ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 12:20:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2021, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

What chafe?  Where is the contradictions?  Beyond personal misunderstandings and intentional misstatements about terminology.

You would claim any objection fit those categories. I don't see any actual rebuttal there.

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2021, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

so... can i bring up quantum vs newtonian again?

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2021, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

Sure, there's some overlap between Newton and thermodynamics, but they each have a different primary focus and different tools that work better in their respective realms.  As the old saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails.  Or, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 12:20:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2021, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

Sure, there's some overlap between Newton and thermodynamics, but they each have a different primary focus and different tools that work better in their respective realms.  As the old saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails.  Or, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Is this going anywhere?

Is this going anywhere?

I suppose that depends on where you're trying to get.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 21, 2021, 12:28:23 PM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 12:20:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2021, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

What chafe?  Where is the contradictions?  Beyond personal misunderstandings and intentional misstatements about terminology.

You would claim any objection fit those categories. I don't see any actual rebuttal there.

I would claim it fits those categories if they fit.  If it's been explained but you intentionally ignore and/or mischaracterize those explanations, then it does, like you do quite alot.  You claimed a contradiction, explain your claim.

I would claim it fits those categories if they fit.  If it's been explained but you intentionally ignore and/or mischaracterize those explanations, then it does, like you do quite alot.  You claimed a contradiction, explain your claim.

I've done that. You're providing vague categories that presumably your objections fit into, but you haven't given them. Unless you just decided to start talking to me without reading the argument I made.

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 02:09:08 PM

Is this going anywhere?

I suppose that depends on where you're trying to get.

I was hoping for something that would serve as a counterpoint or argument. Vague scientific factoids with no immediately apparent ramifications felt like they were going somewhere, but then you stopped before you tied them to anything, hence my confusion.

Newton's first law is bullshit then and contradictd his other law of attraction which states that every object in the universe with mass is attracted to each other

It doesn't matter if you want the force model of gravity, or the curved space time. Neither contradicts Newton's first law.
In the force model of gravity, gravity is a force. When gravity acts on an object, an external force acts on the object and thus the "unless acted upon by an external force" part of the first law means it doesn't apply.
In the curved space time model, the object continues on its path through curved space time, and with that idea, objects are always moving through spacetime.

When pushed on this topic, of course I explained myself more. Looking for intentionally bad-faith readings only exposes your own insecurity.

Again, that "explanation" was still focusing on alleging that Newton's laws didn't work.
It is not bad-faith readings. It is simply honestly reading what is said in context.

This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

And there you go admitting I was not using any bad-faith readings of what you were saying. Instead I was honestly presenting it.

Again, you are only providing what you want to be the case. You are not justifying yourself.

No, once again, I am pointing your model relies upon you doing just that.
Your alleged contradiction relies upon you making baseless assumptions which are simply not the case.
Baselessly assuming your atoms will just magically accelerate for no reason at all, rather than following the well established laws of motion, to try to then claim there is a contradiction between the laws of motion and heat, because of this alleged random motion.

If you remove that baseless assumption, there is no contradiction. (Again, until you get to quantum mechanics, as that is in contrast to Newtonian mechanics).

Okay then, this is your argument - that the source of motion affects two adjacent molecules in precisely opposite fashions.

No, it isn't.
Again, try actually reading what I have said and responding to it.
Again, it isn't the SOURCE of motion, it is HOW THE MOTION CHANGES OVER TIME.
The reason that pairs up is because the only thing capable of changing the motion of one of the atoms is the other atom.

You are spending a lot of time saying very little of substance.

There you go projecting again.

If you follow the beliefs in reference frames, these are the same thing.

Then why appeal to one atom dragging the other?
What I quoted with that as a response was you claiming that one atom would be dragged by the other.
But if you do "follow the beliefs in reference frames" this is the same as being at rest, as the 2 atoms would be moving together.

YOU objected claiming that you couldn't have the atoms remain at rest, and that at best one would drag the other with it, comparing this to a cup on a table because the table has the ground to keep it "at rest".
That certainly seems like you need it to be actually at rest, rather than just moving at a constant velocity.

If you are happy to follow the "beliefs in reference frames", then by switching to the reference frame of the centre of mass of the molecule, by definition the 2 atoms MUST be moving such that their motion exactly cancels.
So that would be the choice of reference frame making the motion cancel.

