Am I correct?

• 6 Replies
• 1023 Views
?

E E K

• 505
Am I correct?
« on: April 04, 2019, 02:23:57 PM »
For any object in space– omitting gravity, IMPOV

An object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can be pushed or pulled without any resistance - Right?

It is the gravitating mass, due to which a falling mass shows resistance because of its weight against another force. For Example an object on earth

If this is true then shouldn’t the definition or the concept of inertia, which means resistance, needs revising.

No idea if someone agrees with the following but

An object is said to be in a state of a well-balanced condition if its centroid or center of mass (c.o.m) locates itself at its spontaneous strategic position if left on its own accord. An undisturbed mass at rest is always in well-balanced condition.

An aforementioned object is said to be in a state of an unbalanced condition if its c.o.m off its strategic position due to any means. The course of the shifting of the centroid, which is under duress due to an unbalanced condition, not only moves the object forward but also guides the direction of its motion. A disturbed mass is always at unbalanced condition - Motion. Thus

An object is said to be at rest if its c.o.m remain at its original position.

An object is said to be in state of motion if its c.o.m off its original position.

An object may spin about its undisturbed c.o.m in the direction of applied force when only a part of the mass is disturbed.

A mass may spin and move if its c.o.m and a part of the mass are disturbed.

An object may also be found at fully or partially disturbed and undisturbed conditions

Let A and B are two spherical objects of masses M and m at rest such that A > B and therefore M > m. Ca and Cb are the centre of masses of A and B respectively.

Both A and B maintain their state of rest if Ca and Cb maintain their original position – Undisturbed state

Both A and B lose their state of rest if Ca and Cb loss their original position respectively - Disturbed state

Now, assume A is disturbed and moves with velocity V while B is undisturbed. Following is one the possible conditions when A collides with B.

A pushes B in front of it in its original direction of momentum until both gains V1.

Here B never offers any resistance to A rather it takes the momentum from A – total momentum of the system still remains the same.  Let a and b are the jitters/impulses (shock waves) produced within A and B respectively due to their collision. Cb shifts away from its original position when “b” passes through it, which makes B unstable. Similarly, Ca also shifts towards its original position when “a” passes through it, which makes A less unstable than before.

Although both A and B osculate (juxtaposed) each other but exert no further force on each other after when both masses attains V1. Both Ca and Cb off center, therefore, A is under reduced momentum of while B gained a momentum.

A or B spins if the line action of a and b are truncated – not passes through the centroid.

Push or pull is considered a force. Since A pushes B due to its momentum, therefore, momentum is a Force F.

So force which is push or pull depends upon on both moving mass and its final velocity, not acceleration.

For any object in space – considering gravity

As said, it is the gravitating mass, due to which a falling mass shows resistance because of its weight against another force, therefore the heavier the mass the greater will be its gravity and resistance or the greater the mass the greater the force will be required to displace its c.o.m, therefore, a tiny apple can’t change the strategic position of c.o.m of earth.

The c.o.m of falling mass is below it original position while the c.o.m of flying object is above its original position

The collision effect of the aforementioned A and B depends upon the size, shape, density, and velocity, etc therefore both a and b may or may not reach the center of mass of A and B respectively.  The two outer particles of A and B at tacnode, which collide with other, start exerting a force on the neighboring particles, the said neighboring particles pass a or b to the next connected particles closely and so on and this is how shock wave passes through A or B or M and m respectively.

Both a and b depend upon the mass below, above, right, left, back and in front and how their elasticity or interlocking system, etc is.

It is said that all objects fall at the same rate if this is true then why the damaging/penetrating effect of the same mass is different if fall (at the same rate) from different heights on the ground.

This means force is directly proportional to the mass of the falling object and its final velocity (not acceleration)

Therefore Force F = MV but not F = ma or mg where g=GM/d^2 or 9.8 m/s/s.

