Distances in the universe

  • 614 Replies
  • 20479 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #150 on: April 28, 2017, 10:36:18 PM »
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

Yet, the RE have fallen into it.


No RE can account for the fact that boat x moves toward boat y due to TWO FORCES AT WORK:

1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X

But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.

2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS

BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y


YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?

Exactly.

It is coming from the reaction force (action/reaction pair) on BOAT X.

BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y.

THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:

BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,

THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)


Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
A direct consequence of the third law attributed to Newton: TO EVERY ACTION THERE'S ALWAYS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.


If the boat is pulling on a very large ship, this second force IS THE ONE WHICH WILL CAUSE THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD THE SHIP.

The same thing will happen in the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM.

BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.



WE HAVE TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES AT WORK.


Boat x is pulling boat y and of course boat y is also pulling boat x. This is the first, GLOBAL (as in the area encompassed by the two boats/rafts on a lake) pair of forces (action/reaction).

The SECOND PAIR OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES will be localized right on the spot where the two boats/rafts find themselves on that lake.


Now, we can totally account for the clearly seen/observed movement of the two boats.


BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y.

THE MOVEMENT OF BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y IS DUE TO TWO FORCES:

BOAT Y IS PULLING ON BOAT X, AND, AT THE SAME TIME,

THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE IS MOVING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y (will be pulling boat x toward boat y)



This is the reason why Newton dismissed the FAILED/FLAWED/DISASTROUS "LAW" OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

Newton says that YOU, ALL OF THE RE, are incompetent in the faculty of thinking (to put it nicely).

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16482
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #151 on: April 28, 2017, 10:48:51 PM »
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

Of course he did, however that does not make his laws wrong. Not at all.

We can't explain a lot of things in QM but they happen and are repeatable.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #152 on: April 28, 2017, 10:55:47 PM »
But the law of universal attractive gravitation is wrong.

That is why Newton dismissed it as pure garbage.

He not only dismissed it, but thrashed it in no uncertain terms.

How can anybody believe in such a "law" having been described by its alleged founder as follows:

 “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

Newton says that YOU, ALL OF THE RE, are incompetent in the faculty of thinking (to put it nicely).

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16482
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #153 on: April 28, 2017, 11:04:29 PM »
Then why are you attacking Newton?
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #154 on: April 28, 2017, 11:10:37 PM »
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6399
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #155 on: April 28, 2017, 11:35:37 PM »
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

Cats are dumb. You can quote me on that.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 11:57:52 PM by Boots »

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #156 on: April 28, 2017, 11:48:00 PM »
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

Cat's are dumb. You can quote me on that.

Now I'm sad.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #157 on: April 29, 2017, 01:59:44 AM »
Why is it even remotely relevant what Newton thought? Back in his time, they only had a fraction of the knowledge and understanding of now.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #158 on: April 29, 2017, 04:24:01 AM »
The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox is a total demolition of Newtonian mechanics.
Nope. It isn't a paradox. The only thing it demolishes is anyone thinking you understood mechanics.

No RE can account for the fact that boat x moves toward boat y due to TWO FORCES AT WORK:
That is because there is just one force at work, the force which is moving boat x towards boat y.

1. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION TYPE OF FORCE: BOAT X PULLS ON BOAT Y AND BOAT Y PULLS ON BOAT X

But this accounts only partially for the movements of the two boats.
No, that accounts entirely for their movement. The only simplification has been ignoring other forces (like drag from the water) and the string itself.

2. WE HAVE AN ACTION/REACTION ON THE VERY SPOT, THE LOCATION OF THE TWO BOATS
No, we don't. That would only be the case if you want to consider it at an atomic level or include the string.
In that case, there is no force at y pulling x towards it and instead the only location of the force pulling x towards y is at x.
For example, it is the tension in the string, which is held at x, which is applying a force to x and pulling it towards y.

BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y AND AT THE SAME TIME THE BOAT X ANCHORED FORCE WILL BE PULLING BOAT X TOWARD BOAT Y
PROVE IT. STOP JUST BASELESSLY ASSERTING THIS SAME REFUTED BULLSHIT.

YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS MOVEMENT. WHERE IS THE FORCE COMING FROM?
Your imaginary force isn't coming from anywhere because it doesn't exist.

You have to account for the two movements, the two forces acting on boat x (and, of course, on boat y) in these two examples:
No I don't. That is because one of these forces acting on each boat is an imaginary force which doesn't exist in reality. Not an apparent force due to a choice of reference frame like the centrifugal force, a purely imaginary force which does not exist anywhere except in your head with no actual basis in reality.

BOTH PLANETS WILL START TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE TWO BOATS.
Yes, and they do, but because of their sideways motion this results in an orbit around the barycenter.

Remember this?
Yes, I remember your condescending bullshit repetition of very basic science.

When are you planning on moving away from that and start explaining/justifying your actual claims?

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
No. It doesn't.
The moon seated force is just pulling Earth towards it. It isn't moving the moon towards Earth, that would be the equal but opposite reaction force seated on Earth.

YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X, ITS VERY MOVEMENT TOWARD BOAT Y.
And I did. It is the equal and opposite reaction force to boat X pulling boat Y towards it, the force of boat Y pulling boat X towards it.

Like I said, if A pulls B, B pulls A.

It isn't some magic bullshit like you claim where A pulls B with a force of F, and then A magically also moves itself with a force of -F.
That is just delusional nonsense.

Boat y is pulling boat x, and at the same time the boat x anchored force will be moving/pulling boat x toward boat y.

THERE ARE TWO FORCES AT WORK, ON EACH BOAT: 2 + 2 = 4.
You keep repeating this same bullshit, it doesn't magically make it true.
You are still just as wrong now as you were before.

YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FORCES ACTING ONLY ON BOAT X.
No. You need to account for the forces acting on boat x and boat y.

Yes, you do have an action/reaction pair of forces: boat x is pulling boat y, and boat y is pulling on boat x.

BUT THESE FORCES DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOVEMENTS OF THE TWO BOATS TOWARD EACH OTHER.
But they do.
There is a force on boat y. This force is from boat x. This force causes boat y to move towards boat x.
There is a force on boat x. This force is from boat y. This force causes boat x to move towards boat y.
These forces are equal but opposite.

So it does account for it, unless you want a more detailed treatment of the string.

At the very location of boat x, there will be formed an action/reaction pair of forces, TOTALLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE OBSERVED MOVEMENT OF BOAT X.
No, there won't be.
If that was the case then boat X will experience some force F and then experience an equal but opposite reaction force -F, meaning it would experience a net force of 0 and thus not move at all.

The only time there will be a action/reaction pair in the same spot is if you include the string and the action/reaction force occurs at the join of the string with the boat. This is then a force which is pulling boat x towards y, and pulling the string towards boat x.
Then on the other end of the string boat y is being pulled towards the string and the string is being pulled towards boat y.
This means each boat has a single force acting upon it.
The only entity here with 2 forces acting upon it is the string, where it has one force pulling it towards boat y and another pulling it towards boat x, resulting in no net force.
So still, no double forces.

There is the force from x pulling on the rope causing y to move towards it, and the reaction force which results in x moving towards y.

Again, you are describing HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
Again, I'm describing all the forces acting on the boats.
You are making up forces.

I'm getting tired of you repeating the same refuted BS again and again, repeating it several times in a single post.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #159 on: April 29, 2017, 04:31:35 AM »
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:

Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.

sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.

So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.

However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.

So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.

 - Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.

 - rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.

So who is right?

Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.

Not quite.
Rabinoz and myself are both saying basically what you said at the start:
"Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B."

sandokhan (I have no idea what that is meant to be a pun on, perhaps because I don't see where it should be split), is suggesting that as well as that you also have Object A somehow exerting a force on itself which draws it towards Object B, and Object B likewise exerts a force on itself which moves it towards Object A; which makes no sense at all.

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

Still the wrong bit (at least that is what I thought). I thought the important part was:
Quote
so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else
Which would effectively be action at a distance with nothing carrying the force, like pulling an object with a rope, but the rope not being there.

*

rabinoz

  • 23025
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #160 on: April 29, 2017, 04:36:56 AM »
Cats are dumb. You can quote me on that.
Cats are so smart that they pretend to be dumb to get gullible people to wait on them hand and foot.
And you can quote me on that.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #161 on: April 29, 2017, 04:38:34 AM »
I did a search for quotes from Newton (not the best source, agreed)

 "I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madeness of people."

"To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty & leave the rest for others that come after you."
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isaacnewto717931.html

And then I found this in the British newspaper The Independent:

"He was particularly obsessed by the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, and eventually reasoned that the influence of gravity must extend over vast distances. After seeing how apples always fall straight to the ground, he spent several years working on the mathematics showing that the force of gravity decreased as the inverse square of the distance.

But what evidence is there that Newton was really inspired by a falling apple? He left no written account suggesting this, although there were other documents suggesting that he had spoken to others about it when he was an old man.

Historians point to the one particular account written by one of Newton's younger contemporaries, an antiquarian and proto-archaeologist called William Stukeley, who also wrote the first biography of Britain's greatest scientist, entitled Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's Life.

Stukeley was also born in Lincolnshire, and used this connection to befriend the notoriously cantankerous Newton. Stukeley spent some time in conversation with the older man, and the pair met regularly as fellows of the Royal Society, and talked together. On one particular occasion in 1726, Stukeley and Newton spent the evening dining in London.

"After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden & drank thea under the shade of some apple tree; only he & myself," Stukeley wrote in the meticulously handwritten manuscript released by the Royal Society.

"Amid other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly the notion of gravitation came into his mind. Why sh[oul]d that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself; occasion'd by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood.

"Why sh[oul]d it not go sideways, or upwards? But constantly to the Earth's centre? Assuredly the reason is, that the Earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter. And the sum of the drawing power in the matter of the Earth must be in the Earth's centre, not in any side of the Earth."
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #162 on: April 29, 2017, 04:56:14 AM »
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:

Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.

sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.

So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.

However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.

So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.

 - Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.

 - rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.

So who is right?

Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.

Not quite.
Rabinoz and myself are both saying basically what you said at the start:
"Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B."

sandokhan (I have no idea what that is meant to be a pun on, perhaps because I don't see where it should be split), is suggesting that as well as that you also have Object A somehow exerting a force on itself which draws it towards Object B, and Object B likewise exerts a force on itself which moves it towards Object A; which makes no sense at all.

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

Still the wrong bit (at least that is what I thought). I thought the important part was:
Quote
so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else
Which would effectively be action at a distance with nothing carrying the force, like pulling an object with a rope, but the rope not being there.

I may have been slightly mistaken, that was only my interpretation. Sorry for misconstruing your points!

And I like your correction of my highlighting. Makes far more sense!

sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #163 on: April 29, 2017, 05:41:44 AM »
jack, you don't sound convincing at all.

On the contrary.

You can no longer fool anybody here.


Boat x/raft x is pulling boat y.

Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.


Are these things clear to you?


Boat/raft x will move toward raft y, and boat/raft y will move toward boat x.


Do you understand the situation so far?


Then, you have a huge problem.


Boat x will experience TWO FORCES ACTING UPON IT.


1. Boat y is pulling of course on boat x, causing it to thrust forward.

2. But the man is also pulling on the rope, CAUSING BOAT X TO ALSO MOVE FORWARD.


TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.