This is just more lazy acting-superior while saying nothing. Try to keep focused, this is tediouis otherwise.

And there you go with more projections.

Seems to be irrelwvant and goes unanswersed.

Are we talking heat in fre atoms (billard bals) or atoms linked in a matrix with only "virbations" as a method to absorb heat.

Ohooo

Everything is heat because everything is vibrational frequency because everything is under energy and everything is under pressure.
The only difference to them all is in how much energy and how much vibrational frequency and how much pressure.

Everything is heat.

What we feel as heat is due to massive frictional frequency. There's plenty going on at the other end of the hat scale which we term as freezing...but it is not without heat/vibration.

Quote from: sobchak on May 21, 2021, 08:12:58 AM

Okay on your opinions on molecular vibrations.    What leads you to this opinion?  Is it just how you feel?  Have you studied much chemistry? I love physical chemistry and find it deep and compelling.  Have you looked much at it?

I did some years ago - I will admit I am a little rusty these days, though if pressed it shouldn't take me too long to refamiliarise myself. It was interesting enough, though I cannot pretend I saw it as much more than an ever-increasing list of elements being tacked on. That is one of the things that made me first become wary: so much of the modern-day consensus seems like things being thrown at a hypothesis until something sticks, as opposed to moving past it. It suggested a motive beyond mere honesty to me.

Interesting how different you experienced things. For me it was the exact opposite, the further I went into the subject, the more focused and elegantly simple everything seemed to become. There seemed to me to be a base set of physical concepts that were used to describe everything, and while the quantitative application of those concepts could be difficult in complex scenarios, the core ideas themselves never muted. 

And then from my side, I actually got to use these concepts in the research and design of complex macromolecular systems. I’ve actually spent a good amount of time working indirectly and directly with the ideas of temperature as kinetic energy, and found it to be a powerful conceptualization in the creation and modulation of interesting and controllable biomolecules systems.

I’ll give you an example.  I assume you know what a protein is - chains of amino acids that fold into complex shapes that can act as amazing tiny biochemical machines.  In many proteins, these chains spontaneously fold into globular structures due the intramolecular attractions in concert with allowable bond rotation and steric considerations. These little globular proteins “breathe”, slightly opening and closing through random fluctuations. When they “open”, they can expose their active site and perform their enzymatic reaction on a molecule that fits in, and when they are “closed”, they can’t.  How you can control this opening and closing becomes a wonderful example where temperature as increased bond vibrational energy should be readily apparent, and opens up a variety of avenues if for example you wanted to control its behaviour.

Anyway, don’t mean to bore you, just wanted to say that your view is not the only view out there.  Although you didn’t like our collective concepts of physical chemistry,  others like myself find beauty and elegance in it, and further, a powerful means of discovery and control.  And this isn’t always a view based on what some authority has said, but one gained from study and thought and reason and practice. 

Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.

There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.

When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.


To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.

Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.

There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.

When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.


To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.

You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you can build whatever imaginary world you would like in your mind. If you like to pretend everything is connected, go for it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2021, 12:45:43 AM

Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.

There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.

When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.


To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.

You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you can build whatever imaginary world you would like in your mind. If you like to pretend everything is connected, go for it.

If you like to pretend they aren't then you go for it.

Again, it isn't the SOURCE of motion, it is HOW THE MOTION CHANGES OVER TIME.
The reason that pairs up is because the only thing capable of changing the motion of one of the atoms is the other atom.

Again, a lot of time saying absolutely nothing. Posturing, insults, complete misrepresentations of this discussion, appeals to nebulous laws of motion that are awfully convenient and awfully absent from your actual explanation, and then this. This is at least an attempt to address the problem properly, unlike the rest of your post. (Seriously, when you need to intentionally quote the opening of my post out of order to make some accusation, that should be your hint that you're low on credibility).
The problem is that it does not work - heat is never this static. Every object is losing heat, by this model, and every object had head imparted to it. This explanation might work for an object that has been at a fixed temperature for eternity, though even then I doubt it. You still require a lot of convenience for all that motion, gained and lost, all that imbalance to even out to a situation that could even begin to be described as 'The only thing capable of changing the motion of one atom is the other atom.'

