Surface tension explains how oceans can curve doesn't it?

One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test  the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...

I think people are getting a bit bogged down here.....

Forces are vector quantities, they have magnitudes and (importantly) directions. "Push" and "Pull" are surely just defining the direction of an applied force from the perspective of the person applying said force.

Take 2 people either side of a "regular" door.  One person will have to "push" to open it, the other will have to "pull". It's just grammatical convention. The door doesn't care what word you use, it just "feels" a force acting in one direction.

Take 2 people facing each other in a tug-of-war with a rope. They would both say they are "pulling" on the rope. If they both turned around (backs to each other) they might say they are both "pushing" the rope away. Either the way the rope experiences a stretching force and is placed under tension. As an aside, if they both  "pulled" a 100N force onto the rope, they would both have to "push" 100N of force into the ground to stay still, and a spring balance placed into the middle of the rope would read........100N! (not 200N as sandokhan thinks - something he could easily prove to himself by experiment, yet chooses not to!).

Check your wording.
If theyre both pulling then 100+100 =200

Quote from: Amoranemix 64

Quote from: sceptimatic 61

What evidence would you like?
What would pacify you?

[2] I would like intelligible, convincing evidence for the three claims I challenged.
[3] Nothing would suffice, as I am already peaceful.

[no response]

Quote from: Amoranemix 64

Sorry, but I don't understand the demonstration you are asking about.
By the way, it is not my duty to make you evaluate the globe again. Hence, if what you ask is much work, I won't be inclined to do it, even if that comes at the cost of you believing the earth is flat.

Then our conversation is over.

Quote from: Timeisup

Quote from: sceptimatic 70

Then our conversation is over.

It's a difficult position you have there, the wrong one that is. None of your ideas are supported by any scientific theory and more importantly, are at odds with everyday reality.

I don't believe they are at odds with reality. I believe they are closer to the reality than the so called scientific theory handed out, which includes something that is complete and utter nonsense, in gravity.

So, yeah, I am in a difficult position in one respect. I'm in a position of being a minority minnow against the mass of mainstream so called scientific might.

I'm ok with that. If people refuse to try to understand it from my side by adhering to the mainstream narratives, without proof, then that's what it is.

Quote from: sceptimatic 71

Do you believe in tension?

As in compressive force; yes.

Quote from: scepticmatic 77

It's not what were were taught. Any child knows there is a big difference between pulling their sled up a hill versus pushing it.

Any child knows because they were taught to use push and pull for their visual to physical activities.
Taking a sled uphill requires your feet to push into the hillside and all of your muscles required to compress to ensure that push.
Gripping a rope with the sled behind is still pushing your shoulder/arm and pushing your gripped hand along the rope, as you push into the atmosphere that is compressing you down.
All push, no pull.

If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.

If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.

Forces are vector quantities, they have magnitudes and (importantly) directions. "Push" and "Pull" are surely just defining the direction of an applied force from the perspective of the person applying said force.

Take 2 people facing each other in a tug-of-war with a rope. They would both say they are "pulling" on the rope. If they both turned around (backs to each other) they might say they are both "pushing" the rope away. Either the way the rope experiences a stretching force and is placed under tension.

For instance. You go with gravity pulling in the oceans to the centre of a spinning ball. The centre of mass, as you're told.
This also supposedly pulls in the atmosphere and is supposedly the reason why it doesn't fall off, kind of nonsense.
Just this alone makes no sense and I have my own ( in my belief) much much logical and simpler explanation.

You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?

Quote from: Stash

Quote from: sceptimatic 71

Do you believe in tension?

As in compressive force; yes.

That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.

You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.

As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true.

When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?

Quote from: Timeisup on June 11, 2020, 12:37:02 AM

The point you keep missing is what you believe in has nothing to do with the reality of the physical world.
 How it operates to a large extent has been establish and is employed in many of the technologies that make modern life possible. If the science were wrong, as you like to think, the technologies would not work.....but that is not the case.
 Systems are built and designed according to the known laws which obviously work, ergo, you are wrong regardless of what you say.

The point you're missing is, you're going with a reality that you do not know to be so, in terms of reasons for why things work and their origins.
Gravity is one such thing that is used to describe almost everything we are told as our supposed reality.
That alone brings a lot of stuff into question but only as an explanation.

