and EA.
How exactly DOES a rope stay together when you pull on both ends, if things can only push?
-
Like I said, I've tried explaining things to you before. I gave you what you need to learn about it if you want to learn.
If you can't explain it then just say so.
Oh I can explain it. Just not to you. Like when I tried to explain to you how rockets create thrust, and can therefore create thrust in vacuum. I tried. But I could not explain to you. I gave up on trying to explain things to you.
-
What does a pond skater do that shows surface tension and explain what that surface tension actually is, if you can.
I gave you what you need to read up and learn about surface tension. Read and learn.
How about you explain it or why post?
If you desperately need to know about a well known property of water go look it up. Though you could kick the explain game off by explaining how you see molecules as that’s not readily available on the web.
-
There is no pull when you put your mind to it.
No, when I put my mind to it, a pull is the simplest explanation for most things and you need to go through so much mental gymnastics to avoid it.
If "pull" wasn't real, no material would have tensile strength. If you grabbed the 2 ends of a rope and tried to separate them, the rope would just fall apart.
Pull is impossible when looked at properly.
Everything is push.
Your separate ends of a rope are pushed taut, not pulled.
You just need to understand how your body is doing it.
There is no pull, only push.
That has to be one of the strangest concepts I've seen yet here, and I've debated about UA and EA.
How exactly DOES a rope stay together when you pull on both ends, if things can only push?
Try looking deeper into what's happening with the rope.
What are you doing when you supposedly pull?
Your muscles are all pushing the rope apart.
Start thinking how your muscles work in this scenario and you'll see there's no such thing as, pull. It's all from a push.
-
There is no pull when you put your mind to it.
No, when I put my mind to it, a pull is the simplest explanation for most things and you need to go through so much mental gymnastics to avoid it.
If "pull" wasn't real, no material would have tensile strength. If you grabbed the 2 ends of a rope and tried to separate them, the rope would just fall apart.
Pull is impossible when looked at properly.
Everything is push.
Your separate ends of a rope are pushed taut, not pulled.
You just need to understand how your body is doing it.
There is no pull, only push.
That has to be one of the strangest concepts I've seen yet here, and I've debated about UA and EA.
How exactly DOES a rope stay together when you pull on both ends, if things can only push?
Try looking deeper into what's happening with the rope.
What are you doing when you supposedly pull?
Your muscles are all pushing the rope apart.
Start thinking how your muscles work in this scenario and you'll see there's no such thing as, pull. It's all from a push.
When I pull on a rope my muscles contract, which pulls on my ligaments and joints.
You can't push a rope apart when you pull on it. Do you know what 'push' and 'pull' mean? Do you understand compressive vs tensile forces?
-
When I pull on a rope my muscles contract, which pulls on my ligaments and joints.
You can't push a rope apart when you pull on it. Do you know what 'push' and 'pull' mean? Do you understand compressive vs tensile forces?
The fact your muscles contract should tell you all you need to know. They contract because they're pushed/squeezed.
That push continues throughout the effort to break the string/rope.
You push it apart.
Does a horse pull or push a cart?
-
When I pull on a rope my muscles contract, which pulls on my ligaments and joints.
You can't push a rope apart when you pull on it. Do you know what 'push' and 'pull' mean? Do you understand compressive vs tensile forces?
The fact your muscles contract should tell you all you need to know. They contract because they're pushed/squeezed.
That push continues throughout the effort to break the string/rope.
You push it apart.
Does a horse pull or push a cart?
Exactly what is pushing my muscle? My muscle is the part that moves, are you claiming my bones and ligaments are actually squeezing my muscles? If something is being pushed, something else has to be pushing... what's pushing on my muscles?
You are making less and less sense with each post.
When you pull on a rope you pull on it. I can't fathom how you are unable to understand this.
-
When I pull on a rope my muscles contract, which pulls on my ligaments and joints.
You can't push a rope apart when you pull on it. Do you know what 'push' and 'pull' mean? Do you understand compressive vs tensile forces?
The fact your muscles contract should tell you all you need to know. They contract because they're pushed/squeezed.
That push continues throughout the effort to break the string/rope.
You push it apart.
Does a horse pull or push a cart?
Exactly what is pushing my muscle? My muscle is the part that moves, are you claiming my bones and ligaments are actually squeezing my muscles? If something is being pushed, something else has to be pushing... what's pushing on my muscles?
You are making less and less sense with each post.
When you pull on a rope you pull on it. I can't fathom how you are unable to understand this.
Take a look at a JCB and see how that works then think about your body.
Now imagine a rope under your foot and your arm holding the other end.
To have any chance of stretching that rope you must push your foot into the ground and that takes a push of all muscles to do this that are aiding in that feat.
It only makes less sense if you refuse to look at it deeper.
-
You are making less and less sense with each post.
You are trying to explain something to Scepti. Why?
-
You are making less and less sense with each post.
You are trying to explain something to Scepti. Why?
I thought I'd give it a try but you're right, it's pretty pointless.
-
When I pull on a rope my muscles contract, which pulls on my ligaments and joints.
You can't push a rope apart when you pull on it. Do you know what 'push' and 'pull' mean? Do you understand compressive vs tensile forces?
The fact your muscles contract should tell you all you need to know. They contract because they're pushed/squeezed.
That push continues throughout the effort to break the string/rope.
You push it apart.
Does a horse pull or push a cart?
Exactly what is pushing my muscle? My muscle is the part that moves, are you claiming my bones and ligaments are actually squeezing my muscles? If something is being pushed, something else has to be pushing... what's pushing on my muscles?
You are making less and less sense with each post.
When you pull on a rope you pull on it. I can't fathom how you are unable to understand this.
Take a look at a JCB and see how that works then think about your body.
Now imagine a rope under your foot and your arm holding the other end.
To have any chance of stretching that rope you must push your foot into the ground and that takes a push of all muscles to do this that are aiding in that feat.
It only makes less sense if you refuse to look at it deeper.
I'm going to just assume you're trolling at this point. You can't even stick to a simple example like two hands pulling a rope without bringing horses and feet into it. I hope one day you can, uh, push through this issue of yours, whatever it is.
-
You are making less and less sense with each post.
You are trying to explain something to Scepti. Why?
I thought I'd give it a try but you're right, it's pretty pointless.
First you have to speak scepinese.
He dossnt follow the conventional definition of things.
Dont expect push to mean push.
-
I fail to see the relevance of wether surface tension can curve the oceans.
Elsewhere I'm presently speaking to a globe proponent who's trying to tell me the oceans bend in the same way a drop of water bends. I need a succinct way of telling him why he's wrong in thinking that but TBH it's not absolutely clear to me. Which is why I'm here really.
Does that globe proponent not believe in gravity ?
If the oceans are curved; then that seems to imply the earth is round, not matter what is doing the curving.
Try looking deeper into what's happening with the rope.
What are you doing when you supposedly pull?
Your muscles are all pushing the rope apart.
Start thinking how your muscles work in this scenario and you'll see there's no such thing as, pull. It's all from a push.
Pulling on a rope means creating tensile stress or tension (i.e. negative pressure) in the rope. The means to achieve that may involve pushing. At the contact between the puller's hands and the rope there is probably shear stress.
In molecules electron clouds and atomic nuclei have an opposite charge. Physics tells us that there thus is an attractive force between them. In layman terms that can be described as them pulling on each other. Due to the shape of watermolecules in water that pulling force promotes the creation of hydrogen bonds, where the hydrogen atom of one molecule and the oxygen atom of another pull on each and hence tend to stick together. It is easy to find information online on how those hydrogen bonds create surface tension, which is a stress that tries to make the surface smaller. That also occurs in a vaccuum, which can't push.
-
That also occurs in a vacuum, which can't push.
Oh No! Now you've gone and done it, saying a vacuum can't push! That's Scepti's favorite argument about why rockets can't work in space, because they have nothing to push against. OMG. This thread is doomed!
-
Try basic science and find out what a covalent bond actually is. That should sort you out.
Covalent bonds are responsible for the formation of the water molecule itself, not for the inter-molecular attraction that causes the surface tension of liquid water, which is hydrogen bonding in this case. A hydrogen bond is the attraction between the negatively charged oxygen atom of one molecule with the positively charged hydrogen atom of another.
Hydrogen bonds are really cool and are the reason why water is one of the very few substances that is less dense in solid form that its liquid state. That's the reason water ice floats, why oceans freeze from the top rather than the bottom.
Good vid on surface tension here....
Well...to be pedantic, what I was taught, and I think it still holds good is that surface tension arises from the fact that water molecules have covalent bonds where they do that groovy electron sharing thing, which gives rise to the H end of the molecule being slightly +ve and the O end being ever so slightly -ve, resulting in the hydrogen bonding you mentioned .The molecules naturally joint together like tiny magnets......bingo surface tension. And you are most correct about the amazing properties water has as a result, making it quite unique. By rights it should actually be a gas at room temperature, but luckily for us it ain’t!.
-
I'm going to just assume you're trolling at this point. You can't even stick to a simple example like two hands pulling a rope without bringing horses and feet into it. I hope one day you can, uh, push through this issue of yours, whatever it is.
I use the horse, etc because you cannot get your head around the hands and how they work.
Ok, think about it.
Think of the rope in each hand.
To pull, as you say, you have to grip the rope....right?
To grip the rope your muscles have to contract to grip, meaning push into the rope. To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way.
This can only happen if your shoulders push out and your elbows push out.
There is no reality of pull except the use of the word to describe something that APPEARS opposite to the reality of, PUSH.
-
I fail to see the relevance of wether surface tension can curve the oceans.
Elsewhere I'm presently speaking to a globe proponent who's trying to tell me the oceans bend in the same way a drop of water bends. I need a succinct way of telling him why he's wrong in thinking that but TBH it's not absolutely clear to me. Which is why I'm here really.
Does that globe proponent not believe in gravity ?
If the oceans are curved; then that seems to imply the earth is round, not matter what is doing the curving.
Try looking deeper into what's happening with the rope.
What are you doing when you supposedly pull?
Your muscles are all pushing the rope apart.
Start thinking how your muscles work in this scenario and you'll see there's no such thing as, pull. It's all from a push.
Pulling on a rope means creating tensile stress or tension (i.e. negative pressure) in the rope. The means to achieve that may involve pushing. At the contact between the puller's hands and the rope there is probably shear stress.
In molecules electron clouds and atomic nuclei have an opposite charge. Physics tells us that there thus is an attractive force between them. In layman terms that can be described as them pulling on each other. Due to the shape of watermolecules in water that pulling force promotes the creation of hydrogen bonds, where the hydrogen atom of one molecule and the oxygen atom of another pull on each and hence tend to stick together. It is easy to find information online on how those hydrogen bonds create surface tension, which is a stress that tries to make the surface smaller. That also occurs in a vaccuum, which can't push.
A vacuum does not exist but an extreme low pressure comes about due to a push, not a pull or a suck. Those two words do not exist in reality in terms of what they're told to mean. They exist only as easier explanations as to what people assume is happening.
-
I'm going to just assume you're trolling at this point. You can't even stick to a simple example like two hands pulling a rope without bringing horses and feet into it. I hope one day you can, uh, push through this issue of yours, whatever it is.
I use the horse, etc because you cannot get your head around the hands and how they work.
Ok, think about it.
Think of the rope in each hand.
To pull, as you say, you have to grip the rope....right?
To grip the rope your muscles have to contract to grip, meaning push into the rope. To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way.
This can only happen if your shoulders push out and your elbows push out.
There is no reality of pull except the use of the word to describe something that APPEARS opposite to the reality of, PUSH.
"To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way."
Let me get this straight. You're saying that when I pull on a rope, I'm actually pushing it? When I push on something it is moving away from me. When I pull on something, I'm bringing it closer to me. You're saying that I'm always 'pushing' things away from me?
-
"To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way."
Let me get this straight. You're saying that when I pull on a rope, I'm actually pushing it?
No pull.
When I push on something it is moving away from me.
Nope, it can be towards or away from you. It's still a push.
When I pull on something, I'm bringing it closer to me.
Nope, there is no reality for pull.
You're saying that I'm always 'pushing' things away from me?
Nope. I'm saying that you're always pushing anything......never pulling.
-
Sceppy cant force diagram.
We are all talking about the tension in the rope.
Sceppy isnt.
The rope is attached to an anchor at some point.
And that anchor will be under compression.
-
Well...to be pedantic, what I was taught, and I think it still holds good is that surface tension arises from the fact that water molecules have covalent bonds where they do that groovy electron sharing thing, which gives rise to the H end of the molecule being slightly +ve and the O end being ever so slightly -ve, resulting in the hydrogen bonding you mentioned .The molecules naturally joint together like tiny magnets......bingo surface tension. And you are most correct about the amazing properties water has as a result, making it quite unique. By rights it should actually be a gas at room temperature, but luckily for us it ain’t!.
Ah yes, that sounds familiar. I had to answer a short essay question in my "O" Level chemistry exam on hydrogen bonding and now, nearly 40 years later, terms like "polar covalent bond" and "electronegativity" are surfacing in my head again! From what I remember not all covalent bonds will produce strong polarity, but in the case of water it does due to the relative sizes of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Might go and re-visit some of this with a beer later.
Cheers
Z
-
"To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way."
Let me get this straight. You're saying that when I pull on a rope, I'm actually pushing it?
No pull.
When I push on something it is moving away from me.
Nope, it can be towards or away from you. It's still a push.
When I pull on something, I'm bringing it closer to me.
Nope, there is no reality for pull.
You're saying that I'm always 'pushing' things away from me?
Nope. I'm saying that you're always pushing anything......never pulling.
So all doors should say “push” regardless of whether they open inward or outward?
-
"To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way."
Let me get this straight. You're saying that when I pull on a rope, I'm actually pushing it?
No pull.
When I push on something it is moving away from me.
Nope, it can be towards or away from you. It's still a push.
When I pull on something, I'm bringing it closer to me.
Nope, there is no reality for pull.
You're saying that I'm always 'pushing' things away from me?
Nope. I'm saying that you're always pushing anything......never pulling.
You can't push things closer to you, that's called pulling. Do you truly believe that there are no such things as tensile forces? How does anything built not fall down?
I can imagine this attitude from someone in software development now.
"Hey can you issue a pull request for that latest GitHub change?"
"No pull! Only push! There is no reality for pull."
-
Pulling on a rope means creating tensile stress or tension (i.e. negative pressure) in the rope. The means to achieve that may in[quotevolve pushing. At the contact between the puller's hands and the rope there is probably shear stress.
In molecules electron clouds and atomic nuclei have an opposite charge. Physics tells us that there thus is an attractive force between them. In layman terms that can be described as them pulling on each other. Due to the shape of watermolecules in water that pulling force promotes the creation of hydrogen bonds, where the hydrogen atom of one molecule and the oxygen atom of another pull on each and hence tend to stick together. It is easy to find information online on how those hydrogen bonds create surface tension, which is a stress that tries to make the surface smaller. That also occurs in a vaccuum, which can't push.
A vacuum does not exist but an extreme low pressure comes about due to a push, not a pull or a suck.[1] Those two words do not exist in reality in terms of what they're told to mean.[2] They exist only as easier explanations as to what people assume is happening.
[1] Most people use the word vacuum for a volume that is close enough to a perfect vacuum.
So you claim that pushing is necessarily involved in the formation of a vacuum. I don't see why that would be, nor why that would be relevant. I was referring to the force applied by the vacuum (which is no force at all), not to any force involved in the vacuum's formation. Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
In the mean time,wether surface tension is caused by push of pull, the earth is still round.
-
Well...to be pedantic, what I was taught, and I think it still holds good is that surface tension arises from the fact that water molecules have covalent bonds where they do that groovy electron sharing thing, which gives rise to the H end of the molecule being slightly +ve and the O end being ever so slightly -ve, resulting in the hydrogen bonding you mentioned .The molecules naturally joint together like tiny magnets......bingo surface tension. And you are most correct about the amazing properties water has as a result, making it quite unique. By rights it should actually be a gas at room temperature, but luckily for us it ain’t!.
Ah yes, that sounds familiar. I had to answer a short essay question in my "O" Level chemistry exam on hydrogen bonding and now, nearly 40 years later, terms like "polar covalent bond" and "electronegativity" are surfacing in my head again! From what I remember not all covalent bonds will produce strong polarity, but in the case of water it does due to the relative sizes of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Might go and re-visit some of this with a beer later.
Cheers
Z
Bloody hell were you that wee swotty guy who sat in front of me in class? ;)
A beer sounds a hell of a good idea. It’s funny but my knowledge of all that stuff also dates back to my o level chemistry!
-
So all doors should say “push” regardless of whether they open inward or outward?
No. We can happily use the terms to mark the viewed differences but the reality is, it's all push.
Let's take the door.
To open the door forward, you push.
To open the door towards you, you need to grip on something. A handle/knob.
For you to do this you must compress your muscles all the way to your hand grip or finger grip. Your fingers/hand/palm have to push against that handle/knob to open that door.
I'm well aware it appears to be a pull but the reality is, it's compressive force and a push.
-
"To stretch the rope your skin , muscles and bone has to push the rope away from you, either way."
Let me get this straight. You're saying that when I pull on a rope, I'm actually pushing it?
No pull.
When I push on something it is moving away from me.
Nope, it can be towards or away from you. It's still a push.
When I pull on something, I'm bringing it closer to me.
Nope, there is no reality for pull.
You're saying that I'm always 'pushing' things away from me?
Nope. I'm saying that you're always pushing anything......never pulling.
You can't push things closer to you, that's called pulling. Do you truly believe that there are no such things as tensile forces? How does anything built not fall down?
I can imagine this attitude from someone in software development now.
"Hey can you issue a pull request for that latest GitHub change?"
"No pull! Only push! There is no reality for pull."
Tensile forces are all compressive push, not pull.
-
So all doors should say “push” regardless of whether they open inward or outward?
No. We can happily use the terms to mark the viewed differences but the reality is, it's all push.
Let's take the door.
To open the door forward, you push.
To open the door towards you, you need to grip on something. A handle/knob.
For you to do this you must compress your muscles all the way to your hand grip or finger grip. Your fingers/hand/palm have to push against that handle/knob to open that door.
I'm well aware it appears to be a pull but the reality is, it's compressive force and a push.
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
-
Because he cant separate it.
The rope under tension.
The compression of your grip.
He considers it all pne and the same, even though the objects are different.
-
[1] Most people use the word vacuum for a volume that is close enough to a perfect vacuum.
Use vacuum by all means as long as you accept it's simply lowered pressure and never a nothingness.
So you claim that pushing is necessarily involved in the formation of a vacuum. I don't see why that would be, nor why that would be relevant.
I was referring to the force applied by the vacuum (which is no force at all), not to any force involved in the vacuum's formation.
Think about this.
Take a chamber. You know it's full of atmosphere as an open container....right?
You know the atmosphere outside is basically equalised to the inside of that chamber. Nothing pushing out and nothing pushing in, as such. Just a overall set pressure which is a molecular push on push or push on resistance to push and vice versa.
Now seal the chamber and try to get atmosphere out of it.
You cannot suck it out. You cannot pull it out.
You have to somehow allow it to expand out by it's own pressure and to do this you must allow a lower pressure to come between the chamber and the outside atmosphere.
The only way to do this is to actually push back on the atmosphere to allow the expansion of the molecules inside of the chamber to push out into that lowered pressure to fill that lower pressure.
This is where the pump comes in to force back the atmosphere and to push out the expanding air inside the chamber into the atmosphere, which compresses the external atmosphere more whilst equally weakening the compressive strength of the internal air in the chamber due to that expansion.
The stronger the pump and the stronger the chamber, the more air can be pushed away externally and the more expansion of molecules can push into the resulting lower pressure created in the channel to the pump.
The air inside the chamber will become extremely low in pressure, meaning low in agitation, meaning the molecules become sort of dormant.
The chamber is still full but full by molecular expansion, meaning much less molecules, meaning much more compressed molecules now added externally.
Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
Lowered pressure still pushes. It's still under compression, no matter how weak.
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
Observe a chamber and pump and items inside of it and put your thinking cap on, alternate to what you've been accustomed to.
In the mean time,wether surface tension is caused by push of pull, the earth is still round.
[/quote]Not that we walk upon, it isn't.
-
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
It's all push.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
You're holding the rope just like you're gripping the handle. If you glue the rope to your palm and open the door you are still pushing your feet into the floor to enable you to open the door.
There's no way out of it. It's all compressive force, meaning, push.
-
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
It's all push.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
You're holding the rope just like you're gripping the handle. If you glue the rope to your palm and open the door you are still pushing your feet into the floor to enable you to open the door.
There's no way out of it. It's all compressive force, meaning, push.
No that example would make it a a push and a pull.
-
Tensile forces are all compressive push, not pull.
Can you prove that ?
Think about this.
Take a chamber. You know it's full of atmosphere as an open container....right?
You know the atmosphere outside is basically equalised to the inside of that chamber. Nothing pushing out and nothing pushing in, as such. Just a overall set pressure which is a molecular push on push or push on resistance to push and vice versa.
[ . . . ]
The chamber is still full but full by molecular expansion, meaning much less molecules, meaning much more compressed molecules now added externally.
What is the relevance of all of that ?
This thread is about whether surface tension can cause oceans to curve.
This forum is about the shape of the earth.
The behaviour of gasses in containers appears to have nothing to do with either.
Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
Lowered pressure still pushes. It's still under compression, no matter how weak.
What evidence can you present that the pressure of a vacuum is enough to make oceans curve ?
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
Observe a chamber and pump and items inside of it and put your thinking cap on, alternate to what you've been accustomed to.
Sorry, but I don't understand your evidence. I got untill putting my thinking cap on, but do not understand the instruction that follows. Your evidence does not appear to support your claim.
-
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
It's all push.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
You're holding the rope just like you're gripping the handle. If you glue the rope to your palm and open the door you are still pushing your feet into the floor to enable you to open the door.
There's no way out of it. It's all compressive force, meaning, push.
No that example would make it a a push and a pull.
In the way you observe it, it would but the reality is much different.
It's like push and suck.
Suck does not exist as a reality but we use it to describe what appears to be a different visual action.
-
Tensile forces are all compressive push, not pull.
Can you prove that ?
Think about this.
Take a chamber. You know it's full of atmosphere as an open container....right?
You know the atmosphere outside is basically equalised to the inside of that chamber. Nothing pushing out and nothing pushing in, as such. Just a overall set pressure which is a molecular push on push or push on resistance to push and vice versa.
[ . . . ]
The chamber is still full but full by molecular expansion, meaning much less molecules, meaning much more compressed molecules now added externally.
What is the relevance of all of that ?
This thread is about whether surface tension can cause oceans to curve.
This forum is about the shape of the earth.
The behaviour of gasses in containers appears to have nothing to do with either.
Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
Lowered pressure still pushes. It's still under compression, no matter how weak.
What evidence can you present that the pressure of a vacuum is enough to make oceans curve ?
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
Observe a chamber and pump and items inside of it and put your thinking cap on, alternate to what you've been accustomed to.
Sorry, but I don't understand your evidence. I got untill putting my thinking cap on, but do not understand the instruction that follows. Your evidence does not appear to support your claim.
What evidence would you like?
What would pacify you?
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
-
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
It's all push.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
You're holding the rope just like you're gripping the handle. If you glue the rope to your palm and open the door you are still pushing your feet into the floor to enable you to open the door.
There's no way out of it. It's all compressive force, meaning, push.
No that example would make it a a push and a pull.
In the way you observe it, it would but the reality is much different.
It's like push and suck.
Suck does not exist as a reality but we use it to describe what appears to be a different visual action.
No, because the two forces, for lack of a better term, may not be equal. My pulling on the rope may be far more force than my feet pushing into the ground. I may fall forward on my face, but I still pulled myself to get there.
-
Tensile forces are all compressive push, not pull.
Can you prove that ?
Think about this.
Take a chamber. You know it's full of atmosphere as an open container....right?
You know the atmosphere outside is basically equalised to the inside of that chamber. Nothing pushing out and nothing pushing in, as such. Just a overall set pressure which is a molecular push on push or push on resistance to push and vice versa.
[ . . . ]
The chamber is still full but full by molecular expansion, meaning much less molecules, meaning much more compressed molecules now added externally.
What is the relevance of all of that ?
This thread is about whether surface tension can cause oceans to curve.
This forum is about the shape of the earth.
The behaviour of gasses in containers appears to have nothing to do with either.
Hence, no matter how gigahuge the gargantuan superpush forces are that create vacuums, the vacuums themselves still don't push.
Lowered pressure still pushes. It's still under compression, no matter how weak.
What evidence can you present that the pressure of a vacuum is enough to make oceans curve ?
[2] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
Observe a chamber and pump and items inside of it and put your thinking cap on, alternate to what you've been accustomed to.
Sorry, but I don't understand your evidence. I got untill putting my thinking cap on, but do not understand the instruction that follows. Your evidence does not appear to support your claim.
What evidence would you like?
What would pacify you?
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
You constantly go on about the behaviours of molecules under various conditions, how have you observed this?
You constantly go on about the porosity of materials such as metals. A careful examination of the structure of iron or steel for example under a powerful microscope will show no such porosity exists. Why do you continue to make these claims when they are so patently untrue.
Have you ever looked at the structure of steel or any other metal through a microscope?
What evidence do you have that atmospheric gasses can pass into metals rather than just react with the surfaces as in the case of both Aluminium and steel?
-
What evidence would you like?[2]
What would pacify you?[3]
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
-
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
It's all push.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
You're holding the rope just like you're gripping the handle. If you glue the rope to your palm and open the door you are still pushing your feet into the floor to enable you to open the door.
There's no way out of it. It's all compressive force, meaning, push.
No that example would make it a a push and a pull.
In the way you observe it, it would but the reality is much different.
It's like push and suck.
Suck does not exist as a reality but we use it to describe what appears to be a different visual action.
No, because the two forces, for lack of a better term, may not be equal. My pulling on the rope may be far more force than my feet pushing into the ground. I may fall forward on my face, but I still pulled myself to get there.
You don't pull on the rope, you push the rope.
-
You constantly go on about the behaviours of molecules under various conditions, how have you observed this?
The same way you have. And then I use my logic as to what we are dealing with.
