Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 12, 2017, 11:40:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:28:25 PM

Inertia is either friction or it does not exist as a force in any way at all.

That's correct, inertia is not friction nor does it exist as a force.

Inertia is the name given to the resistance of mass to changes in velocity, which leads us to...

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:28:25 PM

If inertia is resistance of a mass to move then the mass must be up against resistance, which means it is under friction that has to have a force to move it.

No. Friction is not the source of the resistance. Inertia is a property of mass itself. That's why a greater mass requires a greater force to produce an equal change in velocity.

The friction associated with an object's situation may add to the resistance, but the resistance due to inertia is separate to that.

It makes no rational sense for very good reason. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense.

What the hell are you talking about? You agreed not a page ago with the concept of inertia. You agreed that a moving object will slow down faster when subjected to stronger outside forces than one that is subjected to weaker ones. That's it. That's one part of the concept with the other of course being objects at rest and it surely is (even for you) axiomatic that objects with a large mass (ie. objects with more inertia) require a stronger force/impulse to get moving than objects with a smaller mass (ie. less inertia). You accept this thus you accept inertia.

Given this, what the hell are you prattling on about? Now it's all bunk/garbage/lies?? You understand this is all measurable/calculable and has been done for centuries, right? Please explain how something that is made up bullshit is concurrently able to make calculable predictions in/about the real world? Don't ask for examples because you've been given countless before.

To preempt you, it's irrelevant if we don't yet know the exact underlying cause of gravity, so please spare us your dross about that.

I'm very, very sorry if agreeing with something in the mainstream has made you feel like a less special person but it's something we all deal with. Rest assured, I'm sure you'll get over it in time.

You people use resistance and friction in every answer and then discard it to leave a mass just acting independently of any force whatsoever.

As others have said, friction has nothing to do with inertia. It's simply given as an example of an outside, unbalanced force acting on objects. Enough with the strawmans.

Your own rational mind should see this as garbage but for some reason it's the same thing.It's a fear of going against the grain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 11:49:20 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 12, 2017, 11:40:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:28:25 PM

Inertia is either friction or it does not exist as a force in any way at all.

That's correct, inertia is not friction nor does it exist as a force.

Inertia is the name given to the resistance of mass to changes in velocity, which leads us to...

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:28:25 PM

If inertia is resistance of a mass to move then the mass must be up against resistance, which means it is under friction that has to have a force to move it.

No. Friction is not the source of the resistance. Inertia is a property of mass itself. That's why a greater mass requires a greater force to produce an equal change in velocity.

The friction associated with an object's situation may add to the resistance, but the resistance due to inertia is separate to that.

It makes no rational sense for very good reason. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense.

What the hell are you talking about? You agreed not a page ago with the concept of inertia. You agreed that a moving object will slow down faster when subjected to stronger outside forces than one that is subjected to weaker ones. That's it. That's one part of the concept with the other of course being objects at rest and it surely is (even for you) axiomatic that objects with a large mass (ie. objects with more inertia) require a stronger force/impulse to get moving than objects with a smaller mass (ie. less inertia). You accept this thus you accept inertia.

Given this, what the hell are you prattling on about? Now it's all bunk/garbage/lies?? You understand this is all measurable/calculable and has been done for centuries, right? Please explain how something that is made up bullshit is concurrently able to make calculable predictions in/about the real world? Don't ask for examples because you've been given countless before.

To preempt you, it's irrelevant if we don't yet know the exact underlying cause of gravity, so please spare us your dross about that.

I'm very, very sorry if agreeing with something in the mainstream has made you feel like a less special person but it's something we all deal with. Rest assured, I'm sure you'll get over it in time.

Quote

You people use resistance and friction in every answer and then discard it to leave a mass just acting independently of any force whatsoever.

As others have said, friction has nothing to do with inertia. It's simply given as an example of an outside, unbalanced force acting on objects. Enough with the strawmans.

Quote

Your own rational mind should see this as garbage but for some reason it's the same thing.It's a fear of going against the grain.

Nice little rant but inertia is not explained in reality and no amount of crying will explain it.
You hint that it's friction which is also resistance and then you say it's nothing to do with it and then go on about objects in motion straying in a constant motion without any energy applied to do this.
It's silly. It's pathetic and it's only like this because it does not have a real life explanation that actually makes it work. It's fantasy. Imaginary.