Both are clearly observable on that lake, as boat x moves toward boat y based on these two forces.


You have an action/reaction pair between the two boats (x and y) AND ALSO AN ACTION/REACTION PAIR AT THE VERY LOCATION OF BOAT X.


You cannot deny this.

Boat x will move toward boat y based on these TWO FORCES AT WORK.


No imaginary force at work.

On the contrary, it is clearly being observed.


Certainly there is a pair of forces action/reaction acting globally on boats x and y.

But additionally, to explain the movement of boat x toward boat y, you do need the second pair of action/reaction forces which act on boat x.

Boat x is pulled by boat y.

But, AT THE SAME TIME, the anchored boax x force (man acting on the rope itself) will be pulling boat x toward boat y.


The only entity here with 2 forces acting upon it is the string, where it has one force pulling it towards boat y and another pulling it towards boat x, resulting in no net force.

No.

There will be a second action/reaction pair of forces acting exactly on boat x, as described above.

That is how boat x will move toward boat y.

Clearly, observable action/movement.

Your description only includes HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.

Please read carefully.

In exactly the same manner, the EARTH-MOON system will behave similarly.

BOTH PLANETS WILL HAVE TO MOVE TOWARD EACH OTHER, JUST LIKE IN THE CASE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE TWO BOATS/RAFTS.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

By properly taking into account the forces ACTING ON THE ORIGINATING BODIES, we can justify the observed movement of boat x toward boat y.

TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.

This is what will totally account for its movement.

Boat y is pulling on boat x, AND AT THE SAME TIME

The boat x anchored force is moving/pulling boat x toward boat y.


You cannot deny what is being actually observed in reality.

Boat x will move toward boat y based on TWO FORCES.

You included only a single pair force (action/reaction).

But on boat x you will have a SECOND PAIR FORCE, AT THE SAME TIME, the anchored boat x force (man acting on the rope itself) will be pulling boat x toward boat y.

It is as simple as this.







« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 05:45:48 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #164 on: April 29, 2017, 07:33:51 AM »
What is this "anchored force"? All the force has to be transmitted by the rope. Do you mean inertia? That doesn't move the boat.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #165 on: April 29, 2017, 02:44:30 PM »
I may have been slightly mistaken, that was only my interpretation. Sorry for misconstruing your points!
That's okay, no need to appologise. I assume it was just a misunderstanding.

sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.
Okay, that makes sense then and explains his picture.
Whenever I hear khan I think of Genghis Khan or Khan Noonien Singh from star trek.

Perhaps this also explains why so much of his writing is pure fiction?

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #166 on: April 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM »
jack, you don't sound convincing at all.

On the contrary.

You can no longer fool anybody here.
And that is just because you don't want to be convinced. Instead you want to find whatever excuses you can to pretend Earth can't be round and gravity can't be real.
But the problem is so far all you have are baseless claims, not even a decent explanation.
While I can actually explain things and properly explain the laws of motion.

I'm not fooling anyone, and I hope you aren't either, even though you are trying hard to do so.

Perhaps the even more pathetic thing is that you are trying to attack a string pulling 2 boats together to try and say gravity isn't real.
But what you are doing is effectively arguing that it is impossible for 2 boats to be pulled together with string because it results in a doubling of forces with no origin.

That is what you are doing.
You are literally arguing that it is physically impossible to bring 2 boats together with string as it results in a doubling of forces.
Do you understand that?
Don't you think that indicates your understanding might be a bit wrong?

I will skip over your condescending crap and repeated past arguments, lets see what we have:
1. Boat y is pulling of course on boat x, causing it to thrust forward.

2. But the man is also pulling on the rope, CAUSING BOAT X TO ALSO MOVE FORWARD.
Right, so this is your issue, your ignorance of how forces work and how you can simplify problems.

This is just 1 force.
Boat y isn't directly pulling on boat x.
Boat y is only pulling on the string.

I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.

That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.

The issue is that you are ignoring the string and pretending that boat y pulls directly on boat x, but then also trying to include the string and have it pull as well.
You can't do it like that.
You either treat it as the string being there, in which case boat y does not pull on boat x, only the string does, and boat y only pulls on the string, or your simplify the string out and just have it as transmitting the force, in which case boat y instead of pulling on the string, pulls directly on boat x with the force the string pulls on boat x with in reality.
In that simplified view you have 2 forces:
1 - boat x pulling on boat y.
2 - boat y pulling back on boat x.

So there is no doubling of forces.
The doubling only results in your dishonest/ignorant attempt to combine the simplified view with view which includes the rope.

Perhaps the simplest way to point out the flaws:
Where is the action/reaction pair between boat x and the rope?
Why does the force from boat x pull boat y, but the force from the string pull boat x?

Like I said, action reaction pairs are always in the form of:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.

So the correct analysis of this situation will be either the simplified form:
X applies F to Y.
Y applies -F to X.
Or the slightly more complicated form (which includes the string):
X applies F to S.
S applies -F to X.
S applies F to Y.
Y applies -S to X.

Notice how in both cases only 1 force is acting on X and only 1 force is acting on Y, and in each case, the force is part of an action/reaction pair?

(It gets far more complicated when you try to include the person as then you need to know their mass and the mass of the raft, and more so when you try to split the string into pieces).


But this is what you have:
X applies F to Y.
S applies -F to X.
Y applies -F to X.
S applies F to Y.
Notice how now only 1 is the action/reaction pair, that between X and Y.
This indicates you have a serious problem with your analysis.
You either need to remove the 2 forces which aren't action/reaction pairs (the ones involving S), or you need to change your existing action/reaction pair such that X interacts with X and Y interacts with S, instead of X and Y interacting with each other.


TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
Both are clearly observable on that lake, as boat x moves toward boat y based on these two forces.
Nope. When considering the string as an entity which is applying force, there is only 1 force acting on x, that of the string pulling the boat.
The only time boat x applies a force to boat y is when you don't consider the string, in which case it is just boat y pulling boat x.
Either way, just a single force.

You have an action/reaction pair between the two boats (x and y) AND ALSO AN ACTION/REACTION PAIR AT THE VERY LOCATION OF BOAT X.
You cannot deny this.
Yes, I can deny this as it is pure garbage.
What are your 2 action reaction pairs?
You have the action/reaction pair between the 2 boats, where boat x pulls boat y and boat y pulls boat x. But then you go and throw in another completely unpaired force where boat x is pulled towards boat y.

Certainly there is a pair of forces action/reaction acting globally on boats x and y.

But additionally, to explain the movement of boat x toward boat y, you do need the second pair of action/reaction forces which act on boat x.
No, you don't.
You either just have that "global" force between boat x and boat y, which then fully explains the movement of both boats, or you go to a local level, where that global force pair doesn't exist, and instead have just the local ones between each boat and the string.
Either way, there is no doubling of forces. Each boat has 1 force act on it.

There will be a second action/reaction pair of forces acting exactly on boat x, as described above.
Except you haven't provided 2 pairs.

Clearly, observable action/movement.
Nope. Not clearly observable. The clearly observable one is the one in which the string is involved. In this case boat x is applying no force to boat y. Instead, boat x is only applying a force to the string.
This is easily observable based upon what is happening, the person pulls the string to make the boats move together.
If you cut the string, the boats don't get pulled together.
So it is the string pulling the boats together, not some magic force between boat x and boat y.

Your description only includes HALF THE FORCES INVOLVED.
Again, my description includes all the forces involved, in either the simplified view or the more complex one.

Your description takes all the forces involved in the simplified view, and then adds in 2 forces from the more complex one.

You cannot deny what is being actually observed in reality.
Yet you repeatedly do, claiming magic forces are at work instead of the observed forces.

It is as simple as this.
Nope. You are completely wrong, it is as simple as that.
Depending on how you view it, there is either a single action/reaction pair between boat x and boat y, or there are 2 action/reaction pairs, one between boat x and the string and one between boat y and the string.
You are trying to combine the 2 views, taking the action/reaction pair between boat x and y from the simple view, and taking half of each reaction pair from the complex view.
It is pure garbage.

If you want to go down this path, then including an explicit treatment of the string, how does boat x pull boat y? What is the origin of this magic force claim exists?

*

rabinoz

  • 23025
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #167 on: April 29, 2017, 07:07:12 PM »
jack, you don't sound convincing at all.
Have you forgotten how to read? The topic is
Distances in the universe.
And I have asked you many times what is
the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
If you haven't a clue, just say so!
Though, I guess that if you can't even read the topic title, you haven't been able to read my request.
Maybe take it to a kid in second grade, he could read it for you!

Here are a few:
When all your silly theories seem to end up with impossible chronology
and the sun and presumably the moon and planets, some 12 miles (or km or cubits or something) above the flat earth.

Yet we know that
         radar return echoes from the moon take about 2.5 seconds and
         radar return echoes from the moon take about 5 minutes (one measurement 295.5065 secs).
You, of course are going to tell me that your super-high-density-magical-aether is slowing light down to about 146.19 miles per hour.

So, sorry if my figures are a bit wrong, but it's impossible to find anything buried in your rubbish bin!

The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?

I'm still waiting for information on your supplying these magnetic monopoles, a free energy machine and also
      the height of the sun, moon, planets and stars above the earth!
      If you have no idea, just admit it.

Oh sorry, but I forgot to repeat my request for the height of the sun,  moon, planets and stars.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #168 on: April 29, 2017, 09:25:21 PM »
jack, the proof is in the pulling.

You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.


Here is what you wrote.


I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.

That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.



WHILE BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y WITH FORCE A (LET US CALL IT A), THE FORCE EXERTED BY THE MAN IN THE SECOND BOAT Y IS NOT A AT ALL, BUT A DIFFERENT FORCE, LET US CALL IT B.

Can't you understand these simple issues?

The two men will pull with DIFFERENT FORCES.


Take a look at the classic example from mechanics.

It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR MISTAKE/ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING.


1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.



if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.


1 - Boat x pulling on string with force A, applied on boat y
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -A
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force B, the man in the second boat is USING A DIFFERENT FORCE, HE HAS A DIFFERENT WEIGHT, DIFFERENT FORCE APPLIED
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force -B.


Now, we have the two pairs of action/reaction forces.

One is global: the one you mentioned.

This takes place between boat x and boat y.


GIVEN THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF THE TWO FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B, CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE ACTION/REACTION FORCES RIGHT ON THAT SPOT, AT THAT LOCATION.

Boat x is pulling boat y with force A.

Therefore, the REACTION FORCE will be the very movement/thrust forward of boat x with that force A, the applied force.


This is exactly what happens in reality, as can be clearly seen and observed.


Boat x is moving forward due to TWO FORCES: boat y is pulling on it, sure, but at the same time, THE MAN IN BOAT X IS APPLYING A FORCE A HIMSELF, WHICH CAUSES THE THRUST FORWARD.


The same thing happens at the other end.

Sure boat y will be pulling boat x with force B.

But, at the same time, that force B will cause boat y to also thrust forward, toward boat x.


Can't you understand these very simple descriptions?



if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.


BOAT X APPLIES FORCE A.

BOAT Y APPLIES FORCE B.


AS SIMPLE AS THIS.


Instead, boat x is only applying a force to the string.
This is easily observable based upon what is happening, the person pulls the string to make the boats move together.