You constantly go on about the porosity of materials such as metals. A careful examination of the structure of iron or steel for example under a powerful microscope will show no such porosity exists.
Wrong.
Everything is porous....it's just a case of how porous from massively (sponge) to miniscule (liquid gold/silver....etc.
Why do you continue to make these claims when they are so patently untrue.
Because I believe them to be true and you are being untrue saying they're patently untrue.
Have you ever looked at the structure of steel or any other metal through a microscope?
Yep......porous.
What evidence do you have that atmospheric gasses can pass into metals rather than just react with the surfaces as in the case of both Aluminium and steel?
The cooling process from liquid to cold product.
-
What evidence would you like?[2]
What would pacify you?[3]
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
Then our conversation is over.
-
What evidence would you like?[2]
What would pacify you?[3]
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
Then our conversation is over.
It's a difficult position you have there, the wrong one that is. None of your ideas are supported by any scientific theory and more importantly, are at odds with everyday reality.
-
What does a compressing grip have to do with the fact that I'm pulling the door open, closer to me? I could compress my grip on the handle and push it as well.
It's all push.
Where I think you're going is that when I grip the handle to 'pull', my grip is actually around the backside, as it were, of the handle and is now 'pushing' the handle toward me. But your argument is easily thwarted because I can just glue the end of a piece of rope to the front of the handle and 'pull' the door open. No backside push business involved? Right?
You're holding the rope just like you're gripping the handle. If you glue the rope to your palm and open the door you are still pushing your feet into the floor to enable you to open the door.
There's no way out of it. It's all compressive force, meaning, push.
No that example would make it a a push and a pull.
In the way you observe it, it would but the reality is much different.
It's like push and suck.
Suck does not exist as a reality but we use it to describe what appears to be a different visual action.
No, because the two forces, for lack of a better term, may not be equal. My pulling on the rope may be far more force than my feet pushing into the ground. I may fall forward on my face, but I still pulled myself to get there.
You don't pull on the rope, you push the rope.
Do you believe in tension?
-
What evidence would you like?[2]
What would pacify you?[3]
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
Then our conversation is over.
It's a difficult position you have there, the wrong one that is. None of your ideas are supported by any scientific theory and more importantly, are at odds with everyday reality.
I don't believe they are at odds with reality. I believe they are closer to the reality than the so called scientific theory handed out, which includes something that is complete and utter nonsense, in gravity.
So, yeah, I am in a difficult position in one respect. I'm in a position of being a minority minnow against the mass of mainstream so called scientific might.
I'm ok with that. If people refuse to try to understand it from my side by adhering to the mainstream narratives, without proof, then that's what it is.
-
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
-
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
When I 'pull' on a rope attached to something, I put tension into it and the attached whatever is drawn nearer to me.
When I 'push' on a rope, I do not put tension into it and the rope slackens and buckles. The attached whatever does not move.
How can these both be a 'push' when one action puts tension into the rope, the other does not and the outcomes are completely different?
-
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
When I 'pull' on a rope attached to something, I put tension into it and the attached whatever is drawn nearer to me.
When I 'push' on a rope, I do not put tension into it and the rope slackens and buckles. The attached whatever does not move.
How can these both be a 'push' when one action puts tension into the rope, the other does not and the outcomes are completely different?
You are looking at it the way you've been taught, like we all did....even me, until I decided to look deeper into it all.
You push the rope, you just have to understand how and why.
-
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
When I 'pull' on a rope attached to something, I put tension into it and the attached whatever is drawn nearer to me.
When I 'push' on a rope, I do not put tension into it and the rope slackens and buckles. The attached whatever does not move.
How can these both be a 'push' when one action puts tension into the rope, the other does not and the outcomes are completely different?
You are looking at it the way you've been taught, like we all did....even me, until I decided to look deeper into it all.
You push the rope, you just have to understand how and why.
It's not what were were taught. Any child knows there is a big difference between pulling their sled up a hill versus pushing it.
And that doesn't answer the question: How can these both be a 'push' when one action puts tension into the rope, the other does not and the outcomes are completely different?
-
What evidence would you like?[2]
What would pacify you?[3]
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
When you can show me a curved bath where the water equally touches either side and then follows the curve of the bath then I'll evaluate the globe again.
Can you do this?
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
Then our conversation is over.
It's a difficult position you have there, the wrong one that is. None of your ideas are supported by any scientific theory and more importantly, are at odds with everyday reality.
I don't believe they are at odds with reality. I believe they are closer to the reality than the so called scientific theory handed out, which includes something that is complete and utter nonsense, in gravity.
So, yeah, I am in a difficult position in one respect. I'm in a position of being a minority minnow against the mass of mainstream so called scientific might.
I'm ok with that. If people refuse to try to understand it from my side by adhering to the mainstream narratives, without proof, then that's what it is.
I’ll tell you what the problem is. We arrived at our understanding about pressure, temperature and all things to do with gasses as a result of 200 years of experimentation by scores if not hundreds of scientists. All the verified discoveries they made have given us the various scientific laws and principles that many technologies are based on that all appear to work just fine. Take electricity generation where water is heated, steam produced that does mechanical work that is then converted into electricity. The way in which the steam behaves in its various states is well understood and it totally at odds with your own ideas. The way you describe your ideas are so far from reality that they make no sense. Steel and other metals are not porous to gas. Think about gas canisters like propane tanks where the gas being under pressure becomes a liquid, why does it become a liquid? Why when you release the valve does it become very cold? Your Understanding of gasses and how they behave is totally wrong. If you were right, none of our gas related technologies, including every heat engine, car engines included, would not work in they manner we are familiar with.
Does it never occur to you why everything appears to work according to laws you disagree with, could it be your are wrong about what you believe in and science is correct?
-
You push the rope, you just have to understand how and why.
No! You pull on a rope and YOU just have to understand how and why.
The stress in a rope is one of tension - pulling.
You cannot push on a rope or it will simply bend.
End of story - you are simply wrong, no two ways about it.
Wriggle and squirm and complain that we are all indoctrinated as much but YOU are still wrong!
-
It's not what were were taught. Any child knows there is a big difference between pulling their sled up a hill versus pushing it.
Any child knows because they were taught to use push and pull for their visual to physical activities.
Taking a sled uphill requires your feet to push into the hillside and all of your muscles required to compress to ensure that push.
Gripping a rope with the sled behind is still pushing your shoulder/arm and pushing your gripped hand along the rope, as you push into the atmosphere that is compressing you down.
All push, no pull.
And that doesn't answer the question: How can these both be a 'push' when one action puts tension into the rope, the other does not and the outcomes are completely different?
Above should explain it.
-
I’ll tell you what the problem is. We arrived at our understanding about pressure, temperature and all things to do with gasses as a result of 200 years of experimentation by scores if not hundreds of scientists. All the verified discoveries they made have given us the various scientific laws and principles that many technologies are based on that all appear to work just fine.
So what is different to what I'm saying?
Gravity and a few little sidesteps.
It's mostly done in how I'm explaining, unless you want to show me yourself where I'm wrong by using an easy and simplistic example from your very own mind.
Take electricity generation where water is heated, steam produced that does mechanical work that is then converted into electricity. The way in which the steam behaves in its various states is well understood and it totally at odds with your own ideas.
How is it at odds, unless you're on about nuclear, which I don't believe in.
Which is already a topic in TS&AS part of the forum.
The way you describe your ideas are so far from reality that they make no sense.
No. They are so far from what you believe to be a reality due to your adherence to mainstream narratives, which could very well be a mixture of truth's,fictions and a mix and mash of both, into ideals.
Gravity is one such nonsense and one you cannot stand by as your proof but can stand by as your indoctrinated handed down proof.
That's not a dig by the way, we were/are all under this type of stuff. It's just a case of, to what degree each individual swallows.
Steel and other metals are not porous to gas.
Yes they are.
Some are more and some are less, but they are all porous.
Think about gas canisters like propane tanks where the gas being under pressure becomes a liquid, why does it become a liquid?
It becomes a liquid because the molecules are compressed into it to a point where they cannot agitate.
It's no different to an air compressor, except for the different gas changes up to the points of use.
You compress air and it becomes condensate inside the tank. It may only be minute compared to filling a gas cylinder but it's all about compression.
Why when you release the valve does it become very cold?
It's super compressed inside the cylinder but it's normal state is to be super expanded.
If you open the valve you allow that expansion to take place at the exit point, against the atmosphere.
Because the gas super expands out of the exit it pushes the atmosphere away and compresses it.....but, because the liquid is now super expanded gas, it is super expanded gas that is not under agitation to any degree to cause mass agitation, which means you initially get a freezing escape against the initial atmosphere.
That's as basic as I can muster.
Your Understanding of gasses and how they behave is totally wrong. If you were right, none of our gas related technologies, including every heat engine, car engines included, would not work in they manner we are familiar with.
Yes they would and do work, obviously.
It's just a case of understanding and marrying it all up with mine and taking out gravity, etc.
Does it never occur to you why everything appears to work according to laws you disagree with, could it be your are wrong about what you believe in and science is correct?
I don't believe I'm wholly wrong. Maybe in some cases but, considering I know gravity is nonsense and many other things are...I think I have a case, whether you think so, or not.
-
You push the rope, you just have to understand how and why.
No! You pull on a rope and YOU just have to understand how and why.
The stress in a rope is one of tension - pulling.
You cannot push on a rope or it will simply bend.
End of story - you are simply wrong, no two ways about it.
Wriggle and squirm and complain that we are all indoctrinated as much but YOU are still wrong!
If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.
If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.
-
It's not what were were taught. Any child knows there is a big difference between pulling their sled up a hill versus pushing it.
Any child knows because they were taught to use push and pull for their visual to physical activities.
Taking a sled uphill requires your feet to push into the hillside and all of your muscles required to compress to ensure that push.
Gripping a rope with the sled behind is still pushing your shoulder/arm and pushing your gripped hand along the rope, as you push into the atmosphere that is compressing you down.
All push, no pull.
And that doesn't answer the question: How can these both be a 'push' when one action puts tension into the rope, the other does not and the outcomes are completely different?
Above should explain it.
Why does your theory need everything to be a push? Why isn't pull allowed?
-
Why does your theory need everything to be a push? Why isn't pull allowed?
It is allowed. Use the word, pull all you want to but I'm just saying that my reality is, it does not exist to mean anything, anymore than the word, suck, does.
I accept using them to visually understand different appearances. I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just trying to show that everything is about push/compressive forces we are under and nothing can work unless compressive force is used.
It just requires deep thought to get it.
If people can't or don't want to, then fine. I can accept that, just as people need to accept that I don't follow that train of thought, which is why we're debating it.
-
I’ll tell you what the problem is. We arrived at our understanding about pressure, temperature and all things to do with gasses as a result of 200 years of experimentation by scores if not hundreds of scientists. All the verified discoveries they made have given us the various scientific laws and principles that many technologies are based on that all appear to work just fine.
So what is different to what I'm saying?
Gravity and a few little sidesteps.
It's mostly done in how I'm explaining, unless you want to show me yourself where I'm wrong by using an easy and simplistic example from your very own mind.
Take electricity generation where water is heated, steam produced that does mechanical work that is then converted into electricity. The way in which the steam behaves in its various states is well understood and it totally at odds with your own ideas.
How is it at odds, unless you're on about nuclear, which I don't believe in.
Which is already a topic in TS&AS part of the forum.
The way you describe your ideas are so far from reality that they make no sense.
No. They are so far from what you believe to be a reality due to your adherence to mainstream narratives, which could very well be a mixture of truth's,fictions and a mix and mash of both, into ideals.
Gravity is one such nonsense and one you cannot stand by as your proof but can stand by as your indoctrinated handed down proof.
That's not a dig by the way, we were/are all under this type of stuff. It's just a case of, to what degree each individual swallows.
Steel and other metals are not porous to gas.
Yes they are.
Some are more and some are less, but they are all porous.
Think about gas canisters like propane tanks where the gas being under pressure becomes a liquid, why does it become a liquid?
It becomes a liquid because the molecules are compressed into it to a point where they cannot agitate.
It's no different to an air compressor, except for the different gas changes up to the points of use.
You compress air and it becomes condensate inside the tank. It may only be minute compared to filling a gas cylinder but it's all about compression.
Why when you release the valve does it become very cold?
It's super compressed inside the cylinder but it's normal state is to be super expanded.
If you open the valve you allow that expansion to take place at the exit point, against the atmosphere.
Because the gas super expands out of the exit it pushes the atmosphere away and compresses it.....but, because the liquid is now super expanded gas, it is super expanded gas that is not under agitation to any degree to cause mass agitation, which means you initially get a freezing escape against the initial atmosphere.
That's as basic as I can muster.
Your Understanding of gasses and how they behave is totally wrong. If you were right, none of our gas related technologies, including every heat engine, car engines included, would not work in they manner we are familiar with.
Yes they would and do work, obviously.
It's just a case of understanding and marrying it all up with mine and taking out gravity, etc.
Does it never occur to you why everything appears to work according to laws you disagree with, could it be your are wrong about what you believe in and science is correct?
I don't believe I'm wholly wrong. Maybe in some cases but, considering I know gravity is nonsense and many other things are...I think I have a case, whether you think so, or not.
The point you keep missing is what you believe in has nothing to do with the reality of the physical world. How it operates to a large extent has been establish and is employed in many of the technologies that make modern life possible. If the science were wrong, as you like to think, the technologies would not work.....but that is not the case. Systems are built and designed according to the known laws which obviously work, ergo, you are wrong regardless of what you say.
-
I’ll tell you what the problem is. We arrived at our understanding about pressure, temperature and all things to do with gasses as a result of 200 years of experimentation by scores if not hundreds of scientists. All the verified discoveries they made have given us the various scientific laws and principles that many technologies are based on that all appear to work just fine.
So what is different to what I'm saying?
Gravity and a few little sidesteps.
It's mostly done in how I'm explaining, unless you want to show me yourself where I'm wrong by using an easy and simplistic example from your very own mind.
Take electricity generation where water is heated, steam produced that does mechanical work that is then converted into electricity. The way in which the steam behaves in its various states is well understood and it totally at odds with your own ideas.
How is it at odds, unless you're on about nuclear, which I don't believe in.
Which is already a topic in TS&AS part of the forum.
The way you describe your ideas are so far from reality that they make no sense.
No. They are so far from what you believe to be a reality due to your adherence to mainstream narratives, which could very well be a mixture of truth's,fictions and a mix and mash of both, into ideals.
Gravity is one such nonsense and one you cannot stand by as your proof but can stand by as your indoctrinated handed down proof.
That's not a dig by the way, we were/are all under this type of stuff. It's just a case of, to what degree each individual swallows.
Steel and other metals are not porous to gas.
Yes they are.
Some are more and some are less, but they are all porous.
Think about gas canisters like propane tanks where the gas being under pressure becomes a liquid, why does it become a liquid?
It becomes a liquid because the molecules are compressed into it to a point where they cannot agitate.
It's no different to an air compressor, except for the different gas changes up to the points of use.
You compress air and it becomes condensate inside the tank. It may only be minute compared to filling a gas cylinder but it's all about compression.
Why when you release the valve does it become very cold?
It's super compressed inside the cylinder but it's normal state is to be super expanded.
If you open the valve you allow that expansion to take place at the exit point, against the atmosphere.
Because the gas super expands out of the exit it pushes the atmosphere away and compresses it.....but, because the liquid is now super expanded gas, it is super expanded gas that is not under agitation to any degree to cause mass agitation, which means you initially get a freezing escape against the initial atmosphere.
That's as basic as I can muster.
Your Understanding of gasses and how they behave is totally wrong. If you were right, none of our gas related technologies, including every heat engine, car engines included, would not work in they manner we are familiar with.
Yes they would and do work, obviously.
It's just a case of understanding and marrying it all up with mine and taking out gravity, etc.
Does it never occur to you why everything appears to work according to laws you disagree with, could it be your are wrong about what you believe in and science is correct?
I don't believe I'm wholly wrong. Maybe in some cases but, considering I know gravity is nonsense and many other things are...I think I have a case, whether you think so, or not.
Case in point. You claim metals are porous. What metallurgical study is this based on? While at university many years back I did a metallurgical analysis of different types of steel looking at the formation of pearlite and austenite, two of the different constituents of carbon steel. Any examination under a microscope of any carbon steel specimen will reveal its total lack of porosity. Metals are not porous, castings defects and incursions aside, saying they are is wrong. You are wrong about that just as you are wrong about everything else you state. The lack of porosity in metal is easy to check, just cut a metal bar with a hacksaw and examine the cut end with an eye glass.
-
Why does your theory need everything to be a push? Why isn't pull allowed?
It is allowed. Use the word, pull all you want to but I'm just saying that my reality is, it does not exist to mean anything, anymore than the word, suck, does.
I accept using them to visually understand different appearances. I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just trying to show that everything is about push/compressive forces we are under and nothing can work unless compressive force is used.
It just requires deep thought to get it.
If people can't or don't want to, then fine. I can accept that, just as people need to accept that I don't follow that train of thought, which is why we're debating it.
One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...
-
The key point is reading scepoys comment on gripping the rope.
He doesnt see the rope, your hand, your legs, as a separate system components.
He sees it all as one.
Youre not speaking sceppiense.
You maybe both speaking english, but left is right, up is left, down is inside out.
-
I think people are getting a bit bogged down here.....
Forces are vector quantities, they have magnitudes and (importantly) directions. "Push" and "Pull" are surely just defining the direction of an applied force from the perspective of the person applying said force.
Take 2 people either side of a "regular" door. One person will have to "push" to open it, the other will have to "pull". It's just grammatical convention. The door doesn't care what word you use, it just "feels" a force acting in one direction.
Take 2 people facing each other in a tug-of-war with a rope. They would both say they are "pulling" on the rope. If they both turned around (backs to each other) they might say they are both "pushing" the rope away. Either the way the rope experiences a stretching force and is placed under tension. As an aside, if they both "pulled" a 100N force onto the rope, they would both have to "push" 100N of force into the ground to stay still, and a spring balance placed into the middle of the rope would read........100N! (not 200N as sandokhan thinks - something he could easily prove to himself by experiment, yet chooses not to!).
-
Check your wording.
If theyre both pulling then 100+100 =200
-
The point you keep missing is what you believe in has nothing to do with the reality of the physical world.
How it operates to a large extent has been establish and is employed in many of the technologies that make modern life possible. If the science were wrong, as you like to think, the technologies would not work.....but that is not the case.
Systems are built and designed according to the known laws which obviously work, ergo, you are wrong regardless of what you say.
The point you're missing is, you're going with a reality that you do not know to be so, in terms of reasons for why things work and their origins.
Gravity is one such thing that is used to describe almost everything we are told as our supposed reality.
That alone brings a lot of stuff into question but only as an explanation.
For instance. You go with gravity pulling in the oceans to the centre of a spinning ball. The centre of mass, as you're told.
This also supposedly pulls in the atmosphere and is supposedly the reason why it doesn't fall off, kind of nonsense.
Just this alone makes no sense and I have my own ( in my belief) much much logical and simpler explanation.
This all goes right back to gases and tension and what not.
So this isn't about things not working under my thoughts, it's about things obviously working under explanations given which I do not believe to be the true real explanations, wholly and are shrouded in alternate explanations because to tell the truth would be to tell the truth of what's really going on.
That's my opinion.
-
Case in point. You claim metals are porous. What metallurgical study is this based on?
It's based on simple logic and observation.
Your issue here is, you're probably thinking (if it holds air and water and doesn't leak to your visual it's not porous.
It goes a bit deeper than just that.
While at university many years back I did a metallurgical analysis of different types of steel looking at the formation of pearlite and austenite, two of the different constituents of carbon steel. Any examination under a microscope of any carbon steel specimen will reveal its total lack of porosity. Metals are not porous, castings defects and incursions aside, saying they are is wrong.
The very reason everything expands and contracts is due to having porosity.
Different densities determine the extent of that porosity.
You are wrong about that just as you are wrong about everything else you state. The lack of porosity in metal is easy to check, just cut a metal bar with a hacksaw and examine the cut end with an eye glass.
Cutting a metal bar with a hacksaw will show you little to the eye.
Just like looking at a chain link fence from a few hundred miles away will make it look much different to what it looks like when you approach it or magnify it from distance.
In many metals we are talking about looking at a metal sieve from a mile away, kind of thing..
-
One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...
What is the machine doing to break that bond?
Take a look at it.
-
I think people are getting a bit bogged down here.....
Forces are vector quantities, they have magnitudes and (importantly) directions. "Push" and "Pull" are surely just defining the direction of an applied force from the perspective of the person applying said force.
Take 2 people either side of a "regular" door. One person will have to "push" to open it, the other will have to "pull". It's just grammatical convention. The door doesn't care what word you use, it just "feels" a force acting in one direction.
Take 2 people facing each other in a tug-of-war with a rope. They would both say they are "pulling" on the rope. If they both turned around (backs to each other) they might say they are both "pushing" the rope away. Either the way the rope experiences a stretching force and is placed under tension. As an aside, if they both "pulled" a 100N force onto the rope, they would both have to "push" 100N of force into the ground to stay still, and a spring balance placed into the middle of the rope would read........100N! (not 200N as sandokhan thinks - something he could easily prove to himself by experiment, yet chooses not to!).
At least you're thinking.
-
Check your wording.
If theyre both pulling then 100+100 =200
nevermind.
i think i confused myself.
100!
-
What evidence would you like?
What would pacify you?
[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.
[no response]
For you that may be enough to accept claims, but skeptics require evidence.
Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.
Then our conversation is over.
That must be part of the explanation why you reject reality.
Then our conversation is over.
It's a difficult position you have there, the wrong one that is. None of your ideas are supported by any scientific theory and more importantly, are at odds with everyday reality.
I don't believe they are at odds with reality. I believe they are closer to the reality than the so called scientific theory handed out, which includes something that is complete and utter nonsense, in gravity.
So, yeah, I am in a difficult position in one respect. I'm in a position of being a minority minnow against the mass of mainstream so called scientific might.
I'm ok with that. If people refuse to try to understand it from my side by adhering to the mainstream narratives, without proof, then that's what it is.
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.
It's not what were were taught. Any child knows there is a big difference between pulling their sled up a hill versus pushing it.
Any child knows because they were taught to use push and pull for their visual to physical activities.
Taking a sled uphill requires your feet to push into the hillside and all of your muscles required to compress to ensure that push.
Gripping a rope with the sled behind is still pushing your shoulder/arm and pushing your gripped hand along the rope, as you push into the atmosphere that is compressing you down.
All push, no pull.
You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.
If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.
If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.
As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true. When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?
Forces are vector quantities, they have magnitudes and (importantly) directions. "Push" and "Pull" are surely just defining the direction of an applied force from the perspective of the person applying said force.
By convention, push is repellant, a force away from objects applying the force, and pull is attractive, a force towards objects applying it.
Take 2 people facing each other in a tug-of-war with a rope. They would both say they are "pulling" on the rope. If they both turned around (backs to each other) they might say they are both "pushing" the rope away. Either the way the rope experiences a stretching force and is placed under tension.
Where sceptimatic goes wrong, is in claiming that tension is compressive, wich implies that pulling or pushing on a rope would increase pressure in the rope.
For instance. You go with gravity pulling in the oceans to the centre of a spinning ball. The centre of mass, as you're told.
This also supposedly pulls in the atmosphere and is supposedly the reason why it doesn't fall off, kind of nonsense.
Just this alone makes no sense and I have my own ( in my belief) much much logical and simpler explanation.
That is nonsense, indeed. Without gravity the atmosphere would not fall off anything. It would fly off into space. However, this thread is about oceans, so you can present your much much logical and simpler explanation in a thread about the atmosphere.
-
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
What position would that be and how do I do it?
Are you of a position to know the truth against anything I say and if so...how?
Do you believe in tension?
As in compressive force; yes.
That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.
It depends how you want to look at it or perceive it.
If you were to push apart a liquorice lace, the grip is the same. You grip each end and push which visually shows you the lace becoming thinner. It's stretching and that is a pull to you....or your pull/tension.
But what is happening?
The tension is in the compression of the atmospheric pressure you are under and the lace, which is expanding it's own dense matter in its make up in conjunction with your push , meaning the matter becomes less and less in keeping the lace in the dense mass it was, because it's being squeezed, which is, once again....a push.
You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.
See above.
As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true.
No I haven't claimed that, at all.
I never mentioned bending a rope pushing that rope with a sled attached, up a hill.
Feel free to go and find where i said it.
I'll help you out with what I did say.
I said if you have a rope in both hands and push them towards each other, as in left to right and right to left, the rope will obviously bend.
When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?
Because you pushed a dense mass up a hill, using that rope.
-
The point you keep missing is what you believe in has nothing to do with the reality of the physical world.
How it operates to a large extent has been establish and is employed in many of the technologies that make modern life possible. If the science were wrong, as you like to think, the technologies would not work.....but that is not the case.
Systems are built and designed according to the known laws which obviously work, ergo, you are wrong regardless of what you say.
The point you're missing is, you're going with a reality that you do not know to be so, in terms of reasons for why things work and their origins.
Gravity is one such thing that is used to describe almost everything we are told as our supposed reality.
That alone brings a lot of stuff into question but only as an explanation.
For instance. You go with gravity pulling in the oceans to the centre of a spinning ball. The centre of mass, as you're told.
This also supposedly pulls in the atmosphere and is supposedly the reason why it doesn't fall off, kind of nonsense.
Just this alone makes no sense and I have my own ( in my belief) much much logical and simpler explanation.
This all goes right back to gases and tension and what not.
So this isn't about things not working under my thoughts, it's about things obviously working under explanations given which I do not believe to be the true real explanations, wholly and are shrouded in alternate explanations because to tell the truth would be to tell the truth of what's really going on.
That's my opinion.
Forget about gravity and let’s just focus on the tensile strength test. To recap a machined test piece of a known material and composition is placed in the jaws of a machine where it is pulled apart till failure. Do you have a problem with the reality of that? This basic experiment is carried out all over the world every day. The reality is before materials are used for any construction work the properties of the materials need to be determined. That is the reality of the world. Another reality is metals are not porous. I along with possibly millions of others have carried out a range of tests on metals and none are porous at a molecular level. If you knew anything about the crystalline structure of metals You would not keep saying they are. Hydrogen, the smallest molecule is happily kept in steel containers. Even the very small hydrogen atoms are held in place. Fill a tank with any gas, check the pressure, check the pressure a week later and it will still be the same assuming all the seals are good.