Inertia is just like your gravity. Nonsense explanations that have no real life results but is adhered to by people who are gullible enough to simply accept the nonsense.

Or you just don't understand.....

Do heavier objects take more effort to speed up and slow for the lighter objects?

The Sceptic man revealed there are no books on denpressure.....it's his invention!
He also said he might write one......

On the one hand we have the wealth of human thought and endeavour that has produced the world in which we live. I would imagine if we had got some of its more basic concepts wrong someone may have noticed. Now an argument from authority is often a rather weak standpoint....but in this case which is very different we have.

One one side the whole world of academia, engineering, physics etc with libraries full of learned books on the subject, years of experimentation etc.

While on the other side we have bookless 'free thinking'  Sceptiman crying in the wilderness with an idea he had on which he might write a book.....and as he said "don't hold your breath"

.......that's ok we won't.

On the strength of probability who do you choose to believe?

Or you just don't understand.....

Do heavier objects take more effort to speed up and slow for the lighter objects?

Heavier objects requires more effort/energy to move, yes. They displace more atmosphere which creates more ground friction, but once moved they immediately slow down once that energy is decreased or ceased. They do not just carry on moving forever until some unbalanced force slows them...they are constantly slowing down due to resistance.

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

The Sceptic man revealed there are no books on denpressure.....it's his invention!
He also said he might write one......

On the one hand we have the wealth of human thought and endeavour that has produced the world in which we live. I would imagine if we had got some of its more basic concepts wrong someone may have noticed. Now an argument from authority is often a rather weak standpoint....but in this case which is very different we have.

One one side the whole world of academia, engineering, physics etc with libraries full of learned books on the subject, years of experimentation etc.

While on the other side we have bookless 'free thinking'  Sceptiman crying in the wilderness with an idea he had on which he might write a book.....and as he said "don't hold your breath"

.......that's ok we won't.

On the strength of probability who do you choose to believe?

I'm not in the least bit interested in what you choose. You choose whatever makes you happy.
My argument isn't with you or your thoughts. You are indoctrinated to all hell like we all are and were.
Your life is built upon what you were schooled into as was mine.
If you choose to tread the straight road until you wither and die then good luck.
I choose to take detours and explore.

It's amazing what you find when you do this.

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

You hint that it's friction which is also resistance and then you say it's nothing to do with it

Um, what? I clearly stated friction has nothing to do with inertia, merely that friction is an example of an outside, unbalanced force. Nothing more.

and then go on about objects in motion straying in a constant motion without any energy applied to do this.

Yes, this is axiomatic. Remember how you agreed with how an object put in motion closer to the ground will slow down more quickly than the one high above it? Yea, that's inertia. You agreed with it. It took a while and a lot of tap dancing, but you eventually agreed with it.

It's silly. It's pathetic and it's only like this because it does not have a real life explanation that actually makes it work. It's fantasy. Imaginary.
Inertia is just like your gravity. Nonsense explanations that have no real life results but is adhered to by people who are gullible enough to simply accept the nonsense.

Nice little rant.

Heavier objects requires more effort/energy to move, yes.

Great, that's what we call inertia! We agree again!

They do not just carry on moving forever until some unbalanced force slows them

This makes no sense. You agreed that an object set in motion with minimal outside resistance will continue moving longer than one that is subjected to more resistance, did you not? If so, why is it impossible for you to deal with the idea that, the closer and closer we get to 'zero' outside resistance (and I know how much you hate absolutes, but whatever) , the longer and longer the object will continue moving? Picture an asymptote on a graph. Is it not a logical conclusion that, absent less and less external force, an object will continue moving for longer and longer?

As markjo stated, we may not be able be able to reach zero in the real world, but in a mathematical model we can.

they are constantly slowing down due to resistance.

Again, to ram the point home, if the measured resistance starts getting closer and closer to zero, what will happen to the object?

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

Yep, ditto. This is why I asked you about the golf ball and why it continues moving after leaving contact with the club. If you agree it should continue moving then again you agree with inertia.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

That's the issue. A force is ALWAYS acting on it and this is where you refuse to understand that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:15:13 AM

You hint that it's friction which is also resistance and then you say it's nothing to do with it

Um, what? I clearly stated friction has nothing to do with inertia, merely that friction is an example of an outside, unbalanced force. Nothing more.