Certainly boat x is applying a force A to the string. No problem.

But just take into account the movement of boat x in the direction of boat y.

DUE TO WHAT FORCES BEING APPLIED?

Certainly boat y is pulling boat x on the string/rope WITH FORCE B.

But at the same time, BOAT X, THE MAN THEREOF, IS APPLYING HIMSELF A FORCE A ON THAT STRING/ROPE.


TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, GIVEN THE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES BEING APPLIED.

if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.


We have the global action/reaction force, boat x does pull on boat y with force A, and boat y does pull on boat x with force B.

No problem.

BUT ALSO BOAT X IS THRUSTING FORWARD DUE TO THE VERY APPLICATION OF THE FORCE A ON THAT ROPE.


This is what is being observed in reality.


You made a terrible mistake BY ASSUMING THAT WE ONLY HAVE ONE FORCE, YOU CALLED IT FORCE X.

A grievious mistake.


We have two forces here, clearly being described in the quote from the classic text on mechanics:

if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.


BOAT X IS APPLYING FORCE A.

BOAT Y IS APPLYING FORCE B.

TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, TWO DIFFERENT PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, ONE GLOBAL, AND ONE LOCAL.


As simple as this.


Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.

Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts we should see both the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."


From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.

As simple as this.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 09:32:08 PM by sandokhan »

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16482
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #169 on: April 29, 2017, 10:03:32 PM »
sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.
Okay, that makes sense then and explains his picture.
Whenever I hear khan I think of Genghis Khan or Khan Noonien Singh from star trek.

Perhaps this also explains why so much of his writing is pure fiction?

He is half man, half tiger, he cannot be tamed.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

rabinoz

  • 23025
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #170 on: April 30, 2017, 12:58:29 AM »
jack, the proof is in the pulling.

You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.
You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is what you wrote.


I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.

That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.



WHILE BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y WITH FORCE A (LET US CALL IT A), THE FORCE EXERTED BY THE MAN IN THE SECOND BOAT Y IS NOT A AT ALL, BUT A DIFFERENT FORCE, LET US CALL IT B.

Can't you understand these simple issues?

The two men will pull with DIFFERENT FORCES.
As simple as this:
If the two men are pulling on the same rope they must be pulling with the SAME FORCE.

I simply fail to see how it could be any other way.

End of story,but apparently you not read my introductory lesson in Newton's third law, so:
In the first diagram, the man pulls on the rope with a force of 500 N, there is a force of 500 N applied (to each end) of the scales and the rope pulls on the wall with a force of 500 N, agreed.
So, how many forces? You count them?
Now in the elephant also plus on the rope with a force the rope,
but with only this informstion can you calculate the force exerted by the elephant?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #171 on: April 30, 2017, 01:32:02 AM »
If the two men are pulling on the same rope they must be pulling with the SAME FORCE.

I simply fail to see how it could be any other way.


Here is the quote from a classic work on mechanics which says YOU ARE WRONG:



It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.



THE STRING/ROPE WILL TRANSMIT TWO SEPARATE FORCES: FORCE A FROM BOAT X AND FORCE B FROM BOAT Y.

BOAT X PULLS WITH FORCE A.

BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B.


No mistake on my part. None whatsoever.


The classic text on mechanics agrees with me.

if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.



Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #172 on: April 30, 2017, 01:49:52 AM »
You have made your biggest mistake so far, showing your total misunderstanding of the situation, and the at the same time, the ease with which you parrot information that you plainly do not understand.
Nope. In each case I analyse it using my brain to show my correct understanding.
On the other hand you just repeat insane, delusional bullshit.

Here is what you wrote.
I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.

That means that the total forces on each of the 3 objects:
Boat x - force of -F.
Boat y - force of F.
String - force of F-0, so no net force so no net motion.

Yep, as that is a correct description of the situation.

WHILE BOAT X IS PULLING ON BOAT Y WITH FORCE A (LET US CALL IT A), THE FORCE EXERTED BY THE MAN IN THE SECOND BOAT Y IS NOT A AT ALL, BUT A DIFFERENT FORCE, LET US CALL IT B.

Can't you understand these simple issues?
I understand your delusional nonsense. I realise it is nonsense.
As you wish to appeal to the string, none of this boat x is pulling on y bullshit.
If you wish to claim Boat X is pulling on Boat Y tell us how? What is carrying this force other than the string?
If it is the string then Boat x isn't pulling on boat y, it is pulling on the string.

The two men will pull with DIFFERENT FORCES.
No. By virtue of the 3rd law of motion they are the same force (unless by different force you meant physically different, like in a different location instead of a different spot).
If it was a different force, then there would be a net force on the rope and the rope would move, which means it isn't solidly in any of their hands.

Take a look at the classic example from mechanics.
I have seen you repeat these again and again. At no point do they justify your claims.

NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR MISTAKE/ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING.
No. I haven't made one so I can't look at it.

If you like, I will take a look at my CORRECT understanding.

1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.

Yep, just like I thought, a completely correct understanding.
No mistake/error there.
Perhaps you can say exactly what you think is in error?

1 - Boat x pulling on string with force A, applied on boat y
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -A
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force B, the man in the second boat is USING A DIFFERENT FORCE, HE HAS A DIFFERENT WEIGHT, DIFFERENT FORCE APPLIED
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force -B.
No. He has a different weight and thus it will result in a different acceleration. The same force is applied.
The force will just cause the heavier (technically more massive) object to move less.

Now, we have the two pairs of action/reaction forces.

One is global: the one you mentioned.

This takes place between boat x and boat y.
No. It doesn't.
That force pair does not exist. Not when you consider the string and the force in the string.
It is only there in the simplified example where you ignore the string and thus it is the only action/reaction pair.