Tensile strength is a reality
Porosity in metals at a molecular level is nonsense
-
One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...
What is the machine doing to break that bond?
Take a look at it.
I don’t need to look at it I’ve performed this test many many times. The machine stretches the material till it yields.....that’s why the diameter at point of failure decreases and the overall length increases. Do you have a problem with the reality of a Young’s modules test?
-
Forget about gravity and let’s just focus on the tensile strength test. To recap a machined test piece of a known material and composition is placed in the jaws of a machine where it is pulled apart till failure.
Do you have a problem with the reality of that?
yes.
There is no pull.
This basic experiment is carried out all over the world every day. The reality is before materials are used for any construction work the properties of the materials need to be determined. That is the reality of the world.
Agreed.
Another reality is metals are not porous.
That's not a reality.
I along with possibly millions of others have carried out a range of tests on metals and none are porous at a molecular level. If you knew anything about the crystalline structure of metals You would not keep saying they are.
They are porous.
Hydrogen, the smallest molecule is happily kept in steel containers. Even the very small hydrogen atoms are held in place. Fill a tank with any gas, check the pressure, check the pressure a week later and it will still be the same assuming all the seals are good.
Smallest by compression or largest by expansion?
Superfluids would breach the container. Basically find the porosity.
Tensile strength is a reality
It depends how it's looked at. Back to the reality of push or your perception of pull.
Porosity in metals at a molecular level is nonsense
Porosity in metals in a reality.
-
Forget about gravity and let’s just focus on the tensile strength test. To recap a machined test piece of a known material and composition is placed in the jaws of a machine where it is pulled apart till failure.
Do you have a problem with the reality of that?
yes.
There is no pull.
Incorrect.
The stresses in string, rope and thin wires must be tensile (ie pulling).
This basic experiment is carried out all over the world every day. The reality is before materials are used for any construction work the properties of the materials need to be determined. That is the reality of the world.
Agreed.
Another reality is metals are not porous.
That's not a reality.
I along with possibly millions of others have carried out a range of tests on metals and none are porous at a molecular level. If you knew anything about the crystalline structure of metals You would not keep saying they are.
They are porous.
Hydrogen, the smallest molecule is happily kept in steel containers. Even the very small hydrogen atoms are held in place. Fill a tank with any gas, check the pressure, check the pressure a week later and it will still be the same assuming all the seals are good.
Smallest by compression or largest by expansion?
Superfluids would breach the container. Basically find the porosity.
Tensile strength is a reality
It depends how it's looked at. Back to the reality of push or your perception of pull.
Porosity in metals at a molecular level is nonsense
Porosity in metals in a reality.
Incorrect.
Good quality metals are not porous.
Otherwise compressed air, oxygen, hydrogen and other gasses could not be stored in metal cylinders for long periods.
If you disagree please post experimental evidence.
-
One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...
What is the machine doing to break that bond?
Take a look at it.
I don’t need to look at it I’ve performed this test many many times. The machine stretches the material till it yields.....that’s why the diameter at point of failure decreases and the overall length increases. Do you have a problem with the reality of a Young’s modules test?
I don't have a problem with the visual test, just the pull, part.
Think about what's happening without looking at the word, pull.
It's all compressive force, you just have to understand how and why.
-
Incorrect.
The stresses in string, rope and thin wires must be tensile (ie pulling).
Nope. It's compressive force, meaning pushing.
Good quality metals are not porous.
Otherwise compressed air, oxygen, hydrogen and other gasses could not be stored in metal cylinders for long periods.
If you disagree please post experimental evidence.
It doesn't matter what quality anything is. Everything is porous.
-
Incorrect.
The stresses in string, rope and thin wires must be tensile (ie pulling).
Nope. It's compressive force, meaning pushing.
Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?
Good quality metals are not porous.
Otherwise compressed air, oxygen, hydrogen and other gasses could not be stored in metal cylinders for long periods.
If you disagree please post experimental evidence.
It doesn't matter what quality anything is. Everything is porous.
Not acceptable!
I said "If you disagree please post experimental evidence" and you've posted none.
-
Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?
Yep.
-
Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?
Yep.
Do you think the tensile strength of a material is irrelevant, fake, an illusion or what? How do you explain what is happening in the video?
What do you base your assertion that metals are porous on? How do you explain away the fact that every book ever written on materials science or any experiment to look at the structure of metal will conclude that metal is not porous?
-
Do you think the tensile strength of a material is irrelevant, fake, an illusion or what? How do you explain what is happening in the video?
I can explain it by seeing an object being compressed in many different ways that leads to structural weakening.
What do you base your assertion that metals are porous on?
Expansion and contraction.
How do you explain away the fact that every book ever written on materials science or any experiment to look at the structure of metal will conclude that metal is not porous?
I don't need to explain it. I'm simply saying everything has some porosity, otherwise it would have no structure.
-
Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?
Yep.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I want a photo of that! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
What position would that be and how do I do it?[4]
Are you of a position to know the truth against anything I say and if so...how?[5]
[4] Am I understanding correctly that you are asking me to tell you what your position is ?
[5] That would depend on what you say, but probably not.
That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.
It depends how you want to look at it or perceive it.[6]
If you were to push apart a liquorice lace, the grip is the same. You grip each end and push which visually shows you the lace becoming thinner. It's stretching and that is a pull to you....or your pull/tension.
But what is happening?
The tension is in the compression of the atmospheric pressure you are under and the lace, which is expanding it's own dense matter in its make up in conjunction with your push , meaning the matter becomes less and less in keeping the lace in the dense mass it was, because it's being squeezed, which is, once again....a push.[7]
[6] No. The nature of tension does not depend on the observer. The meaning of term tension does depend on the used convention. I use the prevalent scientific convention, according to wich tension is the opposite of compression.
[7] What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?
You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.
See above.
You still have to prove your claims above.
Moreover, you are committing a proof by example fallacy. Even if in your example no tension were to occur, that would not imply tension can never occur, like in the tensile strength test of the steel rod, where you merely claim, not demonstrate, there is no pull.
If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.
If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.
As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true. When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?
No I haven't claimed that, at all.[8]
I never mentioned bending a rope pushing that rope with a sled attached, up a hill.
Feel free to go and find where i said it.
I'll help you out with what I did say.
I said if you have a rope in both hands and push them towards each other, as in left to right and right to left, the rope will obviously bend.[9]
[8] Actually, you have, as my quote from your claim in post 79 demonstrates again.
[9] I assume that is what you meant to say and are just clumsy at admitting your lapsis. So I'll drop it.
In the mean time, the earth is still round.
-
What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
-
What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
That doesn't address the question.
- Is the lace stretching ONLY a product of pressure from the surrounding atmosphere?
- Are you saying that in a vacuum, the lace would not stretch?
-
Pull is impossible when looked at properly.
That is just a claim you have repeated countless times with no justification at all.
Again, when looked at properly, it can't all be push.
If it was all push, then the material properties of the rope would be irrelevant.
2 ropes, made from different materials, but of the same dimensions, would have the same tensile strength.
But back in reality, different materials (even those with the same density) have different tensile strengths, and with some materials, the history of the material/how it is made will also effect it. e.g. long, drawn out fibres are better than just a random criss cross.
If everything was just push then if you took a rope, cut it, then put the cut ends back together, it would be magically back together. Again, this doesn't happen.
Likewise, you can consider what happens when a rope is broken while under load.
With pull, there is tensile stress in the rope. This acts all along the rope. When the rope breaks this stress pulls the newly formed ends apart.
If it was all push, this shouldn't happen (and that is with ignoring the fact that the rope should just fall apart).
You can also just consider what happens when you push vs pull the end of a rope.
If you pull an end, the rope straightens out and is dragged along, with the other end eventually moving with the rope.
When you push an end, the other end basically just sits there as you bundle up the rope.
We can also look at what happens in a vacuum chamber.
Compare something suspended by a suction cap vs a rope.
As the pressure is lowered, the suction cap, which is being pushed against the surface by the air pressure, falls off, as the push is not strong enough. Yet the rope holds itself together.
You have literally no basis at all to claim everything is push and there is no such thing as pull.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence to firmly establish the existence of such a thing as pull.
Does a horse pull or push a cart?
If the horse is in front, it can't push.
You could have it push on a part of it, but that part then needs to pull the rest.
Don't just focus on what the horse is directly doing. Focus on how that force is transferred to the cart.
Try making a diagram.
You have a horse, a rope and a cart.
The horse is to the left of the cart, and is drawing the cart to the left.
How does that force get transferred to the cart.
Make sure you include the forces inside the rope as well.
It isn't just about what the horse is doing to the rope and what the rope is doing to the cart.
Then draw it the other way around, with a horse out to the right, attached to the cart with a rope, but moving to the left. Does the cart move? No.
If people refuse to try to understand it from my side
It has been shown time and time again that it has nothing to do with people not wanting to understand it and instead is due entirely to you having no explanation at all for your nonsense.
considering I know gravity is nonsense and many other things are
No, you falsely claim they are nonsense with no justification at all.
Meanwhile you still pretend to "know" that your model is right, even though it has been repeatedly explained why it is nonsense with how it repeatedly contradicts reality.
-
Is there a difference?
Let’s call this pushing or as an engineer would a compression test.
Let’s call this pulling or as an engineer would a tensile test
Flatearthers are always going on about only believing what they can see. The above clearly demonstrates the radical difference between pulling and pushing or tension and compression.
Yet Sceptamatic chooses to believe in things he can’t see.....atmospheric gasses passing into metal! Which of course is impossible.
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
-
That doesn't address the question.
- Is the lace stretching ONLY a product of pressure from the surrounding atmosphere?
No.
The lace stretching is the product of the force applied to it to push it apart, which would be a pressure grip and push and while that happens the atmospheric pressure immediately takes up the lessening density of the lace at those points which we see as thinning.
- Are you saying that in a vacuum, the lace would not stretch?
It would expand and become brittle. If you want to look on expansion as being a stretch then we'll deal with that.
-
If everything was just push then if you took a rope, cut it, then put the cut ends back together, it would be magically back together. Again, this doesn't happen.
Nor should it happen.
-
Is there a difference?
Let’s call this pushing or as an engineer would a compression test.
Let’s call this pulling or as an engineer would a tensile test
Flatearthers are always going on about only believing what they can see. The above clearly demonstrates the radical difference between pulling and pushing or tension and compression.
Yet Sceptamatic chooses to believe in things he can’t see.....atmospheric gasses passing into metal! Which of course is impossible.
It all depends on what you want to believe.
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Its a classic case of you just ignoring how the world works. Are you saying the whole world is wrong and you are right?
Your idea that metals are porous is just so far from reality. Have you ever examined the crystalline structure of metal under a microscope?
-
Is there a difference?
Let’s call this pushing or as an engineer would a compression test.
Let’s call this pulling or as an engineer would a tensile test
Flatearthers are always going on about only believing what they can see. The above clearly demonstrates the radical difference between pulling and pushing or tension and compression.
Yet Sceptamatic chooses to believe in things he can’t see.....atmospheric gasses passing into metal! Which of course is impossible.
It all depends on what you want to believe.
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
. X ray crystallography will show crystal structures and the gaps between the atoms.
-
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
And what is that supposed to mean?
-
Speaking of "just pushing", how two magnets pull towards each other?
Or two charged particles, one positive, the other negative? :)
(Or the molecules of that rope, not letting the two halves to separate?)
-
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
A totally different though process built upon the rejection of reality with no basis at all, which leads to pure nonsense which cannot explain reality at all.
If everything was just push then if you took a rope, cut it, then put the cut ends back together, it would be magically back together. Again, this doesn't happen.
Nor should it happen.
And of course, you ignore the vast majority of what I say because you have no rational refutation of it.
Why shouldn't it happen if everything is just push?
If there is nothing inside the rope pulling it together, why shouldn't you be able to separate it by cutting it and then rejoining it?
Surely whatever is "pushing" it should just "push" it back together, as good as new.
How about you address the actual issue and tell us just what is holding the rope together, such that if a rope is laid out left to right, and I apply a force to the right side of the rope to move it to the right, the entire rope moves, and is straight; while if I take that end and apply a force to move it to the left, the rope just bundles up.
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Its a classic case of you just ignoring how the world works. Are you saying the whole world is wrong and you are right?
Nope.
Your idea that metals are porous is just so far from reality. Have you ever examined the crystalline structure of metal under a microscope?
Tell me something.
When a metal is in liquid form and it is allowed to cool and harden...what is it that makes it harden?
-
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
And what is that supposed to mean?
It means what it says.
-
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
And what is that supposed to mean?
It means what it says.
In other words it's a meaningless claim.
But how does any of this relate to the topic, "Surface tension explains how oceans can curve doesn't it?"
-
Speaking of "just pushing", how two magnets pull towards each other?
Or two charged particles, one positive, the other negative? :)
To understand magnets, just understand trapped atmosphere, porosity and pressures.
(Or the molecules of that rope, not letting the two halves to separate?)
Expansion by applied mechanical force, coupled with immediate compressive atmospheric force.
-
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
And what is that supposed to mean?
It means what it says.
In other words it's a meaningless claim.
But how does any of this relate to the topic, "Surface tension explains how oceans can curve doesn't it?"
Not in my book it doesn't.
-
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.
And what is that supposed to mean?
It means what it says.
In other words it's a meaningless claim.
But how does any of this relate to the topic, "Surface tension explains how oceans can curve doesn't it?"
Not in my book it doesn't.
So we agree that surface tension does not explain how oceans can curve. That must be a first.
-
So we agree that surface tension does not explain how oceans can curve. That must be a first.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
-
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
What position would that be and how do I do it?[4]
Are you of a position to know the truth against anything I say and if so...how?[5]
[4] Am I understanding correctly that you are asking me to tell you what your position is ?
[5] That would depend on what you say, but probably not.
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
But what is happening?
The tension is in the compression of the atmospheric pressure you are under and the lace, which is expanding it's own dense matter in its make up in conjunction with your push , meaning the matter becomes less and less in keeping the lace in the dense mass it was, because it's being squeezed, which is, once again....a push.[7]
What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
a) I am sorry, but I don't understand how your evidence is supposed to support your claims. Even if what you claimed were likely, it does not seem to support that there is tension in the compression of the atmospheric pressure. Can you provide evidence that actually supports your claims ?
b) You failed to answer my question. Please do.
You still have to prove your claims above.
Moreover, you are committing a proof by example fallacy. Even if in your example no tension were to occur, that would not imply tension can never occur, like in the tensile strength test of the steel rod, where you merely claim, not demonstrate, there is no pull.
[no response]
Have you ever wondered why it could be that you are unable to support your claims ?
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Jesus Christ was a gay Martian who came to earth 2000 years ago, sailing on the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That is another classic case of alternate thinking against mainstream indoctrinated narratives. Should such thinking be taken seriously ?
Speaking of "just pushing", how two magnets pull towards each other?
Or two charged particles, one positive, the other negative?
To understand magnets, just understand trapped atmosphere, porosity and pressures.
I understand magnets without relying on any of those.
You forgot to answer Macarios' question.
So we agree that surface tension does not explain how oceans can curve. That must be a first.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Thus are your claims, but can you prove them ?
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Its a classic case of you just ignoring how the world works. Are you saying the whole world is wrong and you are right?
Nope.
Your idea that metals are porous is just so far from reality. Have you ever examined the crystalline structure of metal under a microscope?
Tell me something.
When a metal is in liquid form and it is allowed to cool and harden...what is it that makes it harden?
Temperature.
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
-
Atoms do have space in between their structures.
And molecules have space in between them.
Scepoy incorrectly believes this space is filled with air.
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Its a classic case of you just ignoring how the world works. Are you saying the whole world is wrong and you are right?
Nope.
Your idea that metals are porous is just so far from reality. Have you ever examined the crystalline structure of metal under a microscope?
Tell me something.
When a metal is in liquid form and it is allowed to cool and harden...what is it that makes it harden?
Temperature.
And why does temperature play a part in expansion and contraction?
-
Atoms do have space in between their structures.
And molecules have space in between them.
Scepoy incorrectly believes this space is filled with air.
Atmosphere.
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
End result is porosity creating the structure.
The only issue is, in how porous each object is, from largely to miniscule.
-
Atoms do have space in between their structures.
And molecules have space in between them.
Scepoy incorrectly believes this space is filled with air.
Atmosphere.
Oh -- you don't think the atmosphere is composed of air??
-
To understand magnets, just understand trapped atmosphere, porosity and pressures.
The fact that only some materials are magnetic, that the strength varies dramatically between materials and that they are dipoles shows quite conclusively that the air has nothing to do with it.
That is why you were asked to explain it.
But of course, because you can't, you just deflect.
Expansion by applied mechanical force, coupled with immediate compressive atmospheric force.
And if that was the case, if you cut a rope in half and rejoin the ends, why doesn't it stick back together?
Again, why does this produce such a dramatically different force when you pull on the end of a rope vs when you push on it?
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
No, it wouldn't, as it occurs even without atmosphere, such as at the interface between 2 fluids.
If they were the same thing, why doesn't the atmosphere crush something like a long rope into a ball?
End result is porosity creating the structure.
No, it isn't.
That "porosity" still exists in the liquid phase, and is typically much larger in the liquid phase.
When things melt they typically expand, not contract.
And that would cause just another problem for your model. Why do some things expand but others contract?
-
Atoms do have space in between their structures.
And molecules have space in between them.
Scepoy incorrectly believes this space is filled with air.
Atmosphere.
Oh -- you don't think the atmosphere is composed of air??
Yep but air is a mixture or states of matter/molecules.
-
To understand magnets, just understand trapped atmosphere, porosity and pressures.
The fact that only some materials are magnetic, that the strength varies dramatically between materials and that they are dipoles shows quite conclusively that the air has nothing to do with it.
Some things are magnetic and some aren't depending on how much atmosphere they trap of expanded low pressure leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
Expansion by applied mechanical force, coupled with immediate compressive atmospheric force.
And if that was the case, if you cut a rope in half and rejoin the ends, why doesn't it stick back together?
You broke the molecular bond by pushing it apart and expanding it to allow atmospheric squeeze of that expansion to push it away.
Again, why does this produce such a dramatically different force when you pull on the end of a rope vs when you push on it?
Expansion and compression.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
No, it wouldn't, as it occurs even without atmosphere, such as at the interface between 2 fluids.
If they were the same thing, why doesn't the atmosphere crush something like a long rope into a ball?
End result is porosity creating the structure.
No, it isn't.
That "porosity" still exists in the liquid phase, and is typically much larger in the liquid phase.
When things melt they typically expand, not contract.
[/quote]Porosity still exists in any stage but the liquid stage is more dense than the solid stage which holds more volume in its structure.
And that would cause just another problem for your model. Why do some things expand but others contract?
Agitation of molecules or lack of.
-
Yep but air is a mixture or states of matter/molecules.
No, the air is a single state. GAS.
It is a mixture of different atoms/molecules. Just like the atmosphere.
Some things are magnetic and some aren't depending on how much atmosphere they trap
Which if all your nonsense was correct, would directly lead to more dense objects being less magnetic.
leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
HOW?
I notice you just provide vague nonsense rather than any attempt at an actual explanation.
How do 2 magnets get "pushed" towards one another, sometimes with one flipping around?
How do the magnets orient themselves relative to each other?
What is the cause of this directionality?
Do you have "north" air and "south" air? Where magnets then have "north" air trapped on one side and "south" air on the other?
How does one magnet cause another to be pushed towards it?
Why does it depend on the strength of both magnets?
You broke the molecular bond by pushing it apart and expanding it to allow atmospheric squeeze of that expansion to push it away.
The molecular bond doesn't exist in your nonsense. That is because you claim everything is push, while the molecular bond is pull.
And no, it doesn't require breaking apart a molecule. That depends upon what the rope is made from. But for simplicity the same can be done with metal, without any molecular bonds.
But that is really what I am getting at.
There is something in the rope where it is pulling the rope together to hold the rope together.
But according to you, this CANNOT happen.
The best you can have is something around the rope pushing it all together.
Expansion and compression.
This completely fails to address what I asked for.
When you pull a rope, it goes taught and moves along in a fairly straight line.
The only sane explanation is that you are pulling the rope, that the interactions inside the rope have each part of the rope pulling on the other parts such that the entire rope is pulled along.
Without pull, the rope simply falls apart. You pick up the rope and push the part in your hand, no force is apply to the rope "behind" your hand as that would be pulling, so it remains while the section in your hand is pushed, and the rope simply falls apart.
The only way out is to have the rope be pushed from the other end.
But if that is the case, then it should push the other end and cause the rope to crumple, just like what happens when you push a rope.
This massive contradiction is what you need to address, as this is one of many things which shows you need some kind of pull.
Porosity still exists in any stage but the liquid stage is more dense than the solid stage which holds more volume in its structure.
Again, this is pure BS.
The liquid stage is typically LESS dense.
The only exception is when you have highly directional interactions such as the hydrogen bonds found in water, which make no sense in your model.
And that would cause just another problem for your model. Why do some things expand but others contract?
Agitation of molecules or lack of.
No, in both cases you have agitation.
In both cases you have a solid, which is agitated and eventually becomes a liquid.
In one case you have it expand and take up more space with an increase in the "porosity".
In the other, you have it contract and take up less space with a decrease in the "porosity".
-
Some things are magnetic and some aren't depending on how much atmosphere they trap of expanded low pressure leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
What total garbage! Magnetic effects have nothing to do "how much atmosphere they trap"! Where did you drag that from?
-
This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Its a classic case of you just ignoring how the world works. Are you saying the whole world is wrong and you are right?
Nope.
Your idea that metals are porous is just so far from reality. Have you ever examined the crystalline structure of metal under a microscope?
Tell me something.
When a metal is in liquid form and it is allowed to cool and harden...what is it that makes it harden?
Temperature.
And why does temperature play a part in expansion and contraction?
Temperature determines the amount of vibration of the Adams , the colder and slower a metal gets the harder it gets.
-
Some things are magnetic and some aren't depending on how much atmosphere they trap of expanded low pressure leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
What total garbage! Magnetic effects have nothing to do "how much atmosphere they trap"! Where did you drag that from?
Of course it's nonsense to you. Everything I say is nonsense to you and this is why we're debating it all.
A lot of mainstream ideals are nonsense to me and this is where we're at.
Do you actually know what magnetism is?
I mean, do you actually know what causes this natural magnetic effect we see?
Don't copy and paste anything. I want it from your own words.
-
Temperature determines the amount of vibration of the Adams , the colder and slower a metal gets the harder it gets.
Yep, temperature determines the amount of vibration which is due to expanding molecules being able to push away the more densely packed atmosphere around them and the more densely packed matter tries to equalise that by crushing back and the very second that expansion of matter is allowed to go dormant, it's crushed upon, meaning less agitation/vibration, until a structure forms, meaning the object going into a solid state.
-
Some things are magnetic and some aren't depending on how much atmosphere they trap of expanded low pressure leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
What total garbage! Magnetic effects have nothing to do "how much atmosphere they trap"! Where did you drag that from?
Of course it's nonsense to you. Everything I say is nonsense to you and this is why we're debating it all.
A lot of mainstream ideals are nonsense to me and this is where we're at.
I'm not surprised that "a lot of mainstream ideals are nonsense to" you because you never bother to do any experiments or make any measurements.
As a result you never learn how things really work. All you have is is what you dredge up from your own imagination.
But just face it. No one person ever has the time, expertise or equipment to ever learn how everything works.
Do you actually know what magnetism is?
I mean, do you actually know what causes this natural magnetic effect we see?
Don't copy and paste anything. I want it from your own words.
Yes, but do you?
And it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Magnets and devices relying on magnetic effects work exactly the same with or without an atmosphere.
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
End result is porosity creating the structure.
The only issue is, in how porous each object is, from largely to miniscule.
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
-
Do you actually know what magnetism is?
I mean, do you actually know what causes this natural magnetic effect we see?
Don't copy and paste anything. I want it from your own words.
Yes, but do you?
And it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Magnets and devices relying on magnetic effects work exactly the same with or without an atmosphere.
So you don't know how magnets work, do you?
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
End result is porosity creating the structure.
The only issue is, in how porous each object is, from largely to miniscule.
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
-
Do you actually know what magnetism is?
I mean, do you actually know what causes this natural magnetic effect we see?
Don't copy and paste anything. I want it from your own words.
Yes, but do you?
And it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Magnets and devices relying on magnetic effects work exactly the same with or without an atmosphere.
So you don't know how magnets work, do you?
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
-
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
End result is porosity creating the structure.
The only issue is, in how porous each object is, from largely to miniscule.
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Atmohemispheric
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
End result is porosity creating the structure.
The only issue is, in how porous each object is, from largely to miniscule.
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Atmohemispheric
You're getting there.
-
Atmoplanar
To be an atmosphere, the planet would have to be a sphere-ish.
-
Its under a dome.
Assuming the dome is half a ball.
Atmo-Hemi-spheric
-
Its under a dome.
Assuming the dome is half a ball.
Atmo-Hemi-spheric
Why can't the dome be a cube or cylinder?
Atmoplanar
Atmodiscal
-
Its under a dome.
Assuming the dome is half a ball.
Atmo-Hemi-spheric
Why can't the dome be a cube or cylinder?
Atmoplanar
Atmodiscal
Because the shape would then be semicylinder
-
Do you actually know what magnetism is?
I mean, do you actually know what causes this natural magnetic effect we see?
How about instead of deflecting, you instead focus on providing an explanation from your model?
There are several questions about how magnetism works you have completely failed to answer, because your nonsense has no way to explain it.
Again:
How do 2 magnets get "pushed" towards one another, sometimes with one flipping around?
How do the magnets orient themselves relative to each other?
What is the cause of this directionality?
Do you have "north" air and "south" air? Where magnets then have "north" air trapped on one side and "south" air on the other?
How does one magnet cause another to be pushed towards it?
Why does it depend on the strength of both magnets?