Quote

and then go on about objects in motion straying in a constant motion without any energy applied to do this.

Yes, this is axiomatic. Remember how you agreed with how an object put in motion closer to the ground will slow down more quickly than the one high above it? Yea, that's inertia. You agreed with it. It took a while and a lot of tap dancing, but you eventually agreed with it.

Quote

It's silly. It's pathetic and it's only like this because it does not have a real life explanation that actually makes it work. It's fantasy. Imaginary.
Inertia is just like your gravity. Nonsense explanations that have no real life results but is adhered to by people who are gullible enough to simply accept the nonsense.

Nice little rant.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Heavier objects requires more effort/energy to move, yes.

Great, that's what we call inertia! We agree again!

Quote

They do not just carry on moving forever until some unbalanced force slows them

This makes no sense. You agreed that an object set in motion with minimal outside resistance will continue moving longer than one that is subjected to more resistance, did you not? If so, why is it impossible for you to deal with the idea that, the closer and closer we get to 'zero' outside resistance (and I know how much you hate absolutes, but whatever) , the longer and longer the object will continue moving? Picture an asymptote on a graph. Is it not a logical conclusion that, absent less and less external force, an object will continue moving for longer and longer?

As markjo stated, we may not be able be able to reach zero in the real world, but in a mathematical model we can.

Quote

they are constantly slowing down due to resistance.

Again, to ram the point home, if the measured resistance starts getting closer and closer to zero, what will happen to the object?

Quote

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

Yep, ditto. This is why I asked you about the golf ball and why it continues moving after leaving contact with the club. If you agree it should continue moving then again you agree with inertia.

How about you tell me what inertia is.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2017, 06:35:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2017, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 10:06:52 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 07:01:34 PM

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you

I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'

Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.

I've explained plenty and I only see you telling me I haven't explained anything.
Your game playing will get you nowhere.
Be serious and you might get somewhere.

I am being serious.  I have asked you serious questions regarding your theory.  Question I have yet to see an answer to that I can make sense out of.
It seems your theory depends on stacking.  Without something else like that, simple pressure doesn't work to hold things down.  Pressure applies equally from all sides.
So stacking seems to be the part of the puzzle I am missing.  How does that work in relation to your theory?

Of course it depends on stacking. This is why I know you're not paying attention.

So please explain stacking.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 12, 2017, 11:08:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:20:22 PM

...the more dense that object is, the more atmosphere it displaces in it's own right, which requires more energy to move the object or change it's motion.

No, volume causes displacement, not mass.

When you measure water displacement, you are measuring volume not mass.

No you're not. It atmospheric pressure upon mass.
Denpressure speaks for itself.

No, apparently everyone else thinks it's volume as well.  Since you seem to be the only one who thinks it's mass you are going to have to explain why.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 13, 2017, 03:03:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

That's the issue. A force is ALWAYS acting on it and this is where you refuse to understand that.

Yes in a real world ecample. However, theoretical example require the stripping out of different forces to isolate individual forces so their effect can be understood. It is not a hard concept to grasp making something theoretical by assuming zero friction.

Either way, friction or not, objects still will not change velocity unless acted upon by a force and the force required for a specific change is inversely proportional to the mass of the object in question. This is inertia. Massive objects need more force than small objects.

Of course in the real world friction etc are always in play but all that is required is to understand that friction is a force being applied and that it is causing a change in velocity.

Here is a thought experiment:

Imagine a smooth disc on a flat surface. Push it with a given force and it will stop after a certain distance. Now polish the disc and the surface smoother. Push it again and it will get further. Repeat etc. The more the surface is polished the further the disc moves as the force of friction is reduced. Imagine a situation where the surface has been polished perfectly smoothly such that friction is negligible. The disc will now move an infinite distance as it will have no force of friction acting upon it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 04:16:56 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 13, 2017, 03:03:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

That's the issue. A force is ALWAYS acting on it and this is where you refuse to understand that.

Yes in a real world ecample. However, theoretical example require the stripping out of different forces to isolate individual forces so their effect can be understood. It is not a hard concept to grasp making something theoretical by assuming zero friction.

Either way, friction or not, objects still will not change velocity unless acted upon by a force and the force required for a specific change is inversely proportional to the mass of the object in question. This is inertia. Massive objects need more force than small objects.