For instance. You go with gravity pulling in the oceans to the centre of a spinning ball. The centre of mass, as you're told.
This also supposedly pulls in the atmosphere and is supposedly the reason why it doesn't fall off, kind of nonsense.
Just this alone makes no sense and I have my own ( in my belief) much much logical and simpler explanation.

This all goes right back to gases and tension and what not.
So this isn't about things not working under my thoughts, it's about things obviously working under explanations given which I do not believe to be the true real explanations, wholly and are shrouded in alternate explanations because to tell the truth would be to tell the truth of what's really going on.

That's my opinion.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 11, 2020, 12:57:56 AM

One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test  the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...

What is the machine doing to break that bond?
Take a look at it.

Forget about gravity and let’s just focus on the tensile strength test. To recap a machined test piece of a known material and composition is placed in the jaws of a machine where it is pulled apart till failure.
 Do you have a problem with the reality of that?

This basic experiment is carried out all over the world every day. The reality is before materials are used for any construction work the properties of the materials need to be determined. That is the reality of the world.

Another reality is metals are not porous.

I along with possibly millions of others have carried out a range of tests on metals and none are porous at a molecular level. If you knew anything about the crystalline structure of metals You would not keep saying they are.

Hydrogen, the smallest molecule is happily kept in steel containers. Even the very small hydrogen atoms are held in place. Fill a tank with any gas, check the pressure, check the pressure a week later and it will still be the same assuming all the seals are good.

Tensile strength is a reality

Porosity in metals at a molecular level is nonsense

Quote from: Timeisup on June 12, 2020, 12:47:23 AM

Forget about gravity and let’s just focus on the tensile strength test. To recap a machined test piece of a known material and composition is placed in the jaws of a machine where it is pulled apart till failure.
 Do you have a problem with the reality of that?

yes.
There is no pull.

Quote from: Timeisup

This basic experiment is carried out all over the world every day. The reality is before materials are used for any construction work the properties of the materials need to be determined. That is the reality of the world.

Agreed.

Quote from: Timeisup

Another reality is metals are not porous.

That's not a reality.

Quote from: Timeisup

I along with possibly millions of others have carried out a range of tests on metals and none are porous at a molecular level. If you knew anything about the crystalline structure of metals You would not keep saying they are.

They are porous.

Quote from: Timeisup

Hydrogen, the smallest molecule is happily kept in steel containers. Even the very small hydrogen atoms are held in place. Fill a tank with any gas, check the pressure, check the pressure a week later and it will still be the same assuming all the seals are good.

Smallest by compression or largest by expansion?
Superfluids would breach the container. Basically find the porosity.

Quote from: Timeisup

Tensile strength is a reality

It depends how it's looked at. Back to the reality of push or your perception of pull.

Quote from: Timeisup

Porosity in metals at a molecular level is nonsense

Porosity in metals in a reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 11, 2020, 02:11:32 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on June 11, 2020, 12:57:56 AM

One of the benchmarks in material strength is determining the Young’s modulus of the material, or its tensile strength. To carry out the test  the material is pulled till it breaks. No pushing involved as is shown here...

What is the machine doing to break that bond?
Take a look at it.

I don’t need to look at it I’ve performed this test many many times. The machine stretches the material till it yields.....that’s why the diameter at point of failure decreases and the overall length increases. Do you have a problem with the reality of a Young’s modules test?

Incorrect.
The stresses in string, rope and thin wires must be tensile (ie pulling).

Good quality metals are not porous.
Otherwise compressed air, oxygen, hydrogen and other gasses could not be stored in metal cylinders for long periods.
If you disagree please post experimental evidence.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 12, 2020, 01:33:50 AM

Incorrect.
The stresses in string, rope and thin wires must be tensile (ie pulling).

Nope. It's compressive force, meaning pushing.

Quote from: rabinoz

Good quality metals are not porous.
Otherwise compressed air, oxygen, hydrogen and other gasses could not be stored in metal cylinders for long periods.
If you disagree please post experimental evidence.

It doesn't matter what quality anything is. Everything is porous.

Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 12, 2020, 02:35:31 AM

Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?

Yep.

Do you think the tensile strength of a material is irrelevant, fake, an illusion or what? How do you explain what is happening in the video?