All of these points make absolutely no sense in your world of only pushing.
But they work just fine in a world where you can have pulling as well.
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
The fact that we can produce air tight containers shows that that is clearly not the case.
And again, you ignore a simple rope which clearly shows that it isn't all just push.
What holds the rope together while it is under tension.
Why does pulling one end of the rope away from the other produce such a dramatically different effect to pushing that end towards the other?
Why doesn't the rope fall apart when you pull it?
-
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
-
So we agree that surface tension does not explain how oceans can curve. That must be a first.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Surface tension has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure!
-
There are several hardening techniques and levels, depending on the requirements, and the percentage of components in the alloy (like percentage of carbon in steel).
Generally, the microscopic explanation is baced on adjustment of graininess and on recrystallization.
Maybe thgis can help in understanding the basics:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm (https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Structure/strengthening.htm)
End result is porosity creating the structure.
The only issue is, in how porous each object is, from largely to miniscule.
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Any other air around us except your "atmospheric"? :)
And metal objects would remain solid? :)
______________________________________________
We all know for glass vacuum tubes.
There are also metal vacuum tubes. (For example "RCA 6SA7 vacuum tube - metal radio tube...")
We know for Cathode Ray tubes (in older CRT TVs and monitors).
They prove that there is no such porosity of glass and metal.
Otherwise the vacuum tubes would lose their vacuum, air would get in and the tube would stop working in less than a second.
Yet, the tubes are/were working for years, some of them for decades.
-
Its under a dome.
Assuming the dome is half a ball.
Atmo-Hemi-spheric
Why can't the dome be a cube or cylinder?
Atmoplanar
Atmodiscal
Because the shape would then be semicylinder
Yes it would, as no flat earther has ever reached the dome or the edge, how do they know its not.
-
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
-
So we agree that surface tension does not explain how oceans can curve. That must be a first.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Surface tension has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure!
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
-
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Any other air around us except your "atmospheric"? :)
No need for more. It's all in atmospheric, in stages. In a stack. Different molecular stages.
And metal objects would remain solid? :)
Yep.
______________________________________________
We all know for glass vacuum tubes.
There are also metal vacuum tubes. (For example "RCA 6SA7 vacuum tube - metal radio tube...")
We know for Cathode Ray tubes (in older CRT TVs and monitors).
They prove that there is no such porosity of glass and metal.
Otherwise the vacuum tubes would lose their vacuum, air would get in and the tube would stop working in less than a second.
Yet, the tubes are/were working for years, some of them for decades.
It proves nothing other than the glass can create a barrier to external dense pressure of molecules.
The pores in that glass structure would be super tiny.
super fluids would breach it.
-
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Any other air around us except your "atmospheric"? :)
No need for more. It's all in atmospheric, in stages. In a stack. Different molecular stages.
And metal objects would remain solid? :)
Yep.
______________________________________________
We all know for glass vacuum tubes.
There are also metal vacuum tubes. (For example "RCA 6SA7 vacuum tube - metal radio tube...")
We know for Cathode Ray tubes (in older CRT TVs and monitors).
They prove that there is no such porosity of glass and metal.
Otherwise the vacuum tubes would lose their vacuum, air would get in and the tube would stop working in less than a second.
Yet, the tubes are/were working for years, some of them for decades.
It proves nothing other than the glass can create a barrier to external dense pressure of molecules.
The pores in that glass structure would be super tiny.
super fluids would breach it.
The porosity of the glass vacuum tube, or lack thereof, means no atmosphere molecules are getting inside. If the pores of a vacuum tube (or old school lightbulb) are super tiny, it should be super heavy?
What's this 'super fluid' you speak of?
-
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Any other air around us except your "atmospheric"? :)
No need for more. It's all in atmospheric, in stages. In a stack. Different molecular stages.
And metal objects would remain solid? :)
Yep.
______________________________________________
We all know for glass vacuum tubes.
There are also metal vacuum tubes. (For example "RCA 6SA7 vacuum tube - metal radio tube...")
We know for Cathode Ray tubes (in older CRT TVs and monitors).
They prove that there is no such porosity of glass and metal.
Otherwise the vacuum tubes would lose their vacuum, air would get in and the tube would stop working in less than a second.
Yet, the tubes are/were working for years, some of them for decades.
It proves nothing other than the glass can create a barrier to external dense pressure of molecules.
The pores in that glass structure would be super tiny.
super fluids would breach it.
The porosity of the glass vacuum tube, or lack thereof, means no atmosphere molecules are getting inside. If the pores of a vacuum tube (or old school lightbulb) are super tiny, it should be super heavy?
What's this 'super fluid' you speak of?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21ozi0
-
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
I'm giving you clues all the time but you don't seem even recognise them.
Now electrons in atoms are moving charges and so are somwhat similar to a circulating electric current.
Now something from you, thank you.
-
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
I'm giving you clues all the time but you don't seem even recognise them.
Now electrons in atoms are moving charges and so are somwhat similar to a circulating electric current.
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
-
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
I'm giving you clues all the time but you don't seem even recognise them.
Now electrons in atoms are moving charges and so are somwhat similar to a circulating electric current.
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Show us your proof of a helium ice dome or the reflected electri sun nucleus cell.
-
Show us your proof of a helium ice dome or the reflected electric sun.
I can't. I can only give you the benefit of my observations by experiments and logical thoughts. What you do with that thought process, is your business.
-
Show us your proof of a helium ice dome or the reflected electric sun.
I can't. I can only give you the benefit of my observations by experiments and logical thoughts. What you do with that thought process, is your business.
What experiments? Please describe.
-
And you would like us to think that the air molecules are small enough to fit into those pores? :)
Atmospheric....yes.
Any other air around us except your "atmospheric"? :)
No need for more. It's all in atmospheric, in stages. In a stack. Different molecular stages.
And metal objects would remain solid? :)
Yep.
______________________________________________
We all know for glass vacuum tubes.
There are also metal vacuum tubes. (For example "RCA 6SA7 vacuum tube - metal radio tube...")
We know for Cathode Ray tubes (in older CRT TVs and monitors).
They prove that there is no such porosity of glass and metal.
Otherwise the vacuum tubes would lose their vacuum, air would get in and the tube would stop working in less than a second.
Yet, the tubes are/were working for years, some of them for decades.
It proves nothing other than the glass can create a barrier to external dense pressure of molecules.
The pores in that glass structure would be super tiny.
super fluids would breach it.
The porosity of the glass vacuum tube, or lack thereof, means no atmosphere molecules are getting inside. If the pores of a vacuum tube (or old school lightbulb) are super tiny, it should be super heavy?
What's this 'super fluid' you speak of?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21ozi0
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
-
Show us your proof of a helium ice dome or the reflected electric sun.
I can't. I can only give you the benefit of my observations by experiments and logical thoughts. What you do with that thought process, is your business.
What experiments? Please describe.
Well documented over time.
I've given plenty of experiments for people to do and nobody wants to follow them in how I describe, which I find weird.
I know I know, you're different...right?
-
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
The low pressure inside a TV tube is not a superfluid....you're right about that, which means the tube will hold the low pressure gases and resist the higher pressure external atmosphere.
I'm simply showing you porosity on different levels. Surely it should be more clear to you.
-
Show us your proof of a helium ice dome or the reflected electric sun.
I can't. I can only give you the benefit of my observations by experiments and logical thoughts. What you do with that thought process, is your business.
Amazing.
All of industrialized world gets along fine without resorting to crush on crush and poor analogies.
Imgaine building a skyscraper and the blue prints involve someone repeating the words crush on crush like the shining.
-
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
The low pressure inside a TV tube is not a superfluid....you're right about that, which means the tube will hold the low pressure gases and resist the higher pressure external atmosphere.
I'm simply showing you porosity on different levels. Surely it should be more clear to you.
Surely it should be clear to you that if I had a sheet of glass above my head the vertical stack wouldn't get through to me because the pores are way, way, tiny. I could float underneath it. Like magic.
-
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
a) I am sorry, but I don't understand how your evidence is supposed to support your claims. Even if what you claimed were likely, it does not seem to support that there is tension in the compression of the atmospheric pressure. Can you provide evidence that actually supports your claims ?
b) You failed to answer my question. Please do.
[a) No]
a) Why do you think it is you are unable to support your claims ?
b) You forgot to answer my question.
Have you ever wondered why it could be that you are unable to support your claims ?
[No]
I'll give you a hint : Which claims are easiest to support ? True ones of false ones ?
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Jesus Christ was a gay Martian who came to earth 2000 years ago, sailing on the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That is another classic case of alternate thinking against mainstream indoctrinated narratives. Should such thinking be taken seriously ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Thus are your claims, but can you prove them ?
[No]
Should sceptics take unsupported claims seriously ?
leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
HOW?
I notice you just provide vague nonsense rather than any attempt at an actual explanation.
Sometimes he doesn't even provide vague nonsense.
What total garbage! Magnetic effects have nothing to do "how much atmosphere they trap"! Where did you drag that from?
Of course it's nonsense to you. Everything I say is nonsense to you and this is why we're debating it all.
A lot of mainstream ideals are nonsense to me and this is where we're at.
So, in your worldview, there is no magnetism in (near) vacuum. Is that correct ?
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
The pot calls the kettle black.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
Stop being evasive and explain how magnetism works. Rational people are beginning to think you are stalling to hide your ignorance.
Surface tension has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure!
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
So you claim, but can you prove it ?
-
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
The low pressure inside a TV tube is not a superfluid....you're right about that, which means the tube will hold the low pressure gases and resist the higher pressure external atmosphere.
I'm simply showing you porosity on different levels. Surely it should be more clear to you.
There are no gasses inside CRT.
Otherwise the electron beam would just ionize it and wouldn't reach the screen to draw the image.
If the glass was porous gasses would enter and dissipate the beam.
-
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Why should I bother when you post nothing?
-
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Why should I bother when you post nothing?
Low content, trolling post.
Pull it or recieve a warning. Thanks.
Please refrain from such postings in the future and contribute your posts constructively as relating to the OP
-
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Why should I bother when you post nothing?
Low content, trolling post.
Pull it or recieve a warning. Thanks.
Please refrain from such postings in the future and contribute your posts constructively as relating to the OP
A warning from whom? Sceptimatic is posting nothing to answer so what am I supposed to say.
-
Show us your proof of a helium ice dome or the reflected electric sun.
I can't. I can only give you the benefit of my observations by experiments and logical thoughts. What you do with that thought process, is your business.
Amazing.
All of industrialized world gets along fine without resorting to crush on crush and poor analogies.
Imgaine building a skyscraper and the blue prints involve someone repeating the words crush on crush like the shining.
You don't believe a skyscraper results in a crush on crush scenario in that build?
-
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
The low pressure inside a TV tube is not a superfluid....you're right about that, which means the tube will hold the low pressure gases and resist the higher pressure external atmosphere.
I'm simply showing you porosity on different levels. Surely it should be more clear to you.
Surely it should be clear to you that if I had a sheet of glass above my head the vertical stack wouldn't get through to me because the pores are way, way, tiny. I could float underneath it. Like magic.
Indeed the air wouldn't just go through. That's why the glass resists that air by it's own dense matter and imparts that onto your head along with your entire dense matter of your body pushing against that glass and into the atmosphere and using your feet as your resistance to crush down.
You can't float underneath it because you are under pressure.
-
It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.
a) I am sorry, but I don't understand how your evidence is supposed to support your claims. Even if what you claimed were likely, it does not seem to support that there is tension in the compression of the atmospheric pressure. Can you provide evidence that actually supports your claims ?
b) You failed to answer my question. Please do.
[a) No]
a) Why do you think it is you are unable to support your claims ?
b) You forgot to answer my question.
Have you ever wondered why it could be that you are unable to support your claims ?
[No]
I'll give you a hint : Which claims are easiest to support ? True ones of false ones ?
I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.
Jesus Christ was a gay Martian who came to earth 2000 years ago, sailing on the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That is another classic case of alternate thinking against mainstream indoctrinated narratives. Should such thinking be taken seriously ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
Oceans do not curve, unless you mean waves.
And surface tension would be atmospheric pressure upon any surface with that surface resisting that pressure.
Thus are your claims, but can you prove them ?
[No]
Should sceptics take unsupported claims seriously ?
leading to a high pressure push towards that which creates what we see as a magnetic attraction.
HOW?
I notice you just provide vague nonsense rather than any attempt at an actual explanation.
Sometimes he doesn't even provide vague nonsense.
What total garbage! Magnetic effects have nothing to do "how much atmosphere they trap"! Where did you drag that from?
Of course it's nonsense to you. Everything I say is nonsense to you and this is why we're debating it all.
A lot of mainstream ideals are nonsense to me and this is where we're at.
So, in your worldview, there is no magnetism in (near) vacuum. Is that correct ?
Obviously you don't but electric currents flowing in tiny loops might give you a hint.
Clearly you have no clue.
The pot calls the kettle black.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
We can talk about electric currents later if you want.
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
Ever heard that an electric current causes a magnetic field? Now what about your version?
Stop being evasive and explain how magnetism works. Rational people are beginning to think you are stalling to hide your ignorance.
Surface tension has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure!
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
So you claim, but can you prove it ?
Pick one query/question at a time.
-
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
The low pressure inside a TV tube is not a superfluid....you're right about that, which means the tube will hold the low pressure gases and resist the higher pressure external atmosphere.
I'm simply showing you porosity on different levels. Surely it should be more clear to you.
There are no gasses inside CRT.
Otherwise the electron beam would just ionize it and wouldn't reach the screen to draw the image.
If the glass was porous gasses would enter and dissipate the beam.
The tube cannot be empty. It has to hold atmosphere, even in it's more expanded form.
If the tube was evacuated of a lot of atmosphere like a bell jar, the tube would be breached during that process and never be fit for purpose due to implosion after implosion.
So we know it's not empty.
-
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Why should I bother when you post nothing?
Then don't bother.
-
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Why should I bother when you post nothing?
Low content, trolling post.
Pull it or recieve a warning. Thanks.
Please refrain from such postings in the future and contribute your posts constructively as relating to the OP
A warning from whom? Sceptimatic is posting nothing to answer so what am I supposed to say.
Say nothing and ignore me if my posts are not worth replying to.
-
Now something from you, thank you.
Show me some proof that you know what you're talking about about knowing how and why magnets work?
Or just admit you have zero clue.
Why should I bother when you post nothing?
Then don't bother.
You keep ignoring so many of the laws of Physics and imagine that you know best based on nothing.
You should try attending a physics class and you'll soon discover where exactly you have been growing wrong all these years. What you keep ignoring is our current technology that has been designed and built is completely based on our understanding of the very laws you ignore. The electricity that you use to power your computer was generated by a combination of turbines and generators whose internal magnets work according to these known laws. That's how we produce electricity because we know and understand these laws and are able to design machinery that operates according to these laws. The very laws you ignore thinking you alone know best!
-
You keep ignoring so many of the laws of Physics and imagine that you know best based on nothing.
What am I ignoring that you know for sure?
You should try attending a physics class and you'll soon discover where exactly you have been growing wrong all these years. What you keep ignoring is our current technology that has been designed and built is completely based on our understanding of the very laws you ignore.
What laws are these?
The electricity that you use to power your computer was generated by a combination of turbines and generators whose internal magnets work according to these known laws. That's how we produce electricity because we know and understand these laws and are able to design machinery that operates according to these laws. The very laws you ignore thinking you alone know best!
I have no issues with machines and what not. All I have issues with is certain explanations added in which I believe are a dupe to hide the reality or what I'm explaining.
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
-
Air and air molecules are not a super fluid. That has nothing to do with the lack of porosity in glass and metals. Shouldn't the vacuum tube be really heavy, no porosity and all?
The low pressure inside a TV tube is not a superfluid....you're right about that, which means the tube will hold the low pressure gases and resist the higher pressure external atmosphere.
I'm simply showing you porosity on different levels. Surely it should be more clear to you.
Surely it should be clear to you that if I had a sheet of glass above my head the vertical stack wouldn't get through to me because the pores are way, way, tiny. I could float underneath it. Like magic.
Indeed the air wouldn't just go through. That's why the glass resists that air by it's own dense matter and imparts that onto your head along with your entire dense matter of your body pushing against that glass and into the atmosphere and using your feet as your resistance to crush down.
You can't float underneath it because you are under pressure.
Sorry, I wasnt clear. The glass pane is above my head not resting on my head. Let’s say there’s an inch between my head and the pane. How would the stack penetrate the pane to push me down?
-
First of all, tell me how a magnet works. a magnet in your hand...tell me how and why that works. Or admit you have no clue.
Again, how about you stop with the deflection and explain how magnets work in your fantasy.
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
Again, that is just your baseless claim you are yet to substantiate in any way.
If what you said was true, there would be no such thing as tension at all, as you can't have pull.
Again, a simple rope demonstrates that that is wrong.
Tell us what other than some pulling force is holding the rope together.
Explain how when you "pull" on a rope, the entire rope moves with you, and we know it can't be a push from the other end because when you push a rope you get a completely different effect.
A rope is typically quite strong under tensile (pulling) loads, but buckles under even extremely low tensile loads.
If it was a push from the end, any time you let a rope go (or even just not pull fast enough) it should crumple, but that doesn't happen.
That means we know it isn't a push from the other end.
That means without pull, when you "pull" on the end of a rope, the rope should just fall apart, with nothing to hold it together.
Now again, why you do you completely ignore this refutation of your claims?
Likewise the fact that surface tension, or more generally interfacial tension, exists between any 2 fluids and between a fluid and a surface shows beyond any sane doubt that the atmosphere is not required for surface tension.
The pores in that glass structure would be super tiny.
super fluids would breach it.
Notice how even in your video, the super-fluid needs a glass which is intentionally made porous?
Helium and other liquids would leak through it, even without it being a super-fluid, just at a very slow rate which depends upon the viscosity.
Air can get through it quite easily.
If your nonsense was true, they wouldn't need that special porous base. Instead they could do the same with a completely sealed container, the kind of containers which can hold superfluids.
I can only give you the benefit of my observations by experiments and logical thoughts.
What logical thoughts?
Again, there is no logic behind your claims.
You claim that all matter must be porous to allow their observed volumes to not be their real volume and to have all the pores filled with air, which would result in nothing being air tight.
In order to "refute" that, you provide an example of a sintered frit, which is made to be porous and is in no way air tight, which allows a fluid through.
That is not logical at all.
You claim that there is no such thing as pull, yet completely avoid a simple demonstration which shows that is pure nonsense.
There is no logic in that.
So no, you can only give us the "benefit" or your extremely illogical thoughts.
-
Knock off the antagonist BS Jackinoz. Sceptimatic has made some pretty valid points and just because you can't refute them does not justify the bullying
-
Knock off the antagonist BS Jackinoz. Sceptimatic has made some pretty valid points and just because you can't refute them does not justify the bullying
Follow your own advice.
If you think he provided a valid point, why not provide it, making sure it hasn't already been refuted.
-
Knock off the antagonist BS Jackinoz. Sceptimatic has made some pretty valid points and just because you can't refute them does not justify the bullying
Follow your own advice.
If you think he provided a valid point, why not provide it, making sure it hasn't already been refuted.
I'm not doing your homework for you. You go back and read them for yourself. However that only works if you empty your mind of all the preconcieved nonsense
-
However that only works if you empty your mind of all the preconcieved nonsense
Preconceived nonsense? You mean established physics and chemistry? The only nonsense going on between Jack and Scepti is coming from Scepti. He just makes stuff up.
-
You keep ignoring so many of the laws of Physics and imagine that you know best based on nothing.
What am I ignoring that you know for sure?
You should try attending a physics class and you'll soon discover where exactly you have been growing wrong all these years. What you keep ignoring is our current technology that has been designed and built is completely based on our understanding of the very laws you ignore.
What laws are these?
The electricity that you use to power your computer was generated by a combination of turbines and generators whose internal magnets work according to these known laws. That's how we produce electricity because we know and understand these laws and are able to design machinery that operates according to these laws. The very laws you ignore thinking you alone know best!
I have no issues with machines and what not. All I have issues with is certain explanations added in which I believe are a dupe to hide the reality or what I'm explaining.
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
Read your post, you wrote them after all. Every statement you make on the behaviour of gasses, materials, magnetism, you name it is in direct opposition to the known laws. If you want to find out what exactly what these laws are go attend a course in physics.
You remind me of someone who has lived in a remote jungle and just recently stumbled on civilisation and has tried to make sense of the world around them by dreaming up their very own explanations of how things work.
-
You remind me of someone who has lived in a remote jungle and just recently stumbled on civilisation and has tried to make sense of the world around them by dreaming up their very own explanations of how things work.
Not everyone shares your back story
-
You keep ignoring so many of the laws of Physics and imagine that you know best based on nothing.
What am I ignoring that you know for sure?
You should try attending a physics class and you'll soon discover where exactly you have been growing wrong all these years. What you keep ignoring is our current technology that has been designed and built is completely based on our understanding of the very laws you ignore.
What laws are these?
The electricity that you use to power your computer was generated by a combination of turbines and generators whose internal magnets work according to these known laws. That's how we produce electricity because we know and understand these laws and are able to design machinery that operates according to these laws. The very laws you ignore thinking you alone know best!
I have no issues with machines and what not. All I have issues with is certain explanations added in which I believe are a dupe to hide the reality or what I'm explaining.
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
Do you imagine that the designers, and engineers who built our power grid know a thing or two about, electricity, magnetism and materials?
-
Sorry, I wasnt clear. The glass pane is above my head not resting on my head. Let’s say there’s an inch between my head and the pane. How would the stack penetrate the pane to push me down?
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
-
Read your post, you wrote them after all. Every statement you make on the behaviour of gasses, materials, magnetism, you name it is in direct opposition to the known laws. If you want to find out what exactly what these laws are go attend a course in physics.
You remind me of someone who has lived in a remote jungle and just recently stumbled on civilisation and has tried to make sense of the world around them by dreaming up their very own explanations of how things work.
So, you can't explain the laws and what's actually happening then?
-
Do you imagine that the designers, and engineers who built our power grid know a thing or two about, electricity, magnetism and materials?
Absolutely, just as architects/structural engineers know how to design/build structures and calculate loads, etc.
I have no issues with any of that.
My stuff doesn't go against that.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequency. I just explain it from my point and basically take out the duping....including fictional gravity, in my opinion.
-
Do you imagine that the designers, and engineers who built our power grid know a thing or two about, electricity, magnetism and materials?
Absolutely, just as architects/structural engineers know how to design/build structures and calculate loads, etc.
I have no issues with any of that.
My stuff doesn't go against that.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequency. I just explain it from my point and basically take out the duping....including fictional gravity, in my opinion.
Your ‘stuff’ as you call it certainty does.
Fact no 1
Every structural engineer on the planet goes along with the concept of gravity and the concept of compressive and tensile forces. And all would disagree with you regarding your notion of porosity of materials.
All structural engineers on the planet when designing a structure will use the Newton as the agreed unit of force. Would you agree with this or have you invented your own unit?
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
-
Sorry, I wasnt clear. The glass pane is above my head not resting on my head. Let’s say there’s an inch between my head and the pane. How would the stack penetrate the pane to push me down?
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
Once again you admit its all about the foundation and nothing to do with the stack.
-
Do you imagine that the designers, and engineers who built our power grid know a thing or two about, electricity, magnetism and materials?
Absolutely, just as architects/structural engineers know how to design/build structures and calculate loads, etc.
I have no issues with any of that.
My stuff doesn't go against that.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequency. I just explain it from my point and basically take out the duping....including fictional gravity, in my opinion.
Your ‘stuff’ as you call it certainty does.
Fact no 1
Every structural engineer on the planet goes along with the concept of gravity and the concept of compressive and tensile forces. And all would disagree with you regarding your notion of porosity of materials.
All structural engineers on the planet when designing a structure will use the Newton as the agreed unit of force. Would you agree with this or have you invented your own unit?
Tell me what this Newton force is and how it is used.
Let's assume you were to use it.
Show me how you set it up to gauge whatever you gauge with this Newton force reading.
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
-
Sorry, I wasnt clear. The glass pane is above my head not resting on my head. Let’s say there’s an inch between my head and the pane. How would the stack penetrate the pane to push me down?
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
Once again you admit its all about the foundation and nothing to do with the stack.
It's all about foundation and the stacking. Pay more attention and stop causing yourself unnecessary complications. This is why you keep going backwards and make little headway.
-
Answer the question and you yourself will take your theory to the next level.
But no, you are happy to live in "crush on crush" and "own dense displacement".
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
Own foundation.
Once again resorting to foundation with no bearing on displacement.
By this very example, the displaced air needs to stack up, right where the pane would be.
But if theres no effect then there is no stacking.
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
The pane is preventing the stack from pushing down on my head and shoulders keeping my feet pressed to the deck. You said in another response that the stack above my head is stronger than that pressing from the sides by some unknown factor. With the pane above my head, I no longer have a stack above my head, just the weaker horizontal. So if it's not the stack pressing down on me, what is keeping me on the ground?
-
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
Again, not saying it is providing a pressure, but shielding you from the pressure above, just like with a suction cup in reality, and how an object near a roof should work. But that is mainly for the other thread.
For this thread you should be explaining how the world works without a pull.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
As I pointed out before, that requires a pull. The way that works is I grab the rope and apply a force to it to move one end away from the rest.
This end applies a pulling force to the next bit of the rope to pull it along, which in turn applies a pulling force to the next bit and so on and so on, with these pulling or tensile forces acting along the rope.
See with pulling forces it is trivial to explain.
But if all you have are pushing forces, it is impossible.
If all you have are pushing forces then the only spot the force can come from is the side of the rope or the other end.
If it comes from the side of the rope that would just act to break it faster.
If it came from the other end, that would cause it to crumple.
This is why I will continue to ask you how a rope works, how it is held together and how pulling one end moves the entire rope.
That is because it is a simple demonstration which shows the world is not all pushing and that there is pulling as well.
So again, what holds the rope together and causes it to move?
Where does the "pushing" force come from and why doesn't it naturally crumple ropes?
Don't just provide vague ideas like molecular chains, provide an explicit location that the pushing force is acting on the rope.