Of course in the real world friction etc are always in play but all that is required is to understand that friction is a force being applied and that it is causing a change in velocity.

Here is a thought experiment:

Imagine a smooth disc on a flat surface. Push it with a given force and it will stop after a certain distance. Now polish the disc and the surface smoother. Push it again and it will get further. Repeat etc. The more the surface is polished the further the disc moves as the force of friction is reduced. Imagine a situation where the surface has been polished perfectly smoothly such that friction is negligible. The disc will now move an infinite distance as it will have no force of friction acting upon it.

Like I've said time and time and time again. There is ALWAYS friction acting upon it and polishing the floor won't make that friction disappear....ever, nor will it ever stop atmospheric friction/resistance upon it.

So tell me what inertia is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2017, 06:35:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2017, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 10:06:52 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 07:01:34 PM

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you

I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'

Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.

I've explained plenty and I only see you telling me I haven't explained anything.
Your game playing will get you nowhere.
Be serious and you might get somewhere.

I am being serious.  I have asked you serious questions regarding your theory.  Question I have yet to see an answer to that I can make sense out of.
It seems your theory depends on stacking.  Without something else like that, simple pressure doesn't work to hold things down.  Pressure applies equally from all sides.
So stacking seems to be the part of the puzzle I am missing.  How does that work in relation to your theory?

Of course it depends on stacking. This is why I know you're not paying attention.

So please explain stacking.

No. Look into it as I've explained it many times.
You're not taking the piss out of me. Bin for you, so don't waste time typing back.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2017, 01:30:58 PM

I'm not really sure why you're so hung up on that.  So what if you can never physically remove every force acting on an object?  If all of the forces acting on an object are perfectly balanced, then they cancel each other out and it's as if there are no forces at all.

Even if you can't have an object free of all forces in the real world, you can have one in a mathematical model.

You can have anything in a made up mathematical model. Look at the space nonsense.
The point I'm making is exactly that. It's a name attached to a thought process that has no bearing on reality when broken down to it's true meaning.

I hate to break it to you, but no scientific model (including yours) is reality.  Scientific models are meant to describe reality.

Think of a scientific model as a painting.  First you start with a blank canvas, then you draw a rough sketch on the canvas.  You start filling in the sketch with layers of color and next thing you know, you have a fairly decent representation of reality.

Same with Newton's laws.  Start with inertia in a completely blank environment as described by the first law.  Add various external forces like acceleration and drag as described by the second law and top it off with the action/reaction relationship as described by the third.  You don't get reality, but you do get a model that does a fairly decent job of describing reality.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2017, 01:30:58 PM

A force is required to change the movement of an object.  Why is that so unbelievable?

There's nothing wrong with that but that is not quite inertia in it's true form, as it is portrayed overall.

Ummm...  It isn't supposed to.  The second law describes the relationship between forces, mass and acceleration.  Inertia isn't mentioned anywhere.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2017, 01:30:58 PM

Sorry, but Newton's third law says nothing about displacement.  You're also invoking Newton's second law there (force, mass and acceleration).

Newtons law is not a law at all when pertaining to inertia and gravity.
They do not exist.
What does exist is the displacement of atmospheric pressure by a mass and is what Newton's law would make sense with.

Unfortunately, your notions on displacement directly conflicts with Archimedes studies on displacement.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2017, 01:30:58 PM

Oh?  You really think so?  Then you shouldn't have any problem providing the relevant formulas describing the precise relationships between atmospheric pressure, density, volume and weight.  How about a formula that tells us how much force is required to accelerate a 1 kg object from rest to 10 m/?

It can be messed around with but there's no point in it. You can make it yourself and so can anyone else.
You know what's involved.

It's your job to develop your formulas, not mine.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 13, 2017, 05:15:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:18:32 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2017, 06:35:27 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2017, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 12, 2017, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 11, 2017, 10:06:52 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 11, 2017, 07:01:34 PM

And I've asked you to explain your own theory of atmospheric pressure and stacking causes weight.  It's your theory, you should be able to explain it.
Back to you

I've more than explained it. I can't do much more with someone who will not grasp it or refuses to grasp any snippet of it. It's like pissing against the wind.