What do you base your assertion that metals are porous on?

  How do you explain away the fact that every book ever written on materials science or any experiment to look at the structure of metal will conclude that metal is not porous?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 12, 2020, 02:35:31 AM

Have you ever tried pushing a car along with a towrope?

Yep.

Quote from: Amoranemix 93

You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?

What position would that be and how do I do it?[4]
Are you of a position to know the truth against anything I say and if so...how?[5]

Quote from: Amoranemix 93

That tension is a compressive force is a belief that you have so far been unable to prove.

It depends how you want to look at it or perceive it.[6]
If you were to push apart a liquorice lace, the grip is the same. You grip each end and push which visually shows you the lace becoming thinner. It's stretching and that is a pull to you....or your pull/tension.

But what is happening?
The tension is in the compression of the atmospheric pressure you are under and the lace, which is expanding it's own dense matter in its make up in conjunction with your push , meaning the matter becomes less and less in keeping the lace in the dense mass it was, because it's being squeezed, which is, once again....a push.[7]

Quote from: Amoranemix 93

You have indeed demonstrated that push is usually involved in taking a sledge uphill by means of a rope. However you have yet demonstrate that it is all push, i.e. that only push is onvolved or that there is no pull at all. You have merely claimed so.

See above.

Quote from: Amoranemix 93

Quote from: sceptimatic 79

If you push on a rope it will, indeed, bend. It would still compress but that's not the issue.

If you grab a rope your grip pushes that rope. If you hold the rope in both bands and go left with left hand and right with right hand, you are still pushing the rope to the left and to the right, leaving it taut.
There is no pull, at all.

As a kid, I sometimes moved a sledge uphill using a rope. I thought that I was pulling the sledge, but now I have learned that I was in fact pushing the sledge uphill with the rope. However, now you claim that doing so would have bent the rope. Yet, the contrary was true. When I pushed the rope, it was actually more straight then when I left it alone. How can that be ?

No I haven't claimed that, at all.[8]
I never mentioned bending a rope pushing that rope with a sled attached, up a hill.
Feel free to go and find where i said it.

I'll help you out with what I did say.
I said if you have a rope in both hands and push them towards each other, as in left to right and right to left, the rope will obviously bend.[9]

What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?

Quote from: Amoranemix on June 12, 2020, 05:52:06 AM

What evidence can you present that the mechanism you are describing is realistic ? You seem to say that the stretching of the lace depends on the pressure from the surrounding atmosphere. Hence, in (near) vacuum, the lace could not stretch, correct ?

It would likely break apart if you pushed each end away from centre of the object.

Pull is impossible when looked at properly.

Does a horse pull or push a cart?

If people refuse to try to understand it from my side

considering I know gravity is nonsense and many other things are

This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.

That doesn't address the question.

- Is the lace stretching ONLY a product of pressure from the surrounding atmosphere?

- Are you saying that in a vacuum, the lace would not stretch?

If everything was just push then if you took a rope, cut it, then put the cut ends back together, it would be magically back together. Again, this doesn't happen.

Is there a difference?

Let’s call this pushing or as an engineer would a compression test.




Let’s call this pulling or as an engineer would a tensile test



Flatearthers are always going on about only believing what they can see. The above clearly demonstrates the radical difference between pulling and pushing or tension and compression.

Yet Sceptamatic chooses to believe in things he can’t see.....atmospheric gasses passing into metal! Which of course is impossible.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 12, 2020, 03:01:32 PM

This discussion is a classic case of how flat-earth thinking is totally at odds with the reality of how things work in the real world.

I'd say it was a classic case of how alternate thinking can show a totally different thought process to mainstream indoctrinated narratives.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 13, 2020, 01:39:59 AM

Is there a difference?

Let’s call this pushing or as an engineer would a compression test.




Let’s call this pulling or as an engineer would a tensile test



Flatearthers are always going on about only believing what they can see. The above clearly demonstrates the radical difference between pulling and pushing or tension and compression.

Yet Sceptamatic chooses to believe in things he can’t see.....atmospheric gasses passing into metal! Which of course is impossible.

It all depends on what you want to believe.
If there was no porosity there would be no structure.

. X ray crystallography will show crystal structures and the gaps between the atoms.

If there was no porosity there would be no structure.