-
Read your post, you wrote them after all. Every statement you make on the behaviour of gasses, materials, magnetism, you name it is in direct opposition to the known laws. If you want to find out what exactly what these laws are go attend a course in physics.
You remind me of someone who has lived in a remote jungle and just recently stumbled on civilisation and has tried to make sense of the world around them by dreaming up their very own explanations of how things work.
So, you can't explain the laws and what's actually happening then?
You touch on so many aspects of science and in doing so get everything wrong. You fail to grasp this simple concepts:-
The technological world appears to work pretty well. Our understanding of structures, electricity, magnetism, and how to work with various gasses at different temperatures and pressures all appears to show that the various laws that govern all these areas are pretty solid.
You and your ideas violate all these known laws. If you were correct in your assertions all our various technologies would not work as designed. For example your denial that tension exists is at odds with the whole of mechanical engineering and structural design. Suspension bridges work through tension, various steels are characterised by their tensile strength.
Even in music, every stringed instrument is only able to produce notes because the strings are in a state of tension, while the neck, as in a violin or guitar is in compression.
Your understanding of pretty basic physics is so far of the mark as to be laughable. You really should read a book on physics, the choice is yours, learn something or for ever live in ignorance.
-
Answer the question and you yourself will take your theory to the next level.
But no, you are happy to live in "crush on crush" and "own dense displacement".
Maybe try to understand it and you'll move onto the next level.
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
Own foundation.
Once again resorting to foundation with no bearing on displacement.
By this very example, the displaced air needs to stack up, right where the pane would be.
But if theres no effect then there is no stacking.
I'll try and help you along. See if you can grasp it and if not then there's not a lot more I can do with you.
Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.#The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.
Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?
Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?
Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?
Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?
Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
The pane is preventing the stack from pushing down on my head and shoulders keeping my feet pressed to the deck. You said in another response that the stack above my head is stronger than that pressing from the sides by some unknown factor. With the pane above my head, I no longer have a stack above my head, just the weaker horizontal. So if it's not the stack pressing down on me, what is keeping me on the ground?
See above explanation, see if that helps.
-
I'm not doing your homework for you.
You mean you are just being antagonistic.
I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.
The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.
As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.
Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.
The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.
Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?
The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.
As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.
Own foundation.
Once again resorting to foundation with no bearing on displacement.
By this very example, the displaced air needs to stack up, right where the pane would be.
But if theres no effect then there is no stacking.
I'll try and help you along. See if you can grasp it and if not then there's not a lot more I can do with you.
Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.#The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.
Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?
Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?
Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?
Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?
Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.
What happened to all of the stuff that it's the vertical stack pushing you down on the head and shoulders and the pressure isn't even all around, horizontal is weaker, according to you? That's why I asked how much weaker the horizontal is and you refused to answer. Told me not to get bogged down in numbers.
Now we have a situation where the vertical stack is impeded by the pane of glass over my head, but somehow sneaks around in through the side, horizontally, weaker, then slips upward, redirects downward on my head and shoulders as strong as the vertical stack above the pane. Unless you reverse your stance and agree that pressure is equal in all directions, you're going to have to explain how the vertical stack can be sentient and choose to navigate on its own.
-
You touch on so many aspects of science and in doing so get everything wrong. You fail to grasp this simple concepts:-
The technological world appears to work pretty well. Our understanding of structures, electricity, magnetism, and how to work with various gasses at different temperatures and pressures all appears to show that the various laws that govern all these areas are pretty solid.
They do work well. I have no issue with it.
What I do have issue with is in how we are told they all work.
One such thing told is, gravity and how they measure it with a meter.
Explain this to me how engineering and such works using this principle and if you can prove gravity is real, then I have no case.
Over to you.
You and your ideas violate all these known laws. If you were correct in your assertions all our various technologies would not work as designed. For example your denial that tension exists is at odds with the whole of mechanical engineering and structural design. Suspension bridges work through tension, various steels are characterised by their tensile strength.
I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking to determine the make up and strengths of matter/objects. In my opinion.
No fictional stuff like gravity and such, needed.
Even in music, every stringed instrument is only able to produce notes because the strings are in a state of tension, while the neck, as in a violin or guitar is in compression.
The tension is molecular linkage, which is all push.
It's just a case of looking a bit deeper.
Your understanding of pretty basic physics is so far of the mark as to be laughable. You really should read a book on physics, the choice is yours, learn something or for ever live in ignorance.
That's fine if you think that.
I do my own thing and I am not guided by what you think, so feel free.
-
Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.
Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?
Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?
Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?
Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?
Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.
What happened to all of the stuff that it's the vertical stack pushing you down on the head and shoulders and the pressure isn't even all around, horizontal is weaker, according to you? That's why I asked how much weaker the horizontal is and you refused to answer. Told me not to get bogged down in numbers.
You aren't doing yourself any favours here.
I feel like I need to go back to the sponge ball analogy but even that was lost on you.
I think you need to go right back to square one and understand each bit before you move on.
Now we have a situation where the vertical stack is impeded by the pane of glass over my head, but somehow sneaks around in through the side, horizontally, weaker, then slips upward, redirects downward on my head and shoulders as strong as the vertical stack above the pane. Unless you reverse your stance and agree that pressure is equal in all directions, you're going to have to explain how the vertical stack can be sentient and choose to navigate on its own.
The mere fact you mention sentient makes me believe you have grasped absolutely nothing.
-
Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.
Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?
Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?
Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?
Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?
Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.
What happened to all of the stuff that it's the vertical stack pushing you down on the head and shoulders and the pressure isn't even all around, horizontal is weaker, according to you? That's why I asked how much weaker the horizontal is and you refused to answer. Told me not to get bogged down in numbers.
You aren't doing yourself any favours here.
I feel like I need to go back to the sponge ball analogy but even that was lost on you.
I think you need to go right back to square one and understand each bit before you move on.
Now we have a situation where the vertical stack is impeded by the pane of glass over my head, but somehow sneaks around in through the side, horizontally, weaker, then slips upward, redirects downward on my head and shoulders as strong as the vertical stack above the pane. Unless you reverse your stance and agree that pressure is equal in all directions, you're going to have to explain how the vertical stack can be sentient and choose to navigate on its own.
The mere fact you mention sentient makes me believe you have grasped absolutely nothing.
Displacement may have some relevance in a bathtub or even a pool. But in reality, we are talking about an atmospheric ocean that covers the entire earth. My body isn't going to displace anything even remotely measurable or of import or of effect.
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.
The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.
The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.
In order for the vertical stack to get around the pane, it would go horizontal and according to you, become weaker. What makes it become vertical again and stronger?
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.
The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.
Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.
-
I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.
Is that why you repeatedly avoid explaining very simple things?
Even now you still refuse to explain what holds a rope together.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking
As pointed out before, molecular linking requires the exact opposite of what you claim, some kind of pull, such that if you move one molecule, it can pull the next one along.
Without that pull, you have no linkage.
It's just a case of looking a bit deeper.
Then look deeper. Clearly explain how such molecular linkage works to hold together a rope or any other material while only relying upon pushing and no reliance upon pull. Make sure you address materials like ropes, which are easily crumpled by applying a force on each end towards the centre, clearly ruling out any possibility of a push from one end moving the entire rope.
Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.#The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.
Then why use it at all when you are admitting it makes no sense at all?
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?
Instead of directly on the bottom, lets have it just above, comparable to an object in mid air.
But yes, it displaces water.
Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?
Yes, and that is important ALL DIRECTIONS.
That includes from below.
In fact, if you measure the pressure you will see that the pressure increases with depth and that means the fluid (which can be air or water) actually pushes on you more from below than from above.
Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.
Again, if you need to appeal to your feet being on the deck, you have no chance at all.
If he was going to be floating, his feet wouldn't be on the deck.
Instead he would be in mid air.
That means he has the water below pushing him up as well.
And in fact, he could even be up against the glass. In that case, there is negligible water to push him down.
The same way water does.
So by pushing equally in all directions, exactly as it is observed to?
A direct contradiction of your claim?
In order for your claim to work, you need to have the water just push down, and not magically go around objects, just like the wind does.
That means if you have a significant object above your head and close enough to it, you would be protected from the downwards force and float.
Otherwise you have it push equally in all directions to go around the object and thus it doesn't just push you down, but equally in all directions.
Just think of being under a glass dome, (or inside a building), you have the fluid go down, below you, then go through some opening, then go back up above you yet magically push you down, even though it had to push you up?
That makes no sense at all.
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.
The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.
In order for the vertical stack to get around the pane, it would go horizontal and according to you, become weaker. What makes it become vertical again and stronger?
Go back to the water analogy and you should easily understand what I've been saying.
-
Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.
Evert object requires a foundation to resist the pressure of it's very own dense make up, of matter/atmosphere, whether that's a solid/liquid or gas.
-
Just think of being under a glass dome, (or inside a building), you have the fluid go down, below you, then go through some opening, then go back up above you yet magically push you down, even though it had to push you up?
That makes no sense at all.
Are your feet on the deck?
-
Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.
Evert object requires a foundation to resist the pressure of it's very own dense make up, of matter/atmosphere, whether that's a solid/liquid or gas.
Wheres the stack?
The stack in this description is irrelevant because the density of the matter is what causes weight.
No mention of a stack of air pressing down.
-
Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No
No.
Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.
The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.
In order for the vertical stack to get around the pane, it would go horizontal and according to you, become weaker. What makes it become vertical again and stronger?
Go back to the water analogy and you should easily understand what I've been saying.
The water analogy is equal pressure from all directions, but you claim that is not the case. You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack. Water doesn't work that way. In actuality, the pressure below you is stronger than the pressure above you. So why are you using the water analogy when it doesn't apply to your own claim?
-
Low content, trolling post.
Pull it or recieve a warning. Thanks.
Please refrain from such postings in the future and contribute your posts constructively as relating to the OP
Please stick to the topic of the thread.
Ia) Why do you think it is you are unable to support your claims ?
b) You forgot to answer my question.
[no response]
a) Come on, think !
I'll give you a hint : Which claims are easiest to support ? True ones of false ones ?
[no response]
It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence …
Should sceptics take unsupported claims seriously ?
[no response]
Skeptics want to believe in reality. Is there good reason to believe unsupported claims comport with reality ?
So, in your worldview, there is no magnetism in (near) vacuum. Is that correct ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
Stop being evasive and explain how magnetism works. Rational people are beginning to think you are stalling to hide your ignorance.
[no response]
if you don't understand how magnetism works, it is understandable you don't explain it.
It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.
So you claim, but can you prove it ?
[No]
I suspectedosition seems to be not too z as much.
Pick one query/question at a time.
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
Agreed. Your evaluation of your position does not seem to be too reasonable, as you realise there is no good reason adopt your beliefs.
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
These points seem to have escaped me. Where has sceptimatic made them ?
They do work well. I have no issue with it.
What I do have issue with is in how we are told they all work.
One such thing told is, gravity and how they measure it with a meter.
Explain this to me how engineering and such works using this principle and if you can prove gravity is real, then I have no case.
The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity. It is another case of TINA.
I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking to determine the make up and strengths of matter/objects. In my opinion.
That seems to explain the confusion : you are talking about your opinion, while everyone else is talking about reality.
-
And yet again you avoid explaining the very simple phenomenon which destroys your idea of there being no such thing as a pull.
Again, what magic do you have that holds a rope together?
You claim it is molecular linking, which you provide no details of because you KNOW it would require pulling forces.
Again, you have a rope, the right side is grabbed and moved to the right? What force acts to move the left side along?
Without any pulling force the rope should just fall apart, with the left side remaining where it is as the ride side is pushed by whatever grabs it.
Yet instead we observe the rope move to the rope, in its entirety.
Again, we know it cannot be the left side pushing it. This is easily demonstrated by doing that very thing, grabbing the left side of the rope and pushing it.
In this case the rope is observed to crumple, not move to the right as a basically straight line.
The only way to explain it is to have a pulling interaction, where the right side of the rope applies a force to the left side to make it move to the right. That is pulling.
And it is a similar kind of pulling force which results in surface tension.
Go back to the water analogy and you should easily understand what I've been saying.
The problem is the water works nothing like what you need, just like the air works nothing like what you need.
It doesn't exist in a magical stack which just pushes down.
Instead, as you have said yourself, it pushes in all directions.
Are your feet on the deck?
No. I have made that clear many times.
You have an object in MID AIR! You have no foundation to rely upon.
-
Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.
Evert object requires a foundation to resist the pressure of it's very own dense make up, of matter/atmosphere, whether that's a solid/liquid or gas.
Wheres the stack?
The stack in this description is irrelevant because the density of the matter is what causes weight.
No mention of a stack of air pressing down.
The stack is the entirety of Earth.
But since we're talking about the above solid ground/water, gases, then it's all stacked gases right to the top of the dome.
-
The water analogy is equal pressure from all directions, but you claim that is not the case.
I asked you not to use water in its usual form with objects. I merely used it as an analogy to make you understand our submergence in atmosphere so feel free to create your very own mix up to set you back....once again.
You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.
Where do I say that?
Water doesn't work that way. In actuality, the pressure below you is stronger than the pressure above you.
The pressure below you would be a solid deck/floor/bed/ground. You would be stood on it as a resistance to the pressure above and around you.
So why are you using the water analogy when it doesn't apply to your own claim?
If you use water as the analogy I told you about, as in, think of it as atmosphere, then you would understand....but clearly you want to place obstacles in your own way, for some weird reason.
-
The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity.
And yet you have absolutely no clue what it is and why it supposedly works but you were told it was gravity and you accept it as a truth.
-
You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.
Where do I say that?
So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?
-
Again, what magic do you have that holds a rope together?
You claim it is molecular linking, which you provide no details of because you KNOW it would require pulling forces.
Just think of a chain.
Now look at a chain and look at the links PUSHING into each other, not pulling.
Are your feet on the deck?
No. I have made that clear many times.
You have an object in MID AIR! You have no foundation to rely upon.
You still have a foundation to hold you there.
-
You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.
Where do I say that?
So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?
Where does sit say, equal?
-
You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.
Where do I say that?
So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?
Where does sit say, equal?
So is the vertical stack stronger than the horizontal stack or not?
-
You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.
Where do I say that?
So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?
Where does sit say, equal?
So is the vertical stack stronger than the horizontal stack or not?
There is no horizontal stack.
-
If you use water as the analogy I told you about, as in, think of it as atmosphere, then you would understand....but clearly you want to place obstacles in your own way, for some weird reason.
Nope, it still doesn't work if you have it be air.
There is still no explanation for the downwards force.
Just think of a chain.
I know how a chain works, with the pulling forces holding it together.
Now look at a chain and look at the links PUSHING into each other, not pulling.
Stop focusing on 2 objects and instead focus on one. You have the same issue yet again.
How does an individual link in the chain pull the rest of that link along?
The only way is by PULLING it.
The same happens with molecules, with covalent bonds. Where each atom pulls along the next.
Again, without this pull the whole thing falls apart.
Again, you have an object, like a rope. You pick up the right end and apply a force to the right.
What moves the left side of the object?
Based upon how it moves, it must be coming from the right and thus MUST be a pulling force, not a pushing force.
You still have a foundation to hold you there.
No I don't, because as observed countless times, objects fall. They aren't held up.
-
If you use water as the analogy I told you about, as in, think of it as atmosphere, then you would understand....but clearly you want to place obstacles in your own way, for some weird reason.
Nope, it still doesn't work if you have it be air.
There is still no explanation for the downwards force.
You mean no explanation you are willing to accept. That does not mean I never gave them.
Just think of a chain.
I know how a chain works, with the pulling forces holding it together.
There are no pulling forces holding it together. It's all pressure pushing.
Now look at a chain and look at the links PUSHING into each other, not pulling.
Stop focusing on 2 objects and instead focus on one. You have the same issue yet again.
How does an individual link in the chain pull the rest of that link along?
It doesn't. It pushes the link it's directly linked to and that link pushes the link it is directly linked to....and so on.
The only way is by PULLING it.
Nope. No pull involved.
The same happens with molecules, with covalent bonds. Where each atom pulls along the next.
Linked and pushing.
Again, without this pull the whole thing falls apart.
There is no pull. It's all push/compressive force.
Again, you have an object, like a rope. You pick up the right end and apply a force to the right.
Which is a push to the right.
What moves the left side of the object?
The push to the right and the molecular links in the rope.
Based upon how it moves, it must be coming from the right and thus MUST be a pulling force, not a pushing force.
If you push from the right then the rope is moving to the right.
You still have a foundation to hold you there.
No I don't, because as observed countless times, objects fall. They aren't held up.
If objects fall then you obviously do not have a foundation, until the object ceases to be pushed down.
-
The molecular links are under tension.
-
The molecular links are under tension.
They are under push force.
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
-
You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.
Where do I say that?
So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?
Where does sit say, equal?
So is the vertical stack stronger than the horizontal stack or not?
There is no horizontal stack.
Here's how you responded:
I get the water analogy, it's not rocket science, but too much gobbledygoop about stacks and my displacement, blah, blah, blah. Perhaps I wasn't clear before. Atmospheric pressure (like water) is equal against me in all directions. The pressure that is pushing down on the top of my head is the same as the pressure pushing horizontally against my shin and all vectors in between. It's measurable.
Do you agree with that statement?
No, it's not equal.
It is up to your very top of your shoulders in that finished stack and then the top of your head in that finished stack in a horizontal crush.
Above your head are many many many....etc.... more stacks but what counts are the stacks absolutely directly above your head and shoulders.
This is what counts to push you down as opposed to horizontal stack crushing you to stop that.
It sounds gobbledygook but you really have to put your mind to it and try to understand it because once you do it becomes much more simpler.
If not equal, how unequal?
It doesn't matter how. It only matters that there will always be unequal pressures to any object, no matter what.
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
-
You mean no explanation you are willing to accept. That does not mean I never gave them.
No, I mean no actual explanation and instead repeatedly avoiding providing an explanation.
Stop focusing on 2 objects and instead focus on one. You have the same issue yet again.
How does an individual link in the chain pull the rest of that link along?
It doesn't. It pushes the link it's directly linked to and that link pushes the link it is directly linked to....and so on.
See, this is another example of not an actual explanation.
You are ignoring the problem I have pointed out.
Again you want to treat it as just one giant object with no forces inside it and continue to ignore the transfer of force inside the object.
You again appeal to how one link moves another, while ignoring how the link itself transfers the force among itself to move the entire link.
Again, without a pulling force, you have the link on the right push the right side of the link on the left.
Without pulling, there is no force transferred to the left side of the link on the left.
That means the link breaks apart, with the right side of the link pushed away by the right link, while the left side remains where it is.
The only way to have it move along is if the right side of the link PULLS the left side, to keep it moving with it.
This is what you are repeatedly ignoring.
How the force is transferred inside the rope/link itself such that a part on the right can transfer a force to the part of the left to make it move to the left.
The only way in which that can happen is if you have a pulling force.
If objects fall then you obviously do not have a foundation
And that is the key part which you have repeatedly ignored, as your "explanation" for why things fall relies upon that foundation.
-
a) Come on, think !
[no response]
For someone who questions reality based on his own thoughts, you should benefit from doing it some more.
It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence … It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence …
[no response]
Hence, evidence is unlikely to point to a false claim. That makes the lack of evidence an indication that a claim is false. Since your claims lack evidence, skeptics tend to believe they are false, especially when they contradict claims that are supported supported by evidence.
Skeptics want to believe in reality. Is there good reason to believe unsupported claims comport with reality ?
[no response]
Unless there is other reason to believe a claim comports with reality (like authority), the answer is no. Hence, all else being equal, a supported claim is more likely to comport with reality than a unsupported one.
Pick one query/question at a time.
You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question. Again.
That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.
Sorry. My previous answer came out wrong.
Agreed. Your evaluation of your position does not seem to be too unreasonable, as you realise there is no good reason adopt your beliefs.
The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity. It is another case of TINA.
And yet you have absolutely no clue what it is and why it supposedly works[10] but you were told it was gravity and you accept it as a truth.[11]
[10] Even if that were true, that would be irrelevant. The existence of gravity, nor its workings are independent from anyone having a clue about either. Thousands of years ago, people were clueless about the nature of matter and yet matter existed. People were even able to make some predictions regarding its behaviour.
[11] That is not a truth, but a convention. No one needs to tell me that gravity is gravity. It follows from the law of identity.
]Stop focusing on 2 objects and instead focus on one. You have the same issue yet again.
How does an individual link in the chain pull the rest of that link along?
The only way is by PULLING it.
The problem with metal chains is that they also involves pushing between links. A cable or rope is a better example.
Again, you have an object, like a rope. You pick up the right end and apply a force to the right.
Which is a push to the right.
When a chain is pushed, links push each other because they are hooked into each other. With molecule chains like in ropes or atom chains like in cables that is usually not the case.
Suppose an atom L is covalently bonded to an atom R on its right and both are part of a rope that lays in the left-right direction. Suppose the atom R accellerates to the right due to a force being applied to it. What makes the atom L follow R ?
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
-
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
I've always answered.
The problem is, you seem to take little notice.
-
You mean no explanation you are willing to accept. That does not mean I never gave them.
No, I mean no actual explanation and instead repeatedly avoiding providing an explanation.
I'm not avoiding providing an explanation but you carry on telling me I don't and I'll carry on telling you I do, unless I bypass the post.
-
When a chain is pushed, links push each other because they are hooked into each other. With molecule chains like in ropes or atom chains like in cables that is usually not the case.
Suppose an atom L is covalently bonded to an atom R on its right and both are part of a rope that lays in the left-right direction. Suppose the atom R accellerates to the right due to a force being applied to it. What makes the atom L follow R ?
It's all links.
-
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
I've always answered.
The problem is, you seem to take little notice.
Then how much weaker is horizontal pressure than vertical? I must have missed your response.
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Let's see some hanging rope as in the picture below.
Is the rope segment R pushing or pulling the rope segment Q at the point B?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/M6ffQz.png)
EDIT: What prevents the molecules of segments Q and R from separating?
Pull or push?
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Here re two
https://images.app.goo.gl/9tDsijwFVt1KG1eD7
https://images.app.goo.gl/n4QCX8WUJZinjpho7
-
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
I take it you mean pull?
I have already given you a scenario and you are yet to provide an answer.
I find it quite unlikely that you need a picture, just to reject it, to provide an answer.
But here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
You have a chain link.
You have a force (indicated by the red arrow) pushing the right side of the link to the right.
This can happily push (being generous) the dark grey section to the right of the black line.
But how does this move the left, light grey section?
The only source of force to move the light grey section to the right is the dark grey section, which would be a pulling force.
If you need a zoomed in version to show what is happening at the atomic level, here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/huYTVIX.png)
How does the dark grey right side move the light grey left side, to the right?
I'm not avoiding providing an explanation but you carry on telling me I don't and I'll carry on telling you I do, unless I bypass the post.
No, you are, as I have clearly explained.
You continually focus on one object moving another. You completely ignore how the object itself is held together. The exact point I keep bringing up to prove you need pulling forces.
So you are avoiding providing an explanation.
Again, tell me what holds the individual rope or chain link or molecule together.
-
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
I've always answered.
The problem is, you seem to take little notice.
Then how much weaker is horizontal pressure than vertical? I must have missed your response.
It's not weaker. The strength of any of it is dependent on the mass it is up against and how much that mass displaces of it all.
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Let's see some hanging rope as in the picture below.
Is the rope segment R pushing or pulling the rope segment Q at the point B?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/M6ffQz.png)
EDIT: What prevents the molecules of segments Q and R from separating?
Pull or push?
To answer this you'd need to go into the make up of the rope. This is why I ask people to put deeper thought into it.
To be clear about it all you have to start at the bottom, what we cannot naked eye, visually see in some cases and what we can clearly see, in others.
Your rope is linked but you can't see that by simply drawing what you drew.
-
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
I've always answered.
The problem is, you seem to take little notice.
Then how much weaker is horizontal pressure than vertical? I must have missed your response.
It's not weaker. The strength of any of it is dependent on the mass it is up against and how much that mass displaces of it all.
So in some cases the pressure is equal on all sides from all directions and in some cases not?
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Here re two
https://images.app.goo.gl/9tDsijwFVt1KG1eD7
https://images.app.goo.gl/n4QCX8WUJZinjpho7
The first picture you see the men pushing their feet into the ground and also gripping the rope by compressing their muscles to achieve that grip.
The grip of the hand and muscle/skin/bone is pushing that rope toward their body, aided by their feet pushing into the opposite direction.
The rope itself is fibrous and linked down to molecular level and those links are all pushing into each other and are also acted on by atmospheric pressure being pushed away from them and also squeezed/pushed right back onto them, causing a thinning to the eye.
All push.
The tyre on a rope is the same thing.
the tree is the foundation to the rope and tyre and the foundation to the tree is the ground.
The tree is pushing into the atmosphere which in turn pushes right back by the trees own dense displacement of it.
The rest is all links we can't see, which are all being pushed against.
No pulling involved.
-
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
I take it you mean pull?
I have already given you a scenario and you are yet to provide an answer.
I find it quite unlikely that you need a picture, just to reject it, to provide an answer.
But here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
You have a chain link.
You have a force (indicated by the red arrow) pushing the right side of the link to the right.
This can happily push (being generous) the dark grey section to the right of the black line.
But how does this move the left, light grey section?
The only source of force to move the light grey section to the right is the dark grey section, which would be a pulling force.
If you need a zoomed in version to show what is happening at the atomic level, here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/huYTVIX.png)
How does the dark grey right side move the light grey left side, to the right?
The link in the grey area would also be linked by smaller matter/molecules and it would not be like the diagram above with your circles simply touching each other like you show, leaving free space....but even putting it like you do, they would all still be pushed together. No pull.
-
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
I've always answered.
The problem is, you seem to take little notice.
Then how much weaker is horizontal pressure than vertical? I must have missed your response.
It's not weaker. The strength of any of it is dependent on the mass it is up against and how much that mass displaces of it all.
So in some cases the pressure is equal on all sides from all directions and in some cases not?
It's never really equal but can be so close as to not argue it.
Take you, fort instance. If you're stood up then your feet are on the ground with minimal atmosphere under them but plenty of solid matter.
The stack your body is in from everything above the sole and a stacking system of a build up of molecules in each sort of fine line and interlocking.