You keep dodging my question to you about you knowing gravity as a downward force.
Explain it and how it's so clear to you then we might be able to move forward.
It seems you're refusing to answer because you have no clue how to answer. It appears that you're following the normal trend of people who simply use mass opinion as a bargaining tool.

Allow your mind to absorb what's been said and see if you can take something from it. If you can't or steadfastly refuse to, then seriously just say and deck out because it will only lead to me overlooking your posts soon enough if you keep playing the tit for tat, 'no you carry on.'

Interesting, I was sort of thinking the same thing.  You claim to have a new theory, if you could explain it in an understandable manner, we could actually move forward.  But you keep dodging that question.
I don't refuse to grasp anything, I may be too dense to, but I don't refuse to.  I'm asking you honest questions about your theory.  Your insistence on me explaining gravity to you is simply a dodge.  I have seen others explain it to you here several times.  So your question to me is irrelevant to the discussion.
My questions to you are specifically about your theory.  You have failed to explain it in a way that others can u derstand it.  And that's all I'm trying to do, understand your theory.  If you have a paper, or blog somewhere that explains I would be happy to read it.  I can refer you to many concerning gravity if you like.

I've explained plenty and I only see you telling me I haven't explained anything.
Your game playing will get you nowhere.
Be serious and you might get somewhere.

I am being serious.  I have asked you serious questions regarding your theory.  Question I have yet to see an answer to that I can make sense out of.
It seems your theory depends on stacking.  Without something else like that, simple pressure doesn't work to hold things down.  Pressure applies equally from all sides.
So stacking seems to be the part of the puzzle I am missing.  How does that work in relation to your theory?

Of course it depends on stacking. This is why I know you're not paying attention.

So please explain stacking.

No. Look into it as I've explained it many times.
You're not taking the piss out of me. Bin for you, so don't waste time typing back.

Sometimes be should take this post, change it slightly, and post it to answer his "what is inertia?" question he asked for the millionth time.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 13, 2017, 03:03:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

That's the issue. A force is ALWAYS acting on it and this is where you refuse to understand that.

You keep saying that as if friction negates inertia.  It doesn't.  Inertia is always a property of every object with mass.  Inertia is why you need a push to accelerate an object and friction to slow it down.

Same with Newton's laws.  Start with inertia in a completely blank environment as described by the first law.  Add various external forces like acceleration and drag as described by the second law and top it off with the action/reaction relationship as described by the third.  You don't get reality, but you do get a model that does a fairly decent job of describing reality.

Unfortunately, your notions on displacement directly conflicts with Archimedes studies on displacement.

How?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 04:16:56 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 13, 2017, 03:03:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

That's the issue. A force is ALWAYS acting on it and this is where you refuse to understand that.

You keep saying that as if friction negates inertia.  It doesn't.  Inertia is always a property of every object with mass.  Inertia is why you need a push to accelerate an object and friction to slow it down.

What do you mean by saying inertia is WHY you need a push to accelerate and object or friction to slow it down?


Just answer this question as well.
Tell me how something stays in motion forever? ...Just tell me how it's possible for it to happen.

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2017, 06:59:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 04:16:56 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 13, 2017, 03:03:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 02:33:51 AM

Now the massive issue is that you people use the nonsense of something that cannot happen by saying an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed UNLESS it is changed by an unbalanced force.
The implication is that the object will carry on forever.

That's correct. If no unbalanced force acts on it, what would stop it?

That's the issue. A force is ALWAYS acting on it and this is where you refuse to understand that.

You keep saying that as if friction negates inertia.  It doesn't.  Inertia is always a property of every object with mass.  Inertia is why you need a push to accelerate an object and friction to slow it down.

What do you mean by saying inertia is WHY you need a push to accelerate and object or friction to slow it down?


Just answer this question as well.
Tell me how something stays in motion forever? ...Just tell me how it's possible for it to happen.

If an object had no forces acting on it then its velocity would never change and this could stay in motion forever. Yes, in reality there are always forces acting but by understanding each force in isolation and a theoretical position in which no forces act allows us to understand how an object behaves.

Inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass and describes how much effort or force is required to change its velocity. Think of it as a similar property to momentum.

If an object had no forces acting on it then its velocity would never change and this could stay in motion forever. Yes, in reality there are always forces acting but by understanding each force in isolation and a theoretical position in which no forces act allows us to understand how an object behaves.