With the string there, there are 2 action/reaction pairs, one connecting the string to boat X and one connecting the string to boat y.
There is no action/reaction pair between boat x and y.

GIVEN THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF THE TWO FORCES APPLIED AT EACH END, A AND B, CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE ACTION/REACTION FORCES RIGHT ON THAT SPOT, AT THAT LOCATION.
You mean given your ignorance of how these forces work which leads you to falsely conclude that they are different.
Unfortunately that is completely wrong.

However yes, you can consider there to be a separate action/reaction pair at each point, but that means no action/reaction pair between the boats.

Boat x is pulling boat y with force A.
No it isn't.
Boat x is pulling the string with force A.
Boat x doesn't pull boat y at all, the string does that.

Therefore, the REACTION FORCE will be the very movement/thrust forward of boat x with that force A, the applied force.
The reaction force will be the string pulling back on boat x with a force -A (or A if you are ignoring the direction), resulting in boat x moving towards the string.

This is exactly what happens in reality, as can be clearly seen and observed.
What can be seen in reality is that the boat is pulling on the string. It isn't pulling on the other boat, the string is doing that.

Boat x is moving forward due to TWO FORCES: boat y is pulling on it, sure, but at the same time, THE MAN IN BOAT X IS APPLYING A FORCE A HIMSELF, WHICH CAUSES THE THRUST FORWARD.
NO!!! Boat x is moving due to a single force, the string pulling on it.
The man pulling on the string is applying a force to the string, the reaction force for that is the string pulling on the boat.

Can't you understand these very simple descriptions?
I understand that they are completely wrong.


But just take into account the movement of boat x in the direction of boat y.

DUE TO WHAT FORCES BEING APPLIED?
The force of the string on boat x.

Certainly boat y is pulling boat x on the string/rope WITH FORCE B.
No it isn't.
Boat y is pulling the string. The string is pulling boat x.

You can't have it both ways. You either consider the string or your don't.

TWO PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, GIVEN THE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES BEING APPLIED.
Yes, one action/reaction pair between the string and boat x, and one between boat y and the string.

A key thing about action/reaction pairs, they link the same object. You can't have an action/reaction pair where A pulls B and C pulls back on A.
It is always akin to A pulls B, B pulls A.

We have the global action/reaction force, boat x does pull on boat y with force A, and boat y does pull on boat x with force B.
NO! We do not. We have the local action/reaction force between each boat and the string.
There is no direct force between boat x and boat y.
Boat x pulls on the string with force A, the string then pulls on boat y with force A. The reaction forces to these is boat y pulling on the string with force -A (which you call B), and the string pulling back on boat x with force -A.


BUT ALSO BOAT X IS THRUSTING FORWARD DUE TO THE VERY APPLICATION OF THE FORCE A ON THAT ROPE.
No. It isn't.
The force applied to the rope would only move the rope, not the boat.
The force moving the boat is the reaction force to that, the string pulling on the boat, the only force acting on the boat.

This is what is being observed in reality.
Again, what is being observed in reality is the string pulling on the boat, not boat x pulling on boat y.
Boat x doesn't touch boat y.
Boat x is just pulling the string, which in turn pulls boat y.

You made a terrible mistake BY ASSUMING THAT WE ONLY HAVE ONE FORCE, YOU CALLED IT FORCE X.
No. I accurately and correctly analysed the situation.
I accurately determined that in this situation there will be 4 forces, 2 acting on the string and one acting on each boat. Each force will be equal in magnitude.
You are the one continually making mistakes.

We have two forces here, clearly being described in the quote from the classic text on mechanics:

if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
No. We have have forces of the same magnitude.
We have different rates of acceleration.
As you may remember, F=ma, or to put it another way, a=F/m.
Thus for the same force, an object with a greater mass will accelerate less.
As it accelerates less, it will be moving more slowly.

So no, that still has the same force.
Force and acceleration are not the same.

BOAT X IS APPLYING FORCE A.

BOAT Y IS APPLYING FORCE B.
And A=-B.

TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, TWO DIFFERENT PAIRS OF ACTION/REACTION FORCES, ONE GLOBAL, AND ONE LOCAL.
And where does the local one act? Boat x or Boat y?
You seem to want to split it and have part act at boat x and part act at boat y.
That should be a dead giveaway that you are completely wrong.

You either have a single global pair acting directly between boat x and y, in a simplified view of the system; or you have 2 local pairs, each acting between the string and a boat.

It is as simple as that.

Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.
Lets deal with your ignorance of the strings before getting to more complicated systems.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #173 on: April 30, 2017, 01:52:41 AM »
Here is the quote from a classic work on mechanics which says YOU ARE WRONG:


This quote doesn't prove us wrong at all.
There is no direct mention of force.
Instead it talks about velocity or speed.
You seem to be under the impression that velocity is directly linked to force.
That is only the case when you have a constant mass.
If you have 2 different masses, such as a small ship and a big ship, then the big ship requires more force to make it accelerate at the same rate and travel at the same speed.

So no, that just further shows your ignorance/mistakes.

The classic text on mechanics agrees with me.
Not in the slightest.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16482
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #174 on: April 30, 2017, 02:19:53 AM »
People do get a little upset when you start saying Newtons laws aren't applicable Sandokhan.

Newtons third law is pretty well established it usually holds true to forces.

As for this

Here is the quote from a classic work on mechanics which says YOU ARE WRONG:



I think you are forgetting Newtons second law F=ma, of course the boat with less mass experiences more acceleration with the same force.

Dew the math.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #175 on: April 30, 2017, 02:28:41 AM »
jack, you are history here.

Everyone can see the unbelievable subterfuges you are using in order to not acknowledge your mistake.


The text on classic mechanics does agree with me.