Think of it all as a very densely packed chain link fence at the bottom but becoming a tiny bit less dense as that fence grows into the sky.
You are pushing into those and compressing them even farther by your own dense mass displacing them from the area to stand in.
Then above you directly, you have that pressure your head and shoulders have pushed up, back onto you, just as you do at the sides of you with your entire body depth.
-
And then you refused to answer how unequal. So, what is horizontal pressure and why is it weaker than vertical?
I've always answered.
The problem is, you seem to take little notice.
Then how much weaker is horizontal pressure than vertical? I must have missed your response.
It's not weaker. The strength of any of it is dependent on the mass it is up against and how much that mass displaces of it all.
So in some cases the pressure is equal on all sides from all directions and in some cases not?
It's never really equal but can be so close as to not argue it.
Take you, fort instance. If you're stood up then your feet are on the ground with minimal atmosphere under them but plenty of solid matter.
The stack your body is in from everything above the sole and a stacking system of a build up of molecules in each sort of fine line and interlocking.
Think of it all as a very densely packed chain link fence at the bottom but becoming a tiny bit less dense as that fence grows into the sky.
You are pushing into those and compressing them even farther by your own dense mass displacing them from the area to stand in.
Then above you directly, you have that pressure your head and shoulders have pushed up, back onto you, just as you do at the sides of you with your entire body depth.
My displacement has nothing to do with anything. Remember, we are talking about an atmospheric ocean 10's of thousands of feet high and covering the entire earth. My displacement is irrelevant. Otherwise I could do some cool airbending moves by just shoving against the space around me.
-
To answer this you'd need to go into the make up of the rope.
Not really.
No matter how far down you go, you will always need a pull.
The link in the grey area would also be linked by smaller matter/molecules
And that just pushes the problem further down.
You need to explain how those smaller links hold themselves together.
it would not be like the diagram above with your circles simply touching each other like you show
Unlike your wild speculation my diagram actually has supporting evidence by way of SEM, TEM, AFM and STM imagry.
Again, without a pull, it falls apart.
It doesn't matter how far down you go, there will always be that dividing line where you need to apply a force from the right to move the object to the right. That is a pull.
Again, if you wish to disagree, provide a diagram, like you have been asked to do so already.
Provide a diagram showing just how it is all push.
If not, the diagrams I provided clearly show that you need a pull.
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Here re two
https://images.app.goo.gl/9tDsijwFVt1KG1eD7
https://images.app.goo.gl/n4QCX8WUJZinjpho7
The first picture you see the men pushing their feet into the ground and also gripping the rope by compressing their muscles to achieve that grip.
The grip of the hand and muscle/skin/bone is pushing that rope toward their body, aided by their feet pushing into the opposite direction.
The rope itself is fibrous and linked down to molecular level and those links are all pushing into each other and are also acted on by atmospheric pressure being pushed away from them and also squeezed/pushed right back onto them, causing a thinning to the eye.
All push.
The tyre on a rope is the same thing.
the tree is the foundation to the rope and tyre and the foundation to the tree is the ground.
The tree is pushing into the atmosphere which in turn pushes right back by the trees own dense displacement of it.
The rest is all links we can't see, which are all being pushed against.
No pulling involved.
You were going to paint where the push was.
Hint - In both cases its the rope that is "pulling".
Maybe you need to better define "push" because all us who re speaking english appear to have defined it differently than you.
-
My displacement has nothing to do with anything. Remember, we are talking about an atmospheric ocean 10's of thousands of feet high and covering the entire earth. My displacement is irrelevant. Otherwise I could do some cool airbending moves by just shoving against the space around me.
Your displacement is absolutely relevant and the sooner you grasp this the sooner you'll start to grasp what I'm talking about.
It doesn't matter whether you're under Earth's atmosphere or in an ocean or in a swimming pool. If your body is in it, your body displaces it's own dense mass of that water and/or atmosphere.
-
To answer this you'd need to go into the make up of the rope.
Not really.
No matter how far down you go, you will always need a pull.
Nope. No pulling involved.
The link in the grey area would also be linked by smaller matter/molecules
And that just pushes the problem further down.
You need to explain how those smaller links hold themselves together.
By pushing into links.
it would not be like the diagram above with your circles simply touching each other like you show
Unlike your wild speculation my diagram actually has supporting evidence by way of SEM, TEM, AFM and STM imagry.
Show me.
Again, without a pull, it falls apart.
It doesn't matter how far down you go, there will always be that dividing line where you need to apply a force from the right to move the object to the right. That is a pull.
Nope. It's a pull. I explained it. It just requires deeper thought.
Again, if you wish to disagree, provide a diagram, like you have been asked to do so already.
Provide a diagram showing just how it is all push.
You people are doing that and I'm showing you.
If not, the diagrams I provided clearly show that you need a pull.
They may to you but they don't to me.
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Here re two
https://images.app.goo.gl/9tDsijwFVt1KG1eD7
https://images.app.goo.gl/n4QCX8WUJZinjpho7
The first picture you see the men pushing their feet into the ground and also gripping the rope by compressing their muscles to achieve that grip.
The grip of the hand and muscle/skin/bone is pushing that rope toward their body, aided by their feet pushing into the opposite direction.
The rope itself is fibrous and linked down to molecular level and those links are all pushing into each other and are also acted on by atmospheric pressure being pushed away from them and also squeezed/pushed right back onto them, causing a thinning to the eye.
All push.
The tyre on a rope is the same thing.
the tree is the foundation to the rope and tyre and the foundation to the tree is the ground.
The tree is pushing into the atmosphere which in turn pushes right back by the trees own dense displacement of it.
The rest is all links we can't see, which are all being pushed against.
No pulling involved.
You were going to paint where the push was.
Hint - In both cases its the rope that is "pulling".
Maybe you need to better define "push" because all us who re speaking english appear to have defined it differently than you.
Of course you do.
We were all told what push and pull are. To the naked eye and perceivement we can all accept it for what it is.
However, I see it differently. I do not see a pull. I see everything as a compressive force. A push force.
Pull doesn't exist when looked into more deeply.
-
That didnt exain anything other than that you see things differently.
Draw on paint as you said how th rope is being oushed together.
-
That didnt exain anything other than that you see things differently.
Draw on paint as you said how th rope is being oushed together.
I explained the two pictures.
Drawing on them will not add anything.
You need to find much better pictures so that I can arrow all the pushes.
-
My displacement has nothing to do with anything. Remember, we are talking about an atmospheric ocean 10's of thousands of feet high and covering the entire earth. My displacement is irrelevant. Otherwise I could do some cool airbending moves by just shoving against the space around me.
Your displacement is absolutely relevant and the sooner you grasp this the sooner you'll start to grasp what I'm talking about.
It doesn't matter whether you're under Earth's atmosphere or in an ocean or in a swimming pool. If your body is in it, your body displaces it's own dense mass of that water and/or atmosphere.
How can it be relevant on such a scale as the atmosphere on earth? If it were relevant I could run up to you, stop just before slamming into you and my displaced atmosphere would knock you down.
-
Nope. No pulling involved.
Again, if you want to claim such nonsense, draw the diagram, at whatever scale you need to clearly show that it is push, that clearly shows how a push to the right can come from the right.
By pushing into links.
That is not explaining what holds them together.
How is these links pushing into other links going to hold them together?
Show me.
What, for you to just dismiss like you have done will all other evidence provided to you?
No thanks. Especially as it isn't even needed for the discussion at hand.
It's a pull.
Thanks for finally admitting it.
You people are doing that and I'm showing you.
No, you aren't showing anything except your lack of integrity and lack of concern for the truth.
You are just repeatedly asserting the same refuted nonsense with no justification at all.
The diagrams clearly show that you need a pull.
You have absolutely no refutation to this.
You have no explanation for how these links hold themselves together without a pulling force.
You dismissing it and just asserting it is push is not explaining or showing anything.
The simple fact that when you actually look into it more deeply, then even things which might appear to be superficially explained by a push, like a chain, still rely upon pulling.
Again, the simple diagram you need to deal with:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Again, the only way to transfer a force from the dark grey region to the light grey region to make the object move to the right in its entirety rather than just having the dark grey region move is by a pulling force. The dark grey region needs to PULL the light grey region.
Otherwise the dark grey region moves to the right while the light grey region stays behind.
Like I said, if you want to disagree, draw a diagram of what you think is happening, explaining just where the force to move the light grey region is coming from.
-
Use legos as an example.
Legos have a very weak friction fit.
Stack a whole bunch of legos into a tower.
Un-push them together and show us hiw pulling isnt a thing.
Maybe define push and pull in yoyr own words.
You have a history of not speaking english and spinning us all round and round teying to figure out who's/ Hue's on first.
-
My displacement has nothing to do with anything. Remember, we are talking about an atmospheric ocean 10's of thousands of feet high and covering the entire earth. My displacement is irrelevant. Otherwise I could do some cool airbending moves by just shoving against the space around me.
Your displacement is absolutely relevant and the sooner you grasp this the sooner you'll start to grasp what I'm talking about.
It doesn't matter whether you're under Earth's atmosphere or in an ocean or in a swimming pool. If your body is in it, your body displaces it's own dense mass of that water and/or atmosphere.
How can it be relevant on such a scale as the atmosphere on earth? If it were relevant I could run up to you, stop just before slamming into you and my displaced atmosphere would knock you down.
It could actually happen. Have you not seen stuff like this happen?
You running up to me in an open area would do little but cause a breeze from your forced compression in front of you, which I would feel the effects of.
However, if you were to run at me in an alley that was closed off at one end with me being close to that end and you ran at me with a board close to the opening size of that alley, you would compress that air from your own force/dense mass against me, which would have a significant impact on myself.
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
-
Use legos as an example.
Legos have a very weak friction fit.
Stack a whole bunch of legos into a tower.
Un-push them together and show us hiw pulling isnt a thing.
Maybe define push and pull in yoyr own words.
You have a history of not speaking english and spinning us all round and round teying to figure out who's/ Hue's on first.
Ok, you can clearly see and understand the pushing together of the lego bricks.
You also know they stay together because the little round protrusions are compressed against the openings they fit inside of.
All push up to now.
Ok, the part where you think a pull is happening would be in taking apart the stack and to understand this we have to go through the human body and it's function to see what's happening.
To release one brick you must first grip the brick, which means you must compress that brick each side by compressing your muscles and then pushing your fingers and bones and skin into the brick.
You also have to do exactly the same thing to the brick or bricks underneath or above the brick you're about to move.
Now you have to push them both apart using that grip and if you observe your skin you will see your skin move opposite to your push, meaning your skin is putting the push pressure grip on the bricks as your shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers, with muscles, sinews and bone, etc all pushing by compression to enable this to happen.
Everything is pressure pushing. No pull.
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
I explained this.
The medicine ball is dense. It requires a force to push it away from it's own dense mass displacement of atmosphere it is in.
Once it is pushed away from you it compresses the atmosphere in front of it which creates a higher pressure. which in turn creates a lower pressure where the medicine ball originally was, which will be equalised but not before it crashes back into you throwing it, which aids in moving the wheels on the skateboard and obviously, you, a little...depending on your dense mass and the force in which you push that ball away from you.
-
Use legos as an example.
Legos have a very weak friction fit.
Stack a whole bunch of legos into a tower.
Un-push them together and show us hiw pulling isnt a thing.
Maybe define push and pull in yoyr own words.
You have a history of not speaking english and spinning us all round and round teying to figure out who's/ Hue's on first.
Ok, you can clearly see and understand the pushing together of the lego bricks.
You also know they stay together because the little round protrusions are compressed against the openings they fit inside of.
All push up to now.
Ok, the part where you think a pull is happening would be in taking apart the stack and to understand this we have to go through the human body and it's function to see what's happening.
To release one brick you must first grip the brick, which means you must compress that brick each side by compressing your muscles and then pushing your fingers and bones and skin into the brick.
You also have to do exactly the same thing to the brick or bricks underneath or above the brick you're about to move.
Now you have to push them both apart using that grip and if you observe your skin you will see your skin move opposite to your push, meaning your skin is putting the push pressure grip on the bricks as your shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers, with muscles, sinews and bone, etc all pushing by compression to enable this to happen.
Everything is pressure pushing. No pull.
Great!
Like i said to all the others you fail to see a difference in between the rope and the tree.
You fail to differentiate there are two bodies.
The rope is not a part of the tree.
The tree is in compression and the rope is in tension.
Everyone take note.
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
I explained this.
The medicine ball is dense. It requires a force to push it away from it's own dense mass displacement of atmosphere it is in.
Once it is pushed away from you it compresses the atmosphere in front of it which creates a higher pressure. which in turn creates a lower pressure where the medicine ball originally was, which will be equalised but not before it crashes back into you throwing it, which aids in moving the wheels on the skateboard and obviously, you, a little...depending on your dense mass and the force in which you push that ball away from you.
Right... but in the exmaple you convenitently deleted - required you to run down a fitted alley with a piece of plywood in a sort of piston like scenario.
When in comparison, this is just a guy throwing a med ball while sitting on rollers and completely destroys said plywood statement.
-
Ok, you can clearly see and understand the pushing together of the lego bricks.
You also know they stay together because the little round protrusions are compressed against the openings they fit inside of.
All push up to now.
No, not all push.
This still requires a pull.
The openings they fit inside are held together by tensile forces.
If you were to cut it up such that instead of a continuous ring or a few large sections it was instead basically just a bunch of strings, it wouldn't hold together.
Now you have to push them both apart using that grip and if you observe your skin you will see your skin move opposite to your push, meaning your skin is putting the push pressure grip on the bricks as your shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers, with muscles, sinews and bone, etc all pushing by compression to enable this to happen.
But how does the push get transferred through the brick?
Why doesn't it just fall apart at the point where you pushed?
If you tried it with extremely weak bricks with no tensile strength it would just break apart.
If you thinly sliced the bricks before hand it would just break.
If it was all push it shouldn't even matter if it was just powder.
Again, you need a pull for the bricks to hold themselves together.
Just the example you ignore, you need a pull to hold the rope/chain/link together.
Without it,
It doesn't matter how far down you want to go, you NEED a pulling force.
Again, if you wish to disagree you need to clearly explain what holds it together, draw a diagram showing the left side is magically pushed to the right by the right side.
-
Ok, you can clearly see and understand the pushing together of the lego bricks.
You also know they stay together because the little round protrusions are compressed against the openings they fit inside of.
All push up to now.
No, not all push.
This still requires a pull.
The openings they fit inside are held together by tensile forces.
If you were to cut it up such that instead of a continuous ring or a few large sections it was instead basically just a bunch of strings, it wouldn't hold together.
Now you have to push them both apart using that grip and if you observe your skin you will see your skin move opposite to your push, meaning your skin is putting the push pressure grip on the bricks as your shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers, with muscles, sinews and bone, etc all pushing by compression to enable this to happen.
But how does the push get transferred through the brick?
Why doesn't it just fall apart at the point where you pushed?
If you tried it with extremely weak bricks with no tensile strength it would just break apart.
If you thinly sliced the bricks before hand it would just break.
If it was all push it shouldn't even matter if it was just powder.
Again, you need a pull for the bricks to hold themselves together.
Just the example you ignore, you need a pull to hold the rope/chain/link together.
Without it,
It doesn't matter how far down you want to go, you NEED a pulling force.
Again, if you wish to disagree you need to clearly explain what holds it together, draw a diagram showing the left side is magically pushed to the right by the right side.
well, technically the friction force could be a push force being dependent on factor of F-normal.
haha
BUT
again the directional is what i wanted him to define.
Pull vs push.
Sceppy has a hard time with english for some reason.
-
Use legos as an example.
Legos have a very weak friction fit.
Stack a whole bunch of legos into a tower.
Un-push them together and show us hiw pulling isnt a thing.
Maybe define push and pull in yoyr own words.
You have a history of not speaking english and spinning us all round and round teying to figure out who's/ Hue's on first.
Ok, you can clearly see and understand the pushing together of the lego bricks.
You also know they stay together because the little round protrusions are compressed against the openings they fit inside of.
All push up to now.
Ok, the part where you think a pull is happening would be in taking apart the stack and to understand this we have to go through the human body and it's function to see what's happening.
To release one brick you must first grip the brick, which means you must compress that brick each side by compressing your muscles and then pushing your fingers and bones and skin into the brick.
You also have to do exactly the same thing to the brick or bricks underneath or above the brick you're about to move.
Now you have to push them both apart using that grip and if you observe your skin you will see your skin move opposite to your push, meaning your skin is putting the push pressure grip on the bricks as your shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers, with muscles, sinews and bone, etc all pushing by compression to enable this to happen.
Everything is pressure pushing. No pull.
Great!
Like i said to all the others you fail to see a difference in between the rope and the tree.
You fail to differentiate there are two bodies.
The rope is not a part of the tree.
The tree is in compression and the rope is in tension.
Everyone take note.
This is about lego.
Go and bring the tree one up.
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
I explained this.
The medicine ball is dense. It requires a force to push it away from it's own dense mass displacement of atmosphere it is in.
Once it is pushed away from you it compresses the atmosphere in front of it which creates a higher pressure. which in turn creates a lower pressure where the medicine ball originally was, which will be equalised but not before it crashes back into you throwing it, which aids in moving the wheels on the skateboard and obviously, you, a little...depending on your dense mass and the force in which you push that ball away from you.
Right... but in the exmaple you convenitently deleted - required you to run down a fitted alley with a piece of plywood in a sort of piston like scenario.
When in comparison, this is just a guy throwing a med ball while sitting on rollers and completely destroys said plywood statement.
No it doesn't destroy anything.
If the person was throwing a medicine ball in an alley, that person would move back much more than throwing itr in open air where the medicine ball can compress much less due to dissipation.
-
No, not all push.
All push.....no pull.
-
Ok, you can clearly see and understand the pushing together of the lego bricks.
You also know they stay together because the little round protrusions are compressed against the openings they fit inside of.
All push up to now.
No, not all push.
This still requires a pull.
The openings they fit inside are held together by tensile forces.
If you were to cut it up such that instead of a continuous ring or a few large sections it was instead basically just a bunch of strings, it wouldn't hold together.
Now you have to push them both apart using that grip and if you observe your skin you will see your skin move opposite to your push, meaning your skin is putting the push pressure grip on the bricks as your shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers, with muscles, sinews and bone, etc all pushing by compression to enable this to happen.
But how does the push get transferred through the brick?
Why doesn't it just fall apart at the point where you pushed?
If you tried it with extremely weak bricks with no tensile strength it would just break apart.
If you thinly sliced the bricks before hand it would just break.
If it was all push it shouldn't even matter if it was just powder.
Again, you need a pull for the bricks to hold themselves together.
Just the example you ignore, you need a pull to hold the rope/chain/link together.
Without it,
It doesn't matter how far down you want to go, you NEED a pulling force.
Again, if you wish to disagree you need to clearly explain what holds it together, draw a diagram showing the left side is magically pushed to the right by the right side.
well, technically the friction force could be a push force being dependent on factor of F-normal.
haha
BUT
again the directional is what i wanted him to define.
Pull vs push.
Sceppy has a hard time with english for some reason.
I have an easy time with it. How you interpret it is your hard time, not mine.
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
I explained this.
The medicine ball is dense. It requires a force to push it away from it's own dense mass displacement of atmosphere it is in.
Once it is pushed away from you it compresses the atmosphere in front of it which creates a higher pressure. which in turn creates a lower pressure where the medicine ball originally was, which will be equalised but not before it crashes back into you throwing it, which aids in moving the wheels on the skateboard and obviously, you, a little...depending on your dense mass and the force in which you push that ball away from you.
Right... but in the exmaple you convenitently deleted - required you to run down a fitted alley with a piece of plywood in a sort of piston like scenario.
When in comparison, this is just a guy throwing a med ball while sitting on rollers and completely destroys said plywood statement.
No it doesn't destroy anything.
If the person was throwing a medicine ball in an alley, that person would move back much more than throwing itr in open air where the medicine ball can compress much less due to dissipation.
Evidence for this? I can't find anywhere where the person moves "back much more" say in a classroom versus outside.
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Let's see some hanging rope as in the picture below.
Is the rope segment R pushing or pulling the rope segment Q at the point B?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/M6ffQz.png)
EDIT: What prevents the molecules of segments Q and R from separating?
Pull or push?
To answer this you'd need to go into the make up of the rope. This is why I ask people to put deeper thought into it.
To be clear about it all you have to start at the bottom, what we cannot naked eye, visually see in some cases and what we can clearly see, in others.
Your rope is linked but you can't see that by simply drawing what you drew.
"The rope is linked", you say?
And what keeps together the molecules in polymerized caprolactam monofilament nylon fishing line?
What about pure solid copper wire?
What keeps the copper atoms together?
Pull or push?
-
This is about lego.
Used only as an analogy for the rope.
If you rope was made of lego, it would fall apart, because the pulling force holding Lego together is quite small.
But if it was all push, there should be no difference.
All push.....no pull.
Again, stop just repeating the same baseless garbage.
If you want to assert it is all pull then explain HOW!
Explain how the rope/chain/link/lego/basically everything which can withstand tensile forces holds itself together.
No matter how far down you go a pull is always needed.
You need to apply a force from the right to move the object to the right, that is a pulling force.
Again, if you wish to disagree, show clearly where the force acting on the left side of this link is coming from.
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Saying it is the same kind of thing on a smaller scale isn't addressing the problem it is just moving the problem down to that smaller scale.
The simple fact is that without pulling forces there would be no such thing as tensile strength and all materials would simply fall apart.
Now again, care to actually address this problem?
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
I explained this.
The medicine ball is dense. It requires a force to push it away from it's own dense mass displacement of atmosphere it is in.
Once it is pushed away from you it compresses the atmosphere in front of it which creates a higher pressure. which in turn creates a lower pressure where the medicine ball originally was, which will be equalised but not before it crashes back into you throwing it, which aids in moving the wheels on the skateboard and obviously, you, a little...depending on your dense mass and the force in which you push that ball away from you.
Right... but in the exmaple you convenitently deleted - required you to run down a fitted alley with a piece of plywood in a sort of piston like scenario.
When in comparison, this is just a guy throwing a med ball while sitting on rollers and completely destroys said plywood statement.
No it doesn't destroy anything.
If the person was throwing a medicine ball in an alley, that person would move back much more than throwing itr in open air where the medicine ball can compress much less due to dissipation.
Evidence for this? I can't find anywhere where the person moves "back much more" say in a classroom versus outside.
Is a classroom an alley?
It's a wide area and can dissipate a compressive force quite easily compared to being in an alley where it can't due to the close walls either side and a barrier between the opening (you and skateboard, plus medicine ball).
-
Draw an arrow picture of what you define "push".
No one knows what youre talking about if you refuse to use english.
Give me any picture you deem as push and I'll go into paint and show you where push is instead of pull.
Let's see some hanging rope as in the picture below.
Is the rope segment R pushing or pulling the rope segment Q at the point B?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/M6ffQz.png)
EDIT: What prevents the molecules of segments Q and R from separating?
Pull or push?
To answer this you'd need to go into the make up of the rope. This is why I ask people to put deeper thought into it.
To be clear about it all you have to start at the bottom, what we cannot naked eye, visually see in some cases and what we can clearly see, in others.
Your rope is linked but you can't see that by simply drawing what you drew.
"The rope is linked", you say?
And what keeps together the molecules in polymerized caprolactam monofilament nylon fishing line?
What about pure solid copper wire?
What keeps the copper atoms together?
Pull or push?
All push. It's all linked. It's all push.
Just because you can't see it with your own eyes does not mean it's not linked.
Everything is attached and you cannot attach anything by a so called pull force.
-
This is about lego.
Used only as an analogy for the rope.
If you rope was made of lego, it would fall apart, because the pulling force holding Lego together is quite small.
But if it was all push, there should be no difference.
How do you pull?
Describe how you get the lego apart, using everything you require to friction grip that lego and what that lego is friction gripped to to make it stay clamped to the other brick.
Think carefully about it and you'll see there's no pull.
-
Everything is attached and you cannot attach anything by a so called pull force.
Cannot why?
How do you plan to forbid that?
How to prevent a magnet from pulling an iron nail?
By your "royal decree"? :D
-
We ve been through this in the ballistic missile thread.
Guy on a roller board throwing a medicine ball.
I explained this.
The medicine ball is dense. It requires a force to push it away from it's own dense mass displacement of atmosphere it is in.
Once it is pushed away from you it compresses the atmosphere in front of it which creates a higher pressure. which in turn creates a lower pressure where the medicine ball originally was, which will be equalised but not before it crashes back into you throwing it, which aids in moving the wheels on the skateboard and obviously, you, a little...depending on your dense mass and the force in which you push that ball away from you.
Right... but in the exmaple you convenitently deleted - required you to run down a fitted alley with a piece of plywood in a sort of piston like scenario.
When in comparison, this is just a guy throwing a med ball while sitting on rollers and completely destroys said plywood statement.
No it doesn't destroy anything.
If the person was throwing a medicine ball in an alley, that person would move back much more than throwing itr in open air where the medicine ball can compress much less due to dissipation.
Evidence for this? I can't find anywhere where the person moves "back much more" say in a classroom versus outside.
Is a classroom an alley?
It's a wide area and can dissipate a compressive force quite easily compared to being in an alley where it can't due to the close walls either side and a barrier between the opening (you and skateboard, plus medicine ball).
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside. By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
-
Everything is attached and you cannot attach anything by a so called pull force.
Cannot why?
How do you plan to forbid that?
It's not about me forbidding it, it's about me not accepting there is a pull in reality.
Feel free to use pull to describe what you visually see as being that. It helps differentiate visual observations from your perceivement.
I have no issues with this but I'm simply saying from my perspective, pull does not exist in those terms.
How to prevent a magnet from pulling an iron nail?
It doesn't pull an iron ball. The ball is pushed into it.
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
-
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/8zCPV1.png)
-
All push. It's all linked. It's all push.
Again, it is only linked via tensile forces, i.e. a pull.
Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't magically change that fact.
Again, if you wish to disagree, show the diagram of how the force is magically transferred.
Clearly explain how a force can come from the right to move an object to the right, without being a pulling force.