How in the hell can something that cannot be explained as a reality , allow you to understand how an object behaves?

Inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass and describes how much effort or force is required to change its velocity. Think of it as a similar property to momentum.

what do you mean when you say inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass?
How does inertia describe how much effort or force is required to change an objects velocity?

You see, if you said inertia was a friction force I could go along with it but to do this you have to disregard the object in motion staying in motion UNLESS scenario, because it won't work and is silly in its meaning, because it literally does not and can not represent real life.

To have a frictionless environment in your imaginary terms, you also must have a frictionless force against a so called object, meaning nothing happens.
We know this cannot be the case because we know that existence requires vibration and vibration is friction and friction is resistance which has to be equal in force of action to reaction.


Inertia describes nothing in reality but it's a clever dupe for the pretence of it. That's basically it.
 

How in the hell can something that cannot be explained as a reality , allow you to understand how an object behaves?

This is going to blow your mind but did you know imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one are immensely useful in mathematics?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 13, 2017, 07:09:27 AM

Inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass and describes how much effort or force is required to change its velocity. Think of it as a similar property to momentum.

what do you mean when you say inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass?
How does inertia describe how much effort or force is required to change an objects velocity?

You see, if you said inertia was a friction force I could go along with it but to do this you have to disregard the object in motion staying in motion UNLESS scenario, because it won't work and is silly in its meaning, because it literally does not and can not represent real life.

To have a frictionless environment in your imaginary terms, you also must have a frictionless force against a so called object, meaning nothing happens.
We know this cannot be the case because we know that existence requires vibration and vibration is friction and friction is resistance which has to be equal in force of action to reaction.


Inertia describes nothing in reality but it's a clever dupe for the pretence of it. That's basically it.

Inertia is neither a force nor is it a clever dupe. Why do you keep insisting it is either one or the other?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 13, 2017, 07:09:27 AM

If an object had no forces acting on it then its velocity would never change and this could stay in motion forever. Yes, in reality there are always forces acting but by understanding each force in isolation and a theoretical position in which no forces act allows us to understand how an object behaves.

How in the hell can something that cannot be explained as a reality , allow you to understand how an object behaves?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 13, 2017, 07:09:27 AM

Inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass and describes how much effort or force is required to change its velocity. Think of it as a similar property to momentum.

what do you mean when you say inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass?
How does inertia describe how much effort or force is required to change an objects velocity?

You see, if you said inertia was a friction force I could go along with it but to do this you have to disregard the object in motion staying in motion UNLESS scenario, because it won't work and is silly in its meaning, because it literally does not and can not represent real life.

To have a frictionless environment in your imaginary terms, you also must have a frictionless force against a so called object, meaning nothing happens.
We know this cannot be the case because we know that existence requires vibration and vibration is friction and friction is resistance which has to be equal in force of action to reaction.


Inertia describes nothing in reality but it's a clever dupe for the pretence of it. That's basically it.

Why can you not look this up and comment on explanations from those better qualified than here?

You have had your ideas for years, what do you want 'us' to say about them??

This is going to blow your mind but did you know imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one are immensely useful in mathematics?

Can you tell me in simple terms how it's immensely useful in everyday life?

Inertia is neither a force nor is it a clever dupe. Why do you keep insisting it is either one or the other?

If it's not a force or a clever dupe then what is inertia?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2017, 07:31:42 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 13, 2017, 07:09:27 AM

If an object had no forces acting on it then its velocity would never change and this could stay in motion forever. Yes, in reality there are always forces acting but by understanding each force in isolation and a theoretical position in which no forces act allows us to understand how an object behaves.

How in the hell can something that cannot be explained as a reality , allow you to understand how an object behaves?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 13, 2017, 07:09:27 AM

Inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass and describes how much effort or force is required to change its velocity. Think of it as a similar property to momentum.

what do you mean when you say inertia is simply a property of an object related to mass?
How does inertia describe how much effort or force is required to change an objects velocity?

You see, if you said inertia was a friction force I could go along with it but to do this you have to disregard the object in motion staying in motion UNLESS scenario, because it won't work and is silly in its meaning, because it literally does not and can not represent real life.