The very large ship will apply a much larger pulling force to the rope/string, than the much smaller boat.

This is what we are talking about here.


Here is what you wrote.

I already explained this.
There are 4 forces at work when you consider it like this:
1 - Boat x pulling on string with force F.
2 - The string pulling back on boat x with force -F.
3 - Boat y pulling on string with force -F.
4 - The string pulling back on boat y with force F.


You have mistakenly assumed it is the same force.

It is not. Not at all.

Boat x will pull with force A.

Boat y will pull with force B.


Having realized your catastrophic knowledge of basic mechanics, you quickly switched to a new subterfuge:

He has a different weight and thus it will result in a different acceleration. The same force is applied.
The force will just cause the heavier (technically more massive) object to move less.


Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.


Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.


Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.

Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.

This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.


Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.


What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?


Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.

No problem.

BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS EXERTING THE FORCE A, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT X, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.


This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.

Of course, the same thing will happen with the other boat y.


Certainly boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.


BUT ALSO, BOAT Y IS EXERTING THE FORCE B, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT Y, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.


That is why your "analysis" is useless.



As if this wasn't enough, you made an even more disastrous mistake.

Here it is.


NO!!! Boat x is moving due to a single force, the string pulling on it.
The man pulling on the string is applying a force to the string, the reaction force for that is the string pulling on the boat.


That rope/string will transmit two forces.

Exactly the ones described above.

Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.

Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.

Even if you bring accelerations into play, the distribution of forces will NOT CHANGE.


There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.


BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X, FORCE A, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.


BASIC MECHANICS.


BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y, FORCE B, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.


No it isn't.
Boat y is pulling the string. The string is pulling boat x.

You can't have it both ways. You either consider the string or your don't.


You are describing half of the forces.

Certainly boat y is pulling on the rope. With force B.

BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING WITH FORCE A.


There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.


BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT X, FORCE A, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.


BASIC MECHANICS.


BOAT X IS PULLING WITH FORCE A.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE ANCHORED FORCE IN BOAT Y, FORCE B, WILL ALSO COME INTO PLAY RIGHT AT THE SAME TIME.


That rope/string will transmit two forces.

Exactly the ones described above.

Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.

Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.


Boat x pulls on the string with force A, the string then pulls on boat y with force A. The reaction forces to these is boat y pulling on the string with force -A (which you call B), and the string pulling back on boat x with force -A.

See how confused you are?

I am not calling it B, IT IS ACTUALLY FORCE B.

BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B.


YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES AT WORK, THROUGH THE SAME ROPE.


And A=-B.

TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.

BOAT X PULLS WITH FORCE A.

BOAT Y PULLS WITH FORCE B.

CERTAINLY NOT THE SAME.

TWO DIFFERENT FORCES, ONE ROPE.


That rope/string will transmit two forces.

Exactly the ones described above.

Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.

Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.


Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.

Just like in the case with the two boats/rafts we should see both the Earth and the Moon move toward each other.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."


From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #176 on: April 30, 2017, 02:31:24 AM »
Newtons third law is pretty well established it usually holds true to forces.

No problem.

But it has to be applied correctly.

Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.


Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.


Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.

Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.

This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.


Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.


What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?


Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.

No problem.

BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS EXERTING THE FORCE A, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT X, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.


This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.

Of course, the same thing will happen with the other boat y.


Certainly boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.


BUT ALSO, BOAT Y IS EXERTING THE FORCE B, THE ANCHORED FORCE ON BOAT Y, ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING.


*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16482
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #177 on: April 30, 2017, 02:50:35 AM »
Newtons second law though, isn't this what you are describing?

F=ma.

With the same force the smaller boat accelerates faster than the more massive boat.

We can even calculate the difference in acceleration using that simple equation, if we are willing to forget about friction for the sake of simplicity.

Lets try it.

F = m x a

So lets say we know the force and the mass.
 
Boat A 200kg
Boat B 500kg

And lets say we have 1000kg of force

For Boat A

1000kg = 200kg × (5)

For Boat B

1000kg = 500kg × (2)

So Boat B will accelerate at 0.4 or 2/5 the rate of Boat A.

We can see the acceleration of Boat B will always be 0.4 the rate of Boat A regardless of force, I just used simple numbers.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 02:54:55 AM by disputeone »
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #178 on: April 30, 2017, 02:52:07 AM »
Everyone can see the unbelievable subterfuges you are using in order to not acknowledge your mistake.
Do you mean honestly and rationally analysing the situation as there was no mistake?

The text on classic mechanics does agree with me.
No it doesn't.
It states the speeds are different, not the force.

The very large ship will apply a much larger pulling force to the rope/string, than the much smaller boat.
No it wont.
It applies the same force.
As the mass of the large ship is larger, that means it will move at a slower speed.


Here is what you wrote.
I know what I wrote, the correct analysis you are yet to refute.
You have mistakenly assumed it is the same force.

Boat x will pull with force A.

Boat y will pull with force B.
And A=-B.
As such, they are the same.

Having realized your catastrophic knowledge of basic mechanics, you quickly switched to a new subterfuge:
You mean based upon my intelligence and education and being able to understand the point you are trying to make, I understood your mistake and pointed it out.

Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.
Yes, the force from each boat, which will be the same force.

Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.
Yes, and each pair will be between a single boat and the string. There is no force between the 2 boats.

Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
No. Boat x is pulling on the string with force A.

Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No. Boat y is pulling on the string with force B.

This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.
That is not a pair of action/reaction forces.
They are 2 separate action forces with their reaction forces missing.
It is only a complete pair when you ignore the string and make it a direct interaction between boat x and boat y, in which case that is the ONLY pair.

Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.
But if the above was the action/reaction pair, you already had.
Why are you trying to apply the law twice?
If you do it with the string then sure, you need to do it, and you find that as well as X pulling on the string with A, the string pulls back with A.

What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?
The only force acting on the boat is the string pulling it.

Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No. The string is pulling it, it is pulling it with a force A.
How is boat y pulling on boat x?

This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.
But to make that you have used a member of what you have already claimed is a pair.
How does one action force give rise to 2 separate reaction forces?

Of course, the same thing will happen with the other boat y.
Yes, boat y will also only be pulled by the string. It will not be pulled by boat x.

Certainly boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
Nope.
The string is pulling on boat Y with a force B in reaction to it pulling on the string with force B.
Boat x isn't pulling on boat y at all.

That is why your "analysis" is useless.
Nope. My analysis is completely correct and you are yet to point out a flaw with it. Instead you just keep repeating the same refuted BS again and again.

Tell me, HOW IS BOAT X PULLING ON BOAT Y??


As if this wasn't enough, you made an even more disastrous mistake.
You mean I pointed out your disastrous mistake, and you again try and deflect?

NO!!! Boat x is moving due to a single force, the string pulling on it.
The man pulling on the string is applying a force to the string, the reaction force for that is the string pulling on the boat.


That rope/string will transmit two forces.
The rope will exert 2 forces. One on boat x, one on boat y. This force will be equal to the tension in the rope, which is what necessitates that A and B are the same.

Boat x pulls on the string with force A and the string pulls back with force -A. Boat y is also pulling on the string with force B, and that pulls back on boat y with force -B.
Once the rope is tensioned, that tension is due to A and B and will be T=A=-B.

Exactly the ones described above.
Yes, exactly the ones I described above.

Boat x is pulling with force A. Reaction: string pulls on boat x with force A. At the same time, boat y is pulling on boat x with force B, through the same string.
No. Boat y isn't pulling on boat x. Boat y is pulling on the string, which along with A causes the string to be tensioned.
This force you claim is boat y pulling on boat x with a force of B is the string pulling back on boat x with a force of A.
The 2 forces are the same force.

Boat y is pulling with force B. Reaction: string pulls on boat y with force B. At the same time, boat x is pulling on boat y with force A, through the same string.
Again, those 2 are the same forces.
Boat x pulling on boat y through the string is the string pulling back on boat y with force B.

Even if you bring accelerations into play, the distribution of forces will NOT CHANGE.
That is right, which is why you were completely wrong with claiming that mechanics boot supported you.

There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
No. There is a single force, that of the string pulling on boat x with a force of -F (or -A or B).

BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.
No it isn't.
Boat y is pulling the string, not boat x.

BASIC MECHANICS.
No, basics mechanics are the 4 force pairs I described above.
Lets go to a hypothetical where boat x isn't pulling the string at all, instead it is just holding it.
Boat Y now pulls on the string with a force of F.
This causes the string to pull back on boat Y with a force of -F.
This force is carried through the string to boat X.
This results in the string pulling on boat X with a force of F.
This will also result in a reaction force, causing boat X to pull back on the string with force -F.

They are the 4 forces involved. No extra forces come into play.

Doing it your way with A and B, if the 2 were unequal, with say B being larger, then the string is being pulled more towards Y. This would result in boat X losing the string. Or, boat X needs to increase the force it is applying to the string to make it match force B.

You are describing half of the forces.
No. I am describing them all, you are trying to magic some in.

Certainly boat y is pulling on the rope. With force B.

BUT ALSO, BOAT X IS PULLING ON THE SAME ROPE/STRING WITH FORCE A.
Yes, and that force is equal. A=-B. This causes tension in the rope.

There are TWO FORCES ACTING ON BOAT X.
No. there is a single force, that reaction force of it pulling on the string, it is the force -A. That is all.

BOAT Y IS PULLING WITH FORCE B.
NO IT ISN'T.
Boat Y is pulling the string, not boat X

Then, regarding the Earth-Moon we have a huge problem.
Again, before going to the Earth-Moon system you need to understand the string example, which you clearly don't.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #179 on: April 30, 2017, 02:57:49 AM »
Newtons third law is pretty well established it usually holds true to forces.

No problem.

But it has to be applied correctly.
Yes, and that is exactly what you are not doing.
You are applying it completely incorrectly.

It is always applied akin to this:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.

Instead you want this:
A applies F to B.
C applies -F to A.
B applies -F to A.
C applies F to B.

Notice how C doesn't have any force applied to it, yet it is magically applying force?
That is a direct violation of the 3rd law.
The only action/reaction pair here is A applying F to B and B applying -F to A.

This is a correct method:
A applies F to B.
B applies -F to A.
B applies F to C.
C applies -F to B.

Now in each case, you have a reaction pair. First between A and B, and the second between B and C.

Before the boats even move, there will be two forces applied to that rope/string.
Thus, two pairs of action/reaction forces will form instantly.
Yes, one at boat x, between boat x and the string, and one at boat y, between boat y and the string.
And they are the only pairs that will exist in this system.

Boat x is pulling on boat y with force A.
No. Boat x is pulling the string with force A.

Boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
No. Boat y is pulling the string with force B (which is equal to -A).

This is the first pair, forces A and B applied to the same rope.
No. That isn't a pair.


Now, let us apply the third law, action/reaction, to boat x.
If that was a pair the action/reaction law would already be met, and thus not need to be applied.

What are the forces acting on boat x at that very instant?
Just the string pulling back on X with force -A.

Certainly boat y is pulling on boat x with force B.
Nope. Just the string is.
Boat y is just pulling the string.

This is the second pair of action/reaction forces.
But that isn't a pair.
That is taking one member from the above pair and trying to pair it up again.
This gives you 1 force with 2 reaction forces, a direct violation of the 3rd law.