Describe how you get the lego apart, using everything you require to friction grip that lego and what that lego is friction gripped to to make it stay clamped to the other brick.
Again, it isn't simply a case of pulling them apart, but also why they separate where they do, between the 2 bricks. And it is quite easy to demonstrate as well by just cutting the bricks.
But I prefer rope as that is easier, including easier to cut.
You aren't just magically applying the force to the entire brick. You are applying it to a particular surface of the brick, and that then needs to transfer the force through the entire brick.
But just like in the diagram I provided, there are some parts of the brick to the side opposite the direction that it is being pushed in. i.e. there are some parts of the lower brick above where I am applying a force.
How does that part move?
You can easily demonstrate that it isn't a push by cutting the brick. So now instead of just the 2 bricks, you have effectively 4 objects. the lower and upper part of each brick. Now to pull them apart you grab the lower part of the lower brick and the upper part of the upper brick and pull. But now the bricks don't stay together, the bricks fall apart as the section that transmits the tensile forces are gone, and without that pull the bricks aren't held together.
A simpler demonstration would just have a bunch of small objects. If you push them you can easily push along most of them with only a few falling off the sides.
But try to pull them, and only the ones actually being pushed by your hand moves.
But then, tie them together with a piece of string so they can pull each other and then you can move them all.
Again, actually thinking about it, even a bit, shows a pull is needed.
Again, my diagram clearly indicates it.
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
The force is applied at the red arrow. This pushes things to the right of the black line, resulting in the dark grey section being pushed.
But it has no way to push the light grey section.
In order for the light grey section to move with the dark grey section, rather than have the link fall apart, the dark grey section needs to pull the light grey section.
Again, trying to claim there are little links between it just pushes the problem back as the exact same problem arises for those links.
There is simply no way to transfer a force from the dark grey section moving right to the light grey section without pulling.
I have no issues with this but I'm simply saying from my perspective, pull does not exist in those terms.
No, you aren't. You repeatedly deny that pull exists, stating it as a fact, not merely your "perspective" or opinion.
-
I am beginning to think that the word "push" is scepti's "I am groot".
-
You repeatedly deny that pull exists, stating it as a fact, not merely your "perspective" or opinion.
It's amy reasoning and my perspective and my belief.
You do not need to accept it, as you obviously don't, just as I don't accept what you say when you state something as fact that you have no clue about as to it being just that....except to appeal to what you believe is, authority..
-
You do not need to accept it, as you obviously don't, just as I don't accept what you say when you state something as fact that you have no clue about as to it being just that....except to appeal to what you believe is, authority..
You mean things I know from personal experience which you need to pretend has only been obtained by appeals to authority to your position any kind of validity.
Again, ignoring my comments wont magically make them vanish.
Again, if you want to claim there is no such thing as pull, then clearly explain how in the image below, the dark grey side pulls the light grey side, without pulling it:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Until you can actually do that, all you have is wilful rejection of reality based upon no rational or logical thought at all.
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
The point is that there is no discernible difference in how far the person slides back whether its a confined space (Classroom or alley) versus a wide open space. Your claim is incorrect.
-
You do not need to accept it, as you obviously don't, just as I don't accept what you say when you state something as fact that you have no clue about as to it being just that....except to appeal to what you believe is, authority..
You mean things I know from personal experience which you need to pretend has only been obtained by appeals to authority to your position any kind of validity.
Again, ignoring my comments wont magically make them vanish.
Again, if you want to claim there is no such thing as pull, then clearly explain how in the image below, the dark grey side pulls the light grey side, without pulling it:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Until you can actually do that, all you have is wilful rejection of reality based upon no rational or logical thought at all.
It doesn't pull it, it pushes it.
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
The point is that there is no discernible difference in how far the person slides back whether its a confined space (Classroom or alley) versus a wide open space. Your claim is incorrect.
Let's see how you answer this. I want your complete honesty.
If you were in an alley and a car came at you behind a board that was attached to its front that fitted that alley and sped at you, do you think you would be pushed back before the car hits you?
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
The point is that there is no discernible difference in how far the person slides back whether its a confined space (Classroom or alley) versus a wide open space. Your claim is incorrect.
Let's see how you answer this. I want your complete honesty.
If you were in an alley and a car came at you behind a board that was attached to its front that fitted that alley and sped at you, do you think you would be pushed back before the car hits you?
First, no.
Second, that's not the same as you throwing a medicine ball while on a dolly. So whatever point your trying to make is moot.
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
The point is that there is no discernible difference in how far the person slides back whether its a confined space (Classroom or alley) versus a wide open space. Your claim is incorrect.
Let's see how you answer this. I want your complete honesty.
If you were in an alley and a car came at you behind a board that was attached to its front that fitted that alley and sped at you, do you think you would be pushed back before the car hits you?
First, no.
Second, that's not the same as you throwing a medicine ball while on a dolly. So whatever point your trying to make is moot.
The point I'm making is not moot. It's to show you that atmospheric pressure plays a full part in the movement of the person throwing the medicine ball.
The confined space is to show just how much difference more compressive force can make.
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
The point is that there is no discernible difference in how far the person slides back whether its a confined space (Classroom or alley) versus a wide open space. Your claim is incorrect.
Let's see how you answer this. I want your complete honesty.
If you were in an alley and a car came at you behind a board that was attached to its front that fitted that alley and sped at you, do you think you would be pushed back before the car hits you?
First, no.
Second, that's not the same as you throwing a medicine ball while on a dolly. So whatever point your trying to make is moot.
The point I'm making is not moot. It's to show you that atmospheric pressure plays a full part in the movement of the person throwing the medicine ball.
The confined space is to show just how much difference more compressive force can make.
Your example shows no such thing. An alley is still an open space, narrowed but open. The ball nor the person is going to move further due to the space being confined. And as I said above, the person isn't going to be pushed back before the board makes contact.
-
Your example shows no such thing. An alley is still an open space, narrowed but open. The ball nor the person is going to move further due to the space being confined. And as I said above, the person isn't going to be pushed back before the board makes contact.
Ok let's see if I can make this easier for you.
If you were to drop a medicine ball down a tube that was just slightly larger than the medicine ball and then also had someone drop a medicine ball down another tube that was twice as big as the medicine ball...do you think they would both hit the bottom at the same time.
If so, tell me why and if not, tell me why.
-
Your example shows no such thing. An alley is still an open space, narrowed but open. The ball nor the person is going to move further due to the space being confined. And as I said above, the person isn't going to be pushed back before the board makes contact.
Ok let's see if I can make this easier for you.
If you were to drop a medicine ball down a tube that was just slightly larger than the medicine ball and then also had someone drop a medicine ball down another tube that was twice as big as the medicine ball...do you think they would both hit the bottom at the same time.
If so, tell me why and if not, tell me why.
We went from tossing a medicine ball on a dolly, to being hit by a car with a board in a alley, to dropping medicine balls down different sized tubes.
Assuming that the just slightly larger tube will still allow the medicine ball to pass through without it becoming phsyically stuck, then they would hit at the same time.
-
Your one very specific scenario does not explain all the other scenarios that occur for all the people animals ans inanimate objects everywhere.
-
What’s the difference between an alley and a classroom when compared to an unenclosed wide expanse outside.
What's the difference between a ball sitting on gunpowder in a class room on a table and ignited and a ball sitting in a barrel on top of gunpowder and ignited?
By your logic in an even more confined classroom I should shoot back more so than in an alley and even more so than in the wide expanse. We don’t see those differences based upon setting. So yours is an incorrect statement.
An even more confined classroom? You mean like a small alley or something?
The point is that there is no discernible difference in how far the person slides back whether its a confined space (Classroom or alley) versus a wide open space. Your claim is incorrect.
Let's see how you answer this. I want your complete honesty.
If you were in an alley and a car came at you behind a board that was attached to its front that fitted that alley and sped at you, do you think you would be pushed back before the car hits you?
First, no.
Second, that's not the same as you throwing a medicine ball while on a dolly. So whatever point your trying to make is moot.
The point I'm making is not moot. It's to show you that atmospheric pressure plays a full part in the movement of the person throwing the medicine ball.
The confined space is to show just how much difference more compressive force can make.
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
-
Again, if you want to claim there is no such thing as pull, then clearly explain how in the image below, the dark grey side pulls the light grey side, without pulling it:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
Until you can actually do that, all you have is wilful rejection of reality based upon no rational or logical thought at all.
It doesn't pull it, it pushes it.
And that is what you need to show.
By the simple definition of the word pull it needs to pull.
By a simple analysis of the situation, it requires a transfer of form from the right to the left, which results in the object on the left moving to the right.
That is a pull.
This simple situation clearly demonstrates that pulling is required.
By definition, it is a pull.
If you want to claim there is no such thing as pull, you need to clearly show how this works without a pull.
So again, how do you have the right side pull the left side without pulling it?
-
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
Scepti does not understand the action/reaction thing. He thinks rockets need air to push against in order to work, so they can't possibly work in vacuum. He's trying to draw you into a scenario where the air is constrained so that pressure builds up and he can claim a "push" from the compressed air.
-
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
Scepti does not understand the action/reaction thing. He thinks rockets need air to push against in order to work, so they can't possibly work in vacuum. He's trying to draw you into a scenario where the air is constrained so that pressure builds up and he can claim a "push" from the compressed air.
Thanks for validating. The problem he has is that he needs to back up his claim which he can't because all evidence is to the contrary. It matters not the size of the alley, classroom or field. The experiments show, reality, that they are equal and unaffected by the space around.
-
Your example shows no such thing. An alley is still an open space, narrowed but open. The ball nor the person is going to move further due to the space being confined. And as I said above, the person isn't going to be pushed back before the board makes contact.
Ok let's see if I can make this easier for you.
If you were to drop a medicine ball down a tube that was just slightly larger than the medicine ball and then also had someone drop a medicine ball down another tube that was twice as big as the medicine ball...do you think they would both hit the bottom at the same time.
If so, tell me why and if not, tell me why.
We went from tossing a medicine ball on a dolly, to being hit by a car with a board in a alley, to dropping medicine balls down different sized tubes.
Assuming that the just slightly larger tube will still allow the medicine ball to pass through without it becoming phsyically stuck, then they would hit at the same time.
Then this is where you need to cease to bother with me. If you seriously believe this you're wasting your time.
-
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
No he doesn't move the same speed, at all.
-
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
Scepti does not understand the action/reaction thing. He thinks rockets need air to push against in order to work, so they can't possibly work in vacuum. He's trying to draw you into a scenario where the air is constrained so that pressure builds up and he can claim a "push" from the compressed air.
You can all prove this to yourselves. You do not need me to prove it.
The fact you're all in denial tells me you're all holding onto the clear fiction told and sold to you because it's just easier to follow mass opinion and peer pressure.
-
Thanks for validating. The problem he has is that he needs to back up his claim which he can't because all evidence is to the contrary. It matters not the size of the alley, classroom or field. The experiments show, reality, that they are equal and unaffected by the space around.
He hasn't validated anything.
And you can easily do the experiments that prove I'm correct....but you won't.
-
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
No he doesn't move the same speed, at all.
That's the thing, reality shows that not to be the case. Your claim is that the environment (more close in versus more open) would affect the medicine ball toss experiment. It doesn't. But since it's your claim, show us what you found.
-
Thanks for validating. The problem he has is that he needs to back up his claim which he can't because all evidence is to the contrary. It matters not the size of the alley, classroom or field. The experiments show, reality, that they are equal and unaffected by the space around.
He hasn't validated anything.
And you can easily do the experiments that prove I'm correct....but you won't.
What experiments have you done that show your enclosed versus open environment affects your action/reaction speed/distance?
-
That's the thing. Your claim is wrong. It makes no difference whether the guy on the skateboard throws a medicine ball whilst in an alley or in a wide open space. He moves the same amount at the same speed. That's why your point is moot.
No he doesn't move the same speed, at all.
That's the thing, reality shows that not to be the case. Your claim is that the environment (more close in versus more open) would affect the medicine ball toss experiment. It doesn't. But since it's your claim, show us what you found.
Try it all for yourselves and understand it. It's pretty simple to see and understand.
-
Thanks for validating. The problem he has is that he needs to back up his claim which he can't because all evidence is to the contrary. It matters not the size of the alley, classroom or field. The experiments show, reality, that they are equal and unaffected by the space around.
He hasn't validated anything.
And you can easily do the experiments that prove I'm correct....but you won't.
What experiments have you done that show your enclosed versus open environment affects your action/reaction speed/distance?
Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it.
-
Thanks for validating. The problem he has is that he needs to back up his claim which he can't because all evidence is to the contrary. It matters not the size of the alley, classroom or field. The experiments show, reality, that they are equal and unaffected by the space around.
He hasn't validated anything.
And you can easily do the experiments that prove I'm correct....but you won't.
What experiments have you done that show your enclosed versus open environment affects your action/reaction speed/distance?
Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it.
Why so cryptic? Just spell it out. It can't be that hard to copy and paste the experiments you speak of.
-
Why so cryptic? Just spell it out. It can't be that hard to copy and paste the experiments you speak of.
There's nothing cryptic.
Either put some effort in to understand or simply struggle along. It's up to you.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
-
Why so cryptic? Just spell it out. It can't be that hard to copy and paste the experiments you speak of.
There's nothing cryptic.
Either put some effort in to understand or simply struggle along. It's up to you.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
Umm, still cryptic. And enough with the high and mighty, "I'm outside the box" business. It's old and tired.
You said there are "Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it." So, what are the types? Why be cryptic about it when you can just say, "Oh yeah, just do this, that and other thing and you'll see what I'm driving at..."
You make it seem like you're hiding something. Where I would otherwise like to think you're not.
-
Why so cryptic? Just spell it out. It can't be that hard to copy and paste the experiments you speak of.
There's nothing cryptic.
Either put some effort in to understand or simply struggle along. It's up to you.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
Umm, still cryptic. And enough with the high and mighty, "I'm outside the box" business. It's old and tired.
You said there are "Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it." So, what are the types? Why be cryptic about it when you can just say, "Oh yeah, just do this, that and other thing and you'll see what I'm driving at..."
You make it seem like you're hiding something. Where I would otherwise like to think you're not.
There's nothing for me to hide.
-
Why so cryptic? Just spell it out. It can't be that hard to copy and paste the experiments you speak of.
There's nothing cryptic.
Either put some effort in to understand or simply struggle along. It's up to you.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
Umm, still cryptic. And enough with the high and mighty, "I'm outside the box" business. It's old and tired.
You said there are "Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it." So, what are the types? Why be cryptic about it when you can just say, "Oh yeah, just do this, that and other thing and you'll see what I'm driving at..."
You make it seem like you're hiding something. Where I would otherwise like to think you're not.
There's nothing for me to hide.
What is your problem? Stop being cryptic. Just describe the "Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it." Why are you so against that of the simplest of things?
I say evidence shows your claim wrong. You say there are things that show it's right but refuse to say what those things are? What's that all about?
Jesus, just put a little bit of effort into your theory rather than just words that only you know the meaning of.
-
Why so cryptic? Just spell it out. It can't be that hard to copy and paste the experiments you speak of.
There's nothing cryptic.
Either put some effort in to understand or simply struggle along. It's up to you.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
Umm, still cryptic. And enough with the high and mighty, "I'm outside the box" business. It's old and tired.
You said there are "Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it." So, what are the types? Why be cryptic about it when you can just say, "Oh yeah, just do this, that and other thing and you'll see what I'm driving at..."
You make it seem like you're hiding something. Where I would otherwise like to think you're not.
There's nothing for me to hide.
What is your problem? Stop being cryptic. Just describe the "Many different types. You've probably done many yourself without even thinking about it." Why are you so against that of the simplest of things?
I say evidence shows your claim wrong. You say there are things that show it's right but refuse to say what those things are? What's that all about?
Jesus, just put a little bit of effort into your theory rather than just words that only you know the meaning of.
What you fail to understand is, there's not only you in this but there is only me trying to answer. That alone takes a lot of effort, so put some effort in yourself and try and understand it instead of placing a mainstream shield in front of you.
-
Mainstream.
Cofrmt zone.
Ugh.
No.
It works or it doesnt work.
And its only you because only you believe in your theory and for some very obvious reason you cant convey it in a coherent manner to others.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
-
Mainstream.
Cofrmt zone.
Ugh.
No.
It works or it doesnt work.
And its only you because only you believe in your theory and for some very obvious reason you cant convey it in a coherent manner to others.
I can. It's you and others that seem to have difficulty grasping it because your mindset's are firmly entrenched in the model handed to you on a plate, which you regurgitate and pretend to understand.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
-
Moving air causes lift.
Shows that hair moves around.
And has nothing to do with inertia and momentum that we are discussing in regadss to med ball being thrown about.
So dont worry about it.
He is clearly moving wothout the aid of fan blades.
He is moving because of momentum.
So is the guy on the roller after throwing the med ball.
Your claim the med ball is pushing off air does not explain why this other guy starts to spin.
-
Mainstream.
Cofrmt zone.
Ugh.
No.
It works or it doesnt work.
And its only you because only you believe in your theory and for some very obvious reason you cant convey it in a coherent manner to others.
I can. It's you and others that seem to have difficulty grasping it because your mindset's are firmly entrenched in the model handed to you on a plate, which you regurgitate and pretend to understand.
Nope
You refuse to address the very specific question asked of you.
Maybe youd like to try even acknowledging the question in your own words so we can get insight as to your interpetation/ undersranding of it?
-
Moving air causes lift.
Shows that hair moves around.
And has nothing to do with inertia and momentum that we are discussing in regadss to med ball being thrown about.
So dont worry about it.
He is clearly moving wothout the aid of fan blades.
He is moving because of momentum.
So is the guy on the roller after throwing the med ball.
Your claim the med ball is pushing off air does not explain why this other guy starts to spin.
He's moving because the wheel is consistently pushing against the air which causes friction which causes expansion which causes the atmosphere to push right back to compress...crating the push into a spin.
A fan will do likewise.
Without atmospheric pressure, none of this works.
-
Mainstream.
Cofrmt zone.
Ugh.
No.
It works or it doesnt work.
And its only you because only you believe in your theory and for some very obvious reason you cant convey it in a coherent manner to others.
I can. It's you and others that seem to have difficulty grasping it because your mindset's are firmly entrenched in the model handed to you on a plate, which you regurgitate and pretend to understand.
Nope
You refuse to address the very specific question asked of you.
Maybe youd like to try even acknowledging the question in your own words so we can get insight as to your interpetation/ undersranding of it?
When you prove you are willing to attempt to understand it, I'd be willing to keep to a path of your choice until you get it.
Whether you accept it is not the issue or my interest but it should be in your interest to at least understand my side to save you getting muddled up.
-
Im the only one attempting, by being consistent with whatever language you choose you use.
If you refuse to answer the question then i will call you a dodger.
So you can continue deflecting or dodging but if yoyr theory is so sensitive it cant hold up to scrutiny, then its as frail as your ego
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
-
Im the only one attempting, by being consistent with whatever language you choose you use.
If you refuse to answer the question then i will call you a dodger.
So you can continue deflecting or dodging but if yoyr theory is so sensitive it cant hold up to scrutiny, then its as frail as your ego
Feel free to call me what you want. None of it will help you understand if you fail to follow what's been said....and you fail to follow.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
Yes it is clear, so why don't you explain what putting fan blades would do.
-
Fan blades have nothing to do with this as there are no fan blades.
-
You guys are trying to explain something to Scepti.
I used to do that. But now I just keep a box of rocks nearby and explain things to them. It's more rewarding -- I don't get back a lot of gibberish.
-
Fan blades have nothing to do with this as there are no fan blades.
Of course, I know there isn't and it is just scepti just trying to deflect, but I want to see where he goes with this. He mentioned them, so I want to see his reasoning.
-
You guys are trying to explain something to Scepti.
I used to do that. But now I just keep a box of rocks nearby and explain things to them. It's more rewarding -- I don't get back a lot of gibberish.
You can get a closer experience if you chew on them hard. Really get those teeth grinding.
-
Fan blades have nothing to do with this as there are no fan blades.
Of course, I know there isn't and it is just scepti just trying to deflect, but I want to see where he goes with this. He mentioned them, so I want to see his reasoning.
Good point.
Do that experiment with a fan and see how much the guy spins (it wont be much)
-
You can all prove this to yourselves.
You mean we can prove the exact opposite.
Again, you are the one who is denial here.
You feel the need to outright deny the reality of pulling, and so much more.
We understand the fundamental difference between having to displace air and having to accelerate mass.
This is easily seen by changing the geometry of the object. You like appealing to a plank of wood, but if you replace that with the same amount of wood, but much more aerodynamic, it has significantly less resistance. That shows a fundamental dependence on geometry to the effect of air.
But now replace the medicine ball with a beach ball of the same volume, and the effect is still vastly different even though the geometry is the same.
This shows there are 2 fundamentally different issues. One is mass, aka inertia; the other is air resistance.
The effect of air on a medicine ball, unless it is in a tube which is basically only just fits in, or has been falling for a very long time, is negligible.
But this discussion is meant to be about surface tension and its fundamental reliance upon pulling, rather than your fantasy of air.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
No, as repeatedly demonstrated by countless people countless times, the problem is your model makes no sense, is outright contradicted by reality, and you repeatedly contradict yourself to try to have it pretend to match reality; all to try and pretend Earth must be flat and rockets can't work in space.
And the vast majority of the time when you try to provide an "explanation" you instead just spout a bunch of vague nonsense which doesn't actually explain anything, or explains a different issue.
Your nonsense with molecular links is an example of that. Rather than try to explain how the right pulls the left side, you just appeal to a smaller version of the same problem, with the right side of your molecular links need to pull the left side.
He's moving because the wheel is consistently pushing against the air which causes friction which causes expansion which causes the atmosphere to push right back to compress...crating the push into a spin.
A fan will do likewise.
Without atmospheric pressure, none of this works.
And more baseless claims from you, complete with it just being vague nonsense with no actual explanation.
Where is your evidence that it relies upon the atmosphere?
If you attached fan blades the person would be spinning even with the wheel vertical, and it could be going either way.
Turning it would then reduce the amount the person rotates as now part of the force would be directed down.
This is the exact opposite of what happens.
Meanwhile, mainstream science can actually explain it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
If it truly was clear, you would be able to explain it extremely easily. So why don't you?
Because you can't actually explain it.
You have no idea at all how you can actually make it work to produce what is seen in reality.
So instead of even attempting to actually explain it in detail, explaining just where the force is coming from and what direction it has, you just appeal to vague nonsense. Then when pushed for an actual explanation, you just dodge.
Now how about you stop with the pathetic dodging and start with the explanation?
Why don't you start with explaining what is actually key to this topic, how objects without a pull?
Again, here is the simple scenario you need to deal with:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
In this situation, the dark grey side is observed to pull the light grey side.
If there was no such thing as pull, then the dark grey side would move with the light grey side left behind.
It doesn't matter how small you want to go, this dividing line will always exist and you will always need to transfer a force from the right side to the left side to make the left side move to the right. That would be a pull.
So you need to explain how this pull is achieved, without it being a pull.
Or to be nicer to you just this once, you need to explain how the left side moves to the right without the right side pulling it.
And remember, appealing to molecular links is pointless, as you would then need to explain how the right side of the molecular link moves the left side to the right, without pulling it.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
Yes it is clear, so why don't you explain what putting fan blades would do.
The wheel is acting just like a fan blade. The only difference is in the way it is pushing against the atmosphere and the way the atmosphere pushes back.
-
You guys are trying to explain something to Scepti.
I used to do that. But now I just keep a box of rocks nearby and explain things to them. It's more rewarding -- I don't get back a lot of gibberish.
Anything can be gibberish if you don't or refuse to understand it. Even mainstream gibberish becomes understandable to people like you for no other reason than, it's told as a truth...an unfathomable truth but accepted as a knowing truth, which is a lie in itself to your very own person.
-
Fan blades have nothing to do with this as there are no fan blades.
Of course, I know there isn't and it is just scepti just trying to deflect, but I want to see where he goes with this. He mentioned them, so I want to see his reasoning.
Good point.
Do that experiment with a fan and see how much the guy spins (it wont be much)
It will if the fan blades are as dense as the wheel and shaft.
-
You can all prove this to yourselves.
You mean we can prove the exact opposite.
Again, you are the one who is denial here.
You feel the need to outright deny the reality of pulling, and so much more.
We understand the fundamental difference between having to displace air and having to accelerate mass.
This is easily seen by changing the geometry of the object. You like appealing to a plank of wood, but if you replace that with the same amount of wood, but much more aerodynamic, it has significantly less resistance. That shows a fundamental dependence on geometry to the effect of air.
But now replace the medicine ball with a beach ball of the same volume, and the effect is still vastly different even though the geometry is the same.
This shows there are 2 fundamentally different issues. One is mass, aka inertia; the other is air resistance.
The effect of air on a medicine ball, unless it is in a tube which is basically only just fits in, or has been falling for a very long time, is negligible.
But this discussion is meant to be about surface tension and its fundamental reliance upon pulling, rather than your fantasy of air.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
No, as repeatedly demonstrated by countless people countless times, the problem is your model makes no sense, is outright contradicted by reality, and you repeatedly contradict yourself to try to have it pretend to match reality; all to try and pretend Earth must be flat and rockets can't work in space.
And the vast majority of the time when you try to provide an "explanation" you instead just spout a bunch of vague nonsense which doesn't actually explain anything, or explains a different issue.
Your nonsense with molecular links is an example of that. Rather than try to explain how the right pulls the left side, you just appeal to a smaller version of the same problem, with the right side of your molecular links need to pull the left side.
He's moving because the wheel is consistently pushing against the air which causes friction which causes expansion which causes the atmosphere to push right back to compress...crating the push into a spin.
A fan will do likewise.
Without atmospheric pressure, none of this works.
And more baseless claims from you, complete with it just being vague nonsense with no actual explanation.
Where is your evidence that it relies upon the atmosphere?
If you attached fan blades the person would be spinning even with the wheel vertical, and it could be going either way.
Turning it would then reduce the amount the person rotates as now part of the force would be directed down.
This is the exact opposite of what happens.
Meanwhile, mainstream science can actually explain it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
If it truly was clear, you would be able to explain it extremely easily. So why don't you?