To have a frictionless environment in your imaginary terms, you also must have a frictionless force against a so called object, meaning nothing happens.
We know this cannot be the case because we know that existence requires vibration and vibration is friction and friction is resistance which has to be equal in force of action to reaction.


Inertia describes nothing in reality but it's a clever dupe for the pretence of it. That's basically it.

Why can you not look this up and comment on explanations from those better qualified than here?

You have had your ideas for years, what do you want 'us' to say about them??

Nothing, so do yourself a favour and don't say anything.

I'll leave it up to those that feel they can and will and those that want to observe and THINK.

Quote from: Boots on January 13, 2017, 07:55:19 AM

This is going to blow your mind but did you know imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one are immensely useful in mathematics?

Can you tell me in simple terms how it's immensely useful in everyday life?

Quote from: Boots on January 13, 2017, 07:55:19 AM

Inertia is neither a force nor is it a clever dupe. Why do you keep insisting it is either one or the other?

If it's not a force or a clever dupe then what is inertia?

He did not say it was.

Quote from: Boots on January 13, 2017, 07:55:19 AM

This is going to blow your mind but did you know imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one are immensely useful in mathematics?

Can you tell me in simple terms how it's immensely useful in everyday life?

I did not say it was immensely useful in everyday life. That would depend on your profession.
I highly doubt that it is immensely useful in your everyday life or that of a cod fisherman, for example. However, complex numbers have many real world applications, including manipulating sound waves and calculating electrical currents.

Quote from: Boots on January 13, 2017, 07:55:19 AM

Inertia is neither a force nor is it a clever dupe. Why do you keep insisting it is either one or the other?

If it's not a force or a clever dupe then what is inertia?

Inertia is a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

I did not say it was immensely useful in everyday life. That would depend on your profession.
I highly doubt that it is immensely useful in your everyday life or that of a cod fisherman, for example. However, complex numbers have many real world applications, including manipulating sound waves and calculating electrical currents.

Ok, my mistake.

This is what you said.
This is going to blow your mind but did you know imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one are immensely useful in mathematics?

So can you tell me how imaginary numbers are useful. Just give me a simple example that makes sense.

Inertia is a propertyof matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

Each state has properties. ... A property describes how an object looks, feels, or acts.

The issue is, your inertia has no real life description like this.

The absolute reality of an object is that it's never at rest and is always acted upon by atmospheric pressure.
It is never in uniform motion without uniform energy applied to that object, so it cannot ever carry on in any state without an external force, at any time.

So what is inertia?

Quote from: Boots on January 13, 2017, 08:17:57 AM

I did not say it was immensely useful in everyday life. That would depend on your profession.
I highly doubt that it is immensely useful in your everyday life or that of a cod fisherman, for example. However, complex numbers have many real world applications, including manipulating sound waves and calculating electrical currents.

Ok, my mistake.

This is what you said.
This is going to blow your mind but did you know imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one are immensely useful in mathematics?

So can you tell me how imaginary numbers are useful. Just give me a simple example that makes sense.

I am not going to calculate a problem for you, at least not now. Below are some applications where imaginary numbers are used:


An electromagnetic field, requires imaginary numbers to measure because the strength of the field is determined by both electrical and magnetic components that must be combined into a single complex imaginary number to get an accurate measurement.

Imaginary numbers are further used when measuring phenomena that occur in nature such as the disruption created when water flows around an object. Imaginary numbers are quite useful in many situations where more than one force is acting simultaneously, and the combined output of these forces needs to be measured. These forces can be measured using conventional means, but combining the forces using imaginary numbers makes getting an accurate measurement much easier.

Quote from: Boots on January 13, 2017, 08:17:57 AM

Inertia is a propertyof matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

Each state has properties. ... A property describes how an object looks, feels, or acts.

The issue is, your inertia has no real life description like this.

The absolute reality of an object is that it's never at rest and is always acted upon by atmospheric pressure.
It is never in uniform motion without uniform energy applied to that object, so it cannot ever carry on in any state without an external force, at any time.

So what is inertia?

Inertia is just what I said it was. The fact that an object cannot ever carry on in any state without an external force does not falsify the definition of inertia, nor does it render it useless. Working from the "laws" of inertia, we can calculate the strength of the forces on the object, both static and dynamic, to determine how an object will behave in many situations. This method has been successfully used many times over, which is why it is viewed as both useful and reliable.