Similarly, addition or multiplication of two or more things of different types (e.g. goats and trees) has no useful meaning in mathematics unless totaling them, therefore, I don’t understand why mass and velocity (or mg) are in the multiplication form with each other in the formula of momentum. Why not momentum = M+V if the product of MV is allowed. And the same is applied to all similar mathematical equations.

Is 3 (goats) x 5 (trees) = 15 goat-tree possible or meaningful?

Anyway, shouldn’t force be measured relative to the displacement of c.o.m of moving mass as explained above and or indirectly via relative to standard penetration on the ground or any standard surface?

Addendum #1: Neither an apple nor earth shows resistance when they feel the same amount of force pulling each other together. Similarly, if an object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can be pushed or pulled without any resistance then why the greater the mass the greater force required to move it? Shouldn’t the acceleration of an apple and earth be the same when they feel the same amount of force pulling each other together?

Addendum #2: It is said all the laws of physics remain the same in every inertial frame if moving with constant speed. This is true only if the inertial frame is moving in earth’s (or any other celestial’s) atmosphere due to its smooth ride on equipotential lines (same elevation).

No celestial gravity’s atmosphere means no smooth ride on the equipotential lines of gravity and hence all the objects in a spaceship if not attached to each other are considered individual object including spaceship.

Therefore a person (if not fasten) in a spaceship and a spaceship are two different objects in space therefore initially when a spaceship accelerates from rest and then gains constant speed, all objects (if not attached to the spaceship) within the spaceship are still at rest. This means the back of the cockpit moves towards a person who is still at rest while the front of spaceship moves away from the said person.  Finally, a rear cockpit reaches a person and a person is pushed by the rear cockpit in forwarding direction of the spaceship when it catches/hit a person.

So the above statement might not hold true for space due to the lack of celestial gravity.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2019, 09:39:38 PM by E E K »

hoppy

• Flat Earth Believer
• 11667
Re: Am I correct?
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2019, 03:44:54 PM »
Tl;Dr gravit is fake.

rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
Re: Am I correct?
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2019, 05:39:28 PM »
Tl;Dr
I apologise on E E K's behalf for that request for information exceeding your 12 short word attention span.

Quote from: hoppy
gravit is fake.
I quite agree that "gravit is fake" but there is plenty of evidence that gravitation is very real.

markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 40852
Re: Am I correct?
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2019, 11:06:40 AM »
For any object in space– omitting gravity, IMPOV

An object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can be pushed or pulled without any resistance - Right?
Wrong.  You still have to overcome inertia which is the resistance to change in motion of a mass.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

E E K

• 505
Re: Am I correct?
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2019, 07:03:21 PM »
For any object in space– omitting gravity, IMPOV

An object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can be pushed or pulled without any resistance - Right?
Wrong.  You still have to overcome inertia which is the resistance to change in motion of a mass.
if an object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can't be pushed or pulled without any resistance then why the total momentum of the system remains sustained after a collision in the presence of resistance - please explain

as you said if i want to overcome inertia, i have to apply a force but aren't all the particles of mass falling towards their common point of the center of gravity which they make so where is inertia?

don't forget i said omitting gravity

Inertia means resistance or holding grounds - Shouldn't B break into parts before sweeping by A if really offer inertial resistance or holding ground against A
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 07:09:32 PM by E E K »

Bullwinkle

• The Elder Ones
• 19442
• Standard Idiot
Re: Am I correct?
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2019, 07:12:38 PM »

An object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can be pushed or pulled without any resistance - Right?

No.

?

cedarpools

• 6
Re: Am I correct?
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2019, 11:28:08 PM »
For any object in space– omitting gravity, IMPOV

An object of any mass (continuous) irrespective of size can be pushed or pulled without any resistance - Right?

It is the gravitating mass, due to which a falling mass shows resistance because of its weight against another force. For Example an object on earth

If this is true then shouldn’t the definition or the concept of inertia, which means resistance, needs revising.

No idea if someone agrees with the following but

An object is said to be in a state of a well-balanced condition if its centroid or center of mass (c.o.m) locates itself at its spontaneous strategic position if left on its own accord. An undisturbed mass at rest is always in well-balanced condition.