Because you can't actually explain it.
You have no idea at all how you can actually make it work to produce what is seen in reality.
So instead of even attempting to actually explain it in detail, explaining just where the force is coming from and what direction it has, you just appeal to vague nonsense. Then when pushed for an actual explanation, you just dodge.
Now how about you stop with the pathetic dodging and start with the explanation?
Why don't you start with explaining what is actually key to this topic, how objects without a pull?
Again, here is the simple scenario you need to deal with:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
In this situation, the dark grey side is observed to pull the light grey side.
If there was no such thing as pull, then the dark grey side would move with the light grey side left behind.
It doesn't matter how small you want to go, this dividing line will always exist and you will always need to transfer a force from the right side to the left side to make the left side move to the right. That would be a pull.
So you need to explain how this pull is achieved, without it being a pull.
Or to be nicer to you just this once, you need to explain how the left side moves to the right without the right side pulling it.
And remember, appealing to molecular links is pointless, as you would then need to explain how the right side of the molecular link moves the left side to the right, without pulling it.
All links push into each other. Take a look at any links and see for yourself.
-
Fan blades have nothing to do with this as there are no fan blades.
Of course, I know there isn't and it is just scepti just trying to deflect, but I want to see where he goes with this. He mentioned them, so I want to see his reasoning.
Good point.
Do that experiment with a fan and see how much the guy spins (it wont be much)
It will if the fan blades are as dense as the wheel and shaft.
Ha
Nice one!
Youre right.
If the fan wheel has significant mass similar to the bike wheel the person holding will experience the same angular momentum changes.
You worded that so you wouldnt get caught.
But ypu still got caught.
Why not appeal to the blades pushing air?
Because your whole point was the air crushing.
Fan blades would be pushing the air adding a wind velpcoty aspect.
By tilting the fan you lose the velocity by angle.
You worsen the effect that you claim creats the effect.
-
It will if the fan blades are as dense as the wheel and shaft.
Ha
Nice one!
Youre right.
If the fan wheel has significant mass similar to the bike wheel the person holding will experience the same angular momentum changes.
You worded that so you wouldnt get caught.
But ypu still got caught.
I haven't been caught with anything.
Why not appeal to the blades pushing air?
Because your whole point was the air crushing.
Fan blades would be pushing the air adding a wind velpcoty aspect.
Like I said about both the fan and the bike wheel. They both achieve the very same thing only by a different angled method and a different density of object.
By tilting the fan you lose the velocity by angle.
You worsen the effect that you claim creats the effect.
By tilting the bike wheel you do exactly the same thing. The only difference with both is in the fan blade angle and the dense make up of it on the push.
There's nothing magical about a wheel against a fan. They both create a higher pressure push which creates a lower pressure reaction that is filled by pressure equalisation causing wheel to be pushed away unless something stops it, which is the person holding it, which means the person holding it is pushed along with it and spins on a chair or a rotating foundation.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
Yes it is clear, so why don't you explain what putting fan blades would do.
The wheel is acting just like a fan blade. The only difference is in the way it is pushing against the atmosphere and the way the atmosphere pushes back.
There's no "fan blade" effect here:
(https://i.imgur.com/kPmfz78.gif)
If there was a "fan blade" effect, the wheel in its vertical position would fly off horizontally. What's keeping the wheel up in the vertical position?
-
Speaking of angular momentum.....
-
You can all prove this to yourselves.
You mean we can prove the exact opposite.
Again, you are the one who is denial here.
You feel the need to outright deny the reality of pulling, and so much more.
We understand the fundamental difference between having to displace air and having to accelerate mass.
This is easily seen by changing the geometry of the object. You like appealing to a plank of wood, but if you replace that with the same amount of wood, but much more aerodynamic, it has significantly less resistance. That shows a fundamental dependence on geometry to the effect of air.
But now replace the medicine ball with a beach ball of the same volume, and the effect is still vastly different even though the geometry is the same.
This shows there are 2 fundamentally different issues. One is mass, aka inertia; the other is air resistance.
The effect of air on a medicine ball, unless it is in a tube which is basically only just fits in, or has been falling for a very long time, is negligible.
But this discussion is meant to be about surface tension and its fundamental reliance upon pulling, rather than your fantasy of air.
Your problem, as with others is, you have this you against us syndrome, instead of trying to dare to venture outside of your comfortable box.
No, as repeatedly demonstrated by countless people countless times, the problem is your model makes no sense, is outright contradicted by reality, and you repeatedly contradict yourself to try to have it pretend to match reality; all to try and pretend Earth must be flat and rockets can't work in space.
And the vast majority of the time when you try to provide an "explanation" you instead just spout a bunch of vague nonsense which doesn't actually explain anything, or explains a different issue.
Your nonsense with molecular links is an example of that. Rather than try to explain how the right pulls the left side, you just appeal to a smaller version of the same problem, with the right side of your molecular links need to pull the left side.
He's moving because the wheel is consistently pushing against the air which causes friction which causes expansion which causes the atmosphere to push right back to compress...crating the push into a spin.
A fan will do likewise.
Without atmospheric pressure, none of this works.
And more baseless claims from you, complete with it just being vague nonsense with no actual explanation.
Where is your evidence that it relies upon the atmosphere?
If you attached fan blades the person would be spinning even with the wheel vertical, and it could be going either way.
Turning it would then reduce the amount the person rotates as now part of the force would be directed down.
This is the exact opposite of what happens.
Meanwhile, mainstream science can actually explain it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
If it truly was clear, you would be able to explain it extremely easily. So why don't you?
Because you can't actually explain it.
You have no idea at all how you can actually make it work to produce what is seen in reality.
So instead of even attempting to actually explain it in detail, explaining just where the force is coming from and what direction it has, you just appeal to vague nonsense. Then when pushed for an actual explanation, you just dodge.
Now how about you stop with the pathetic dodging and start with the explanation?
Why don't you start with explaining what is actually key to this topic, how objects without a pull?
Again, here is the simple scenario you need to deal with:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
In this situation, the dark grey side is observed to pull the light grey side.
If there was no such thing as pull, then the dark grey side would move with the light grey side left behind.
It doesn't matter how small you want to go, this dividing line will always exist and you will always need to transfer a force from the right side to the left side to make the left side move to the right. That would be a pull.
So you need to explain how this pull is achieved, without it being a pull.
Or to be nicer to you just this once, you need to explain how the left side moves to the right without the right side pulling it.
And remember, appealing to molecular links is pointless, as you would then need to explain how the right side of the molecular link moves the left side to the right, without pulling it.
All links push into each other. Take a look at any links and see for yourself.
The question here is about the single link.
There are the molecules in the dark part of the link and the molecules in the light part of the link.
What are the molecules from the dark part doing to the molecules from the light part?
-
Now how about you stop with the pathetic dodging and start with the explanation?
Why don't you start with explaining what is actually key to this topic, how objects without a pull?
Again, here is the simple scenario you need to deal with:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCW82GY.png)
In this situation, the dark grey side is observed to pull the light grey side.
If there was no such thing as pull, then the dark grey side would move with the light grey side left behind.
It doesn't matter how small you want to go, this dividing line will always exist and you will always need to transfer a force from the right side to the left side to make the left side move to the right. That would be a pull.
So you need to explain how this pull is achieved, without it being a pull.
Or to be nicer to you just this once, you need to explain how the left side moves to the right without the right side pulling it.
And remember, appealing to molecular links is pointless, as you would then need to explain how the right side of the molecular link moves the left side to the right, without pulling it.
All links push into each other. Take a look at any links and see for yourself.
And good job ignoring the problem yet again, rather than actually providing an explanation or admitting you have none.
Again, it isn't a case of how one link moves the next, it is a case of how the force is transferred through the link to make the entire link move.
You need to explain how a push on the right side of the link, to move it to the right, can be transferred to the left side of the link to also move that to the right.
And like I said, it doesn't matter what level you look at it on. There will always be that dividing line. There will be the dark grey region which is pushed, and the light grey region which the dark grey region needs to pull.
The only way for the light grey region to be moved along with the dark grey region is if it is pulled by it.
Without that pull, it falls apart, with the light grey region staying where it is while the dark grey region moves off to the right.
Now care to actually address the issue?
The wheel is acting just like a fan blade. The only difference is in the way it is pushing against the atmosphere and the way the atmosphere pushes back.
And again, no actual explanation, just vague, hand-wavy nonsense.
Why don't you tell us exactly how the wheel is moving the air, causing the air to push back and move the person.
It will if the fan blades are as dense as the wheel and shaft.
If it was based upon moving the air, the density of the blades et al shouldn't matter.
All that would matter is how much air is moved and at what velocity.
Why do you think a lot of toys are made with very lightweight props? To keep the overall weight down. If the nonsense you were spouting was true, they would be made with much more dense props.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
Yes it is clear, so why don't you explain what putting fan blades would do.
The wheel is acting just like a fan blade. The only difference is in the way it is pushing against the atmosphere and the way the atmosphere pushes back.
There's no "fan blade" effect here:
(https://i.imgur.com/kPmfz78.gif)
If there was a "fan blade" effect, the wheel in its vertical position would fly off horizontally. What's keeping the wheel up in the vertical position?
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
-
Speaking of angular momentum.....
Wrong thread. This should be in the fake NASA section.
-
The question here is about the single link.
There are the molecules in the dark part of the link and the molecules in the light part of the link.
What are the molecules from the dark part doing to the molecules from the light part?
I was told not to use molecules, so how can I answer without explaining them?
-
I was told not to use molecules, so how can I answer without explaining them?
No you weren't.
You were told that appealing to molecular links wouldn't help as you still have the same problem, the links themselves need to transfer force from the right to the left.
So it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will have the same problem.
We start with the chain, at the macroscopic level, easily seen, where a force is applied to the right on the right side, and the chain pulls the rest.
But then you want to focus on how the links interact with each link pushing the next, but that just pushes the problem from the chain to the link, where now, in order for the link to remain intact, it needs have the right side of the link pull the left side.
You previously appealed to molecules, wanting to go down to the nanoscale, with each molecular link pushing the next in the chain. But you have just pushed the problem from the macroscopic link to the molecular link, where the right side of the molecule needs to pull the left side, or the molecule falls apart (and it doesn't apply for a chain made of metal rather than molecules, and where there is nothing event remotely resembling a molecular link holding it together).
It doesn't matter what level you want to look at it, you will always need a pull, or it falls apart.
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
-
Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...
Yes. Try the box of rocks.
-
I was told not to use molecules, so how can I answer without explaining them?
No you weren't.
You were told that appealing to molecular links wouldn't help as you still have the same problem, the links themselves need to transfer force from the right to the left.
So it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will have the same problem.
We start with the chain, at the macroscopic level, easily seen, where a force is applied to the right on the right side, and the chain pulls the rest.
But then you want to focus on how the links interact with each link pushing the next, but that just pushes the problem from the chain to the link, where now, in order for the link to remain intact, it needs have the right side of the link pull the left side.
You previously appealed to molecules, wanting to go down to the nanoscale, with each molecular link pushing the next in the chain. But you have just pushed the problem from the macroscopic link to the molecular link, where the right side of the molecule needs to pull the left side, or the molecule falls apart (and it doesn't apply for a chain made of metal rather than molecules, and where there is nothing event remotely resembling a molecular link holding it together).
It doesn't matter what level you want to look at it, you will always need a pull, or it falls apart.
All links push. There is no pull at all.
Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...
I think that's a good idea as you have zero chance of understanding.
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.
-
Guys
I think its time to walk away from this one
...
Yes. Try the box of rocks.
Yes, you try them.
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.
How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push?
-
All links push. There is no pull at all.
Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.
Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.
The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.
Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.
How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push?
By what's pushed into and against it, displacing it.
Just think of water. It's not hard.
-
All links push. There is no pull at all.
Pay particular attention to what's happening and you'll understand.
Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.
The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.
Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.
The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.
-
Here we go sceppy
Thus guy is not throwing a med ball.
What air is he pushing off of?
What would happen if that wheel had fan blades?
Why don't you draw that out with your fan blades, showing the direct the fan blades direct the air. Then think about it.
I don't need to think about it, it's as clear as anything.
Yes it is clear, so why don't you explain what putting fan blades would do.
The wheel is acting just like a fan blade. The only difference is in the way it is pushing against the atmosphere and the way the atmosphere pushes back.
There's no "fan blade" effect here:
(https://i.imgur.com/kPmfz78.gif)
If there was a "fan blade" effect, the wheel in its vertical position would fly off horizontally. What's keeping the wheel up in the vertical position?
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.
-
No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.
The closed wheel disc is the same thing, except it's more dense agitation causing more friction.
It's still cutting through the atmosphere on the rim and still agitating the atmosphere over its entire area and dense displacement of it.
Let's see if I can make this a bit clearer.
Think of a kids' spinning top.
You push the top a few times to get a rotation. The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?
It's own mass is agitating the atmosphere all around it, above it and below it.
This agitation is creating expansion of air on its surface consistently and this expansion of air is pushing against the atmosphere and creating a pressure push.
The atmosphere reacts by squeezing back which creates an all round balance to the spinning top.
The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
-
No, your explanation is wrong. "...expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction..." does not work. The same experiment can be done with a closed wheel/disc. No spokes to 'agitate' anything and you get the same result. You need a better explanation. Yours fails to meet observable reality.
The closed wheel disc is the same thing, except it's more dense agitation causing more friction.
It's still cutting through the atmosphere on the rim and still agitating the atmosphere over its entire area and dense displacement of it.
Let's see if I can make this a bit clearer.
Think of a kids' spinning top.
You push the top a few times to get a rotation. The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?
It's own mass is agitating the atmosphere all around it, above it and below it.
This agitation is creating expansion of air on its surface consistently and this expansion of air is pushing against the atmosphere and creating a pressure push.
The atmosphere reacts by squeezing back which creates an all round balance to the spinning top.
The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.
-
Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.
That's because the spinning top is not in any vacuum. It's in lower pressure and it's still displacing that lower pressure by it's own dense mass.
It means there's less resistance to its mass which means it holds the initial force of spin for much longer in the very same environment which I explained earlier, only with less pressure.
-
Then a spinning top wouldn't stay balanced in a vacuum. But they do. In fact, things spin longer in a vacuum than when not in a vacuum. Your explanation, again, is not supported by observable reality.
That's because the spinning top is not in any vacuum. It's in lower pressure and it's still displacing that lower pressure by it's own dense mass.
It means there's less resistance to its mass which means it holds the initial force of spin for much longer in the very same environment which I explained earlier, only with less pressure.
It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.
And no, you wrote:
The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment. You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.
So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?
-
Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.
The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.
Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.
The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.
And as already pointed out, that just pushes the problem down to the molecular level.
It doesn't answer anything.
How do these molecular links hold themselves together?
How does the right side of an individual link transfer the force to the left side to make the left side move with the right side, rather than just falling apart and having the left side remain where it is while the right side is moved?
The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?
Conservation of angular momentum.
How does your nonsense explain the intermediate axis theorem or the results consistent with it?
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
Really?
So far all you have provided are magic forces.
-
It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.
And no, you wrote:
The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.
There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.
So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?
The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.
-
Why don't you pay particular attention and actually address what is being asked rather than repeatedly insulting us?
Again you focus on how one links moves the next.
That is not what is being asked for.
It has been repeatedly explained that that is not the issue.
The issue is how the link itself is held together; how the link itself transfers force from the right side of the link to the left side.
Again, it doesn't matter how far down you go, you will always have this problem of a dividing line where the force is being applied to move the right side, but the right side needs to transfer a force to the left side to pull it along.
The link is held together by molecular links. Whatever a material is made up of, it's all compression of molecules into each other.
And as already pointed out, that just pushes the problem down to the molecular level.
It doesn't answer anything.
How do these molecular links hold themselves together?
How does the right side of an individual link transfer the force to the left side to make the left side move with the right side, rather than just falling apart and having the left side remain where it is while the right side is moved?
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
I explain it by saying it's made up of linked molecules. How would you explain it?
The spinning top balances on its point on the deck. So what's keeping it balanced when we know it will fall over if not spun?
Conservation of angular momentum.
How does your nonsense explain the intermediate axis theorem or the results consistent with it?
Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
Really?
So far all you have provided are magic forces.
You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.
-
The density of that wheel is pushing it's own dense mass of atmosphere away from it and that atmosphere is now trying to push that down but the rope is stopping that.
Ok, now the man adds force to that wheel by spinning it and all around that wheel rim is agitating the air pushing against it, causing expansion of it, inside the rim and outside, aided by the same expansion of air in between the spokes where they cut through that pressure and agitate it, causing expansion due to that friction.
Adding force to this wheen and placing it upright, it's dipped into the below stack against the above stack and both stack act like sea and air on the wheel, which means a horizontal crush back onto the expansion created by the spinning force, balances that wheel.
If you want a better analogy of what I'm saying....just think of a ship in water as a balance and/or a wall of death rider or a loop the loop rollercoaster.
So the horizontal crush/stack is stronger than the vertical stack/crush?
No. It's all about the force applied vertically that determines the horizontal crush/push.
How does the vertical stack determine horizontal crush/push?
By what's pushed into and against it, displacing it.
Just think of water. It's not hard.
So, the vertical stack applies forces horizontally?
-
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.
As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.
Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.
And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?
You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.
No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.
-
It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.
And no, you wrote:
The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.
There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.
So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?
The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.
Even at a 95% vacuum? Then it would seem the stacks' ability to press down, hold up, or whatever, a dense object is independent of the level of pressure.
-
So, the vertical stack applies forces horizontally?
There is always a natural resistant force between matter/molecules, up, down or all around.
However the main compression back from this, only starts when a dense object is placed/pushed into it all with the major force acting at that point, like you prodding your finger into a sponge in terms of compressive force but also having that sponge envelope your entire finger as your finger compresses, it.
However, if you were to think of it as pushing your body up into a dome full of sponge, you can see in that sponge what your body is compressing. What you are displacing of that sponge by your body shape within it.
You'll also notice (if you think of it) that although the sponge is pushed away from you all around, it is compressed over a large area even though that compression appears to be dissipated throughout the sponge where you can clearly see (imagine) the sponge appears not to be changed in original structure farther afield but you can clearly see the compression directly around you and the lesser compression over a small area until everything appears normal.
So, because your dense mass has displaced that, you need a resistant foundation to actually stop that sponge from compressing you down, bearing in mind that you have compressed the sponge up above your entire body length as well and you still have a lot of that sponge stack above you as the resistance to your push, which is also pushing you down in an action/reaction sequence.
-
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.
As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.
Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.
And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?
You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.
No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.
I've explained. Now have a real think.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?
Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.
Of course we all go by the word "pull" because we see a to and a fro which we simply accept as a push and pull...but let's look at some simple stuff.
Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.
-
It's in a near vacuum way, way, way less than normal atmosphere. We're talking approx 95%+ of a vacuum. Which means our results should be way, way, way different.
And no, you wrote:
The top is sitting nicely in its atmospheric stack in order for it to stay balanced.
Upset this by using another force and you will cause the spinning top to be unbalanced and fall into the stack, aided by pressure above pushing down against the stack resistance, meaning your top is now unbalanced from its original point and is now under another balance of force which is trying to push it out and away from its point but is held by that dense mass of the top and it's point resting on a foundation.
It's all about atmospheric pressure and no magical forces required.
The spinning top in the near vacuum is not sitting nicely on a normal atmospheric stack because there is barely a stack at all in the environment.
You can't have it both ways; where you need the stack to keep it balanced or you need barely a stack, almost no atmosphere, to keep it balanced. Yet the observed behaviors inside and outside the vacuum are the same.
There's always a stacking system whether the pressure is super high or super low.
You can stack gold and you can stack steel or wood or polystyrene. It's still a stacking system just like water or atmosphere....etc.
All you're doing is creating a pressure system in all cases that results from that stack, ranging from heavy to light pressure or super compressed to super expanded.
So you're saying the stack doesn't matter much at all if inside the vacuum it's 95% less of a factor than outside the vacuum?
The stack matters. Nothing works without a stacking system.
Even at a 95% vacuum? Then it would seem the stacks' ability to press down, hold up, or whatever, a dense object is independent of the level of pressure.
Let's use you as an example inside a container.
You walk into that container and you know you've evacuated your own dense mass of atmosphere from it. Right?
Now you are shut in and are enveloped by the pressure inside.
Your feet are pushing into the floor of the container.
This is happening because your body displaces that atmosphere inside and the walls of the container as well as the roof is ensuring that the dense mass of pressure you push away is pushing right back onto you.
Surely you can understand this....right?
Ok, so someone decides to push out atmosphere from that container.
If you could survive it you'd start to feel your body expand because the atmosphere in that container is being allowed to expand out of the opening up to the pump that is pushing the external atmosphere away from trying to equalise that pressure.
You now have less pressure on you but your body compensates by expanding with the rest of the atmospheric molecules inside of that chamber, meaning it is still pushing into that atmosphere inside even though it's less pressure.
the body still displaces it's own mass of that atmosphere only this time the body is losing its own volume of atmosphere already in its make up to try and keep an equilibrium inside the container....but can't without being breached itself by expansion.
Ok so, you say 95% of atmosphere evacuated.
Let's go with it for the sake of it.
Now you can see that your body fills the container, massively against whatever atmosphere is still left in, which the pump by this time would be struggling like hell to hold back that 955 of atmosphere let out to compress into it.
It still leaves that 5% against you which still pushes your dense mass to the floor.
You're not going to float in it because it's just too expanded to allow you to sit in the below stack to resist you.
The realistic thing is (for me) you can never evacuate all of the atmosphere from a container, because the only way atmosphere can leave the container is by it's own expansion which can only be allowed by stopping compressed atmosphere pushing against it, externally, which is why a pump solves that issue.......or, you put something inside the container that is dense enough to evacuate atmosphere, which is you or any object dense enough to overcome external atmospheric push.
-
Yes it does push the problem down to molecular level but how else can I explain it other than to say there's something inside the chain link that's compressing and keeping that link as a solid link in itself.
Again, you are ignoring the issue.
I don't really care if you want to focus on the molecular level or the macroscopic level.
What I care about is explaining how the individual itself is held together, whether that is a macroscopic link, or a molecular link.
What I want to know is how the right side of that link transfers the force to the left side, without pulling.
That is the problem you continually refuse to address.
As for how I explain it, I use a pulling force, which makes it trivial, regardless of what level of detail you go into.
The atoms on the right pull the atoms on left.
The atoms on the right apply a force to the atoms on the left which results in the atoms on the left moving right. That is a pulling force, exactly what your claims disallow.
Object imbalance against atmospheric pressure pushing right back onto the object after the object is pushed into it, creating an imbalance.
And why doesn't that occur with the major or minor axis?
You mean magic forces like the one's you adhere to?
Because the way I see it is...I can explain my forces and you can't explain gravity.
No, I mean your magical air that seems to do everything with no actual explanation at all.
You haven't explained your forces. Instead you repeatedly deflect.
I've explained. Now have a real think.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?
Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.
Of course we all go by the word "pull" because we see a to and a fro which we simply accept as a push and pull...but let's look at some simple stuff.
Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.
Take your spring hold it horizontally, it can be compressed or stretched from it's relaxed position:
1 compress the spring to its max compressed position, then release it. what happens?
2 stretch the spring to it's max length, then release it. what happens?
Explain in your words what happens.
-
Take a spring.
You compress that spring and to do this you need to push on one end and to have a resistance to that push which is something the spring can compress into or against, which can compress back. All push from here, right?
Now you leave loose of the spring and the spring itself decompresses/uncoils by the same compressive force that starts from the very front of that spring, once released for the original compressive push force...and that is channelled all the way to the back as each cooil is pushed outwards, until the foundation/wall/resistance allowing that is no longer a resistant force but the spring is compressed to the ground by it's own dense mass against atmospheric crush/push and to the floor to lay in it's dense state,s till under a push from atmosphere and also compressive forces in each molecular link holding the spring together.
Take that spring.
Push on it with your hand.
Put a hair in between the spring and the push of your hand.
Is that spring pushing on the hair equal to your hand? Or just what the hair "displaces"?
-
I've explained. Now have a real think.
No you haven't. You have repeatedly dodged and I actually have thought about it.
That is the problem.
Your claim does not match reality.
Without a pull the link CANNOT hold itself together.
Again, if you want to claim it can't be a pull you need to explain how the link holds itself together; how the right side of the link transfers force to the left side to move it to the right.
The only way it can do so is via a pulling force.
Again, appealing to smaller links will not help at all, as they have the same problem. You would need to explain how these smaller links transfer the force across them.
The simple fact is you have no explanation at all for how that force is transferred. All you have done is appeal to smaller links which have the exact same problem.
How can there be a pull?
How in the hell can there be a pulling force in reality?
Everything that happens requires compressive force, meaning it absolutely requires a push when you actually look at it much deeper.
That is circular reasoning.
You are claiming that everything needs to be a push, and only justifying it via a claim that everything needs to be a push.
What is your actual basis for claiming everything must be push?
What you want to do is focus on the fundamental forces which actually hold things together.
For what we are discussing, the primary forces are electrostatic interactions between atoms/molecules.
The reason they remain in a particular distance away from one another is due to a combination of attractive (pulling) and repulsive (pushing) forces.
The simplest way to understand is that the charges (i.e. protons and electrons) generate electric fields. These fields then attract opposite charges, pulling them together, and repel opposite charges, pushing them apart.
If there were only pulling forces, everything would collapse to a single point.
If there were only pushing forces, everything would be a gas.
Take a spring.
You compress that spring
You are aware that you can pull the spring as well?
Take a spring, pull the spring to decompress it, then release it and watch it pull itself back to its original shape.
Meanwhile, try it with something with no tensile strength, like a fine powder. Pull it apart and watch that it doesn't pull itself back together.
That is especially relevant to what you are trying to compare it to.
You don't grab one end of the link and push it towards the other end. You are grabbing one end of the link and PULLING it away from the other.
The link is not compressing during this time, nor was it extra compressed before hand.
Instead it is beings stretched, and the tensile (i.e. pulling) forces inside it try to combat that and pull the link along.
-
I wonder if Scepti knows there's such a thing as a push pull amplifier. That could drive him (more) bonkers.