An aforementioned object is said to be in a state of an unbalanced condition if its c.o.m off its strategic position due to any means. The course of the shifting of the centroid, which is under duress due to an unbalanced condition, not only moves the object forward but also guides the direction of its motion. A disturbed mass is always at unbalanced condition - Motion. Thus

An object is said to be at rest if its c.o.m remain at its original position.

An object is said to be in state of motion if its c.o.m off its original position.

An object may spin about its undisturbed c.o.m in the direction of applied force when only a part of the mass is disturbed.

A mass may spin and move if its c.o.m and a part of the mass are disturbed.

An object may also be found at fully or partially disturbed and undisturbed conditions

Let A and B are two spherical objects of masses M and m at rest such that A > B and therefore M > m. Ca and Cb are the centre of masses of A and B respectively.

Both A and B maintain their state of rest if Ca and Cb maintain their original position – Undisturbed state

Both A and B lose their state of rest if Ca and Cb loss their original position respectively - Disturbed state

Now, assume A is disturbed and moves with velocity V while B is undisturbed. Following is one the possible conditions when A collides with B.

A pushes B in front of it in its original direction of momentum until both gains V1.

Here B never offers any resistance to A rather it takes the momentum from A – total momentum of the system still remains the same.  Let a and b are the jitters/impulses (shock waves) produced within A and B respectively due to their collision. Cb shifts away from its original position when “b” passes through it, which makes B unstable. Similarly, Ca also shifts towards its original position when “a” passes through it, which makes A less unstable than before.

Although both A and B osculate (juxtaposed) each other but exert no further force on each other after when both masses attains V1. Both Ca and Cb off center, therefore, A is under reduced momentum of while B gained a momentum.

A or B spins if the line action of a and b are truncated – not passes through the centroid.

Push or pull is considered a force. Since A pushes B due to its momentum, therefore, momentum is a Force F.

So force which is push or pull depends upon on both moving mass and its final velocity, not acceleration.

For any object in space – considering gravity

As said, it is the gravitating mass, due to which a falling mass shows resistance because of its weight against another force, therefore the heavier the mass the greater will be its gravity and resistance or the greater the mass the greater the force will be required to displace its c.o.m, therefore, a tiny apple can’t change the strategic position of c.o.m of earth.

The c.o.m of falling mass is below it original position while the c.o.m of flying object is above its original position

The collision effect of the aforementioned A and B depends upon the size, shape, density, and velocity, etc therefore both a and b may or may not reach the center of mass of A and B respectively.  The two outer particles of A and B at tacnode, which collide with other, start exerting a force on the neighboring particles, the said neighboring particles pass a or b to the next connected particles closely and so on and this is how shock wave passes through A or B or M and m respectively.

Both a and b depend upon the mass below, above, right, left, back and in front and how their elasticity or interlocking system, etc is.

It is said that all objects fall at the same rate if this is true then why the damaging/penetrating effect of the same mass is different if fall (at the same rate) from different heights on the ground.

This means force is directly proportional to the mass of the falling object and its final velocity (not acceleration)

Therefore Force F = MV but not F = ma or mg where g=GM/d^2 or 9.8 m/s/s.

Similarly, addition or multiplication of two or more things of different types (e.g. goats and trees) has no useful meaning in mathematics unless totaling them, therefore, I don’t understand why mass and velocity (or mg) are in the multiplication form with each other in the formula of momentum. Why not momentum = M+V if the product of MV is allowed. And the same is applied to all similar mathematical equations.

Is 3 (goats) x 5 (trees) = 15 goat-tree possible or meaningful?

Anyway, shouldn’t force be measured relative to the displacement of c.o.m of moving mass as explained above and or indirectly via relative to standard penetration on the ground or any standard surface?

Addendum: Neither an apple nor earth shows resistance when they feel the same amount of force pulling each other together.

There is resistance when you push or pull on something.  The resistance an equal and opposite force.  Newtons 3rd law.