What you are describing is spontaneous movement. Two atoms that randomly decide to jump away from each other and thus cancel out the motion. Oh, I'm sorry - two atoms that press against each other, then bounce off, then their bond pulls them closer... never once with any asymmetry, never once with any other angle.
At least it's clear why you pad out your post with so much aggression. This is a system that could never physically come into being by any natural means.

Then why appeal to one atom dragging the other?
What I quoted with that as a response was you claiming that one atom would be dragged by the other.
But if you do "follow the beliefs in reference frames" this is the same as being at rest, as the 2 atoms would be moving together.

YOU objected claiming that you couldn't have the atoms remain at rest, and that at best one would drag the other with it, comparing this to a cup on a table because the table has the ground to keep it "at rest".
That certainly seems like you need it to be actually at rest, rather than just moving at a constant velocity.

If you are happy to follow the "beliefs in reference frames", then by switching to the reference frame of the centre of mass of the molecule, by definition the 2 atoms MUST be moving such that their motion exactly cancels.
So that would be the choice of reference frame making the motion cancel.

What are you even arguing about? If you want to have a discussion be remotely possible, which I am really starting to doubt given your behavior, try to at least stay on topic rather than go off on drug-induced tangents.
1. I never said I believed in reference frames, but when talking about the mainstream, the mainstream rules apply
2. This was just to simplify your talk of at rest/constant speed
3. The only reference frames considered equivalent are those moving at said constant velocity. If the center of mass's is changing, as it would be buffeted in multiple directions, that is not relevant, and is just more circular arguing
4. This is yet again just 'I need this to be the case' and not 'This is why this is the case.'

Everything is heat.

So you no longer claim that everything is air?

Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.

That is your baseless you have failed to support in any way, which is refuted by simple experiments.

Repeating the same lie to continue to dismiss reality as hogwash, will not magically make your lie true.

If you want to claim crazy things like that, try to justify it.

And while you are at it, try to justify the rest of your nonsense by answering the simple questions:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?

Why does heat vibration have to be solely movement!!!?!!!???!!!?

Ill just keep being irrelevant as long as you keep insisting vibrationing means vectored movement.

Because when an atom mazes out to absorb any more potential energy it changes to kinetic and starts moving.

And we have bonds breaking and atoms whizzing.

So.... irrelevantly ill say again - liquid nitrogen or oxygen.
And red hot steel and guys in a boat who are not dancing, but waving their arms wildly.

Again, a lot of time saying absolutely nothing. Posturing, insults, complete misrepresentations of this discussion

Again, projecting your own inadequacies.

Again, if you want to try claiming there is a contradiction with the mainstream models, then they are NOT appeals to "nebulous laws".
Instead it is using the laws of motion to show internal consistence.

The problem is that it does not work - heat is never this static. Every object is losing heat

Which involves external interactions and thus is not what is being discussed.
Again, what we are discussing is heat in an object completely isolated such that no heat is lost, and no heat is gained, and no heat is exchanged with other objects.

Yet again you are trying to distract from the simple example that shows there is no problem.

Again, if you are bringing in heat being transferred from or to the object, it is a different issue entirely. The first law is no longer a problem because you have an external force being applied.

What you are describing is spontaneous movement. Two atoms that randomly decide to jump away from each other and thus cancel out the motion.

No, I'm not. Not in the slightest.
What you are describing are 2 atoms randomly deciding to just jump around all over the place, with no cause for their change in motion.

What I am describing are the 2 atoms interacting such that the force on one is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force on the other, meanign the change in velocity of one of the atoms will balance with the change in velocity of the other, keeping the centre of mass moving at a consistent velocity.

Again, what magic is there to make one atom move without a corresponding change in the other?

Again, you are the one claiming there is a contradiction, so show the contradiction, don't just assert it must exist.

What are you even arguing about?

I am pointing out how an honest reading of your words, indicates that you were acting like the molecule needs to magically be at rest rather than continuing with the same motion, with you appealing to one atom dragging the other acting like they would be moving along, which would still allow for a constant velocity for the centre of mass.

If the center of mass's is changing, as it would be buffeted in multiple directions, that is not relevant, and is just more circular arguing
4. This is yet again just 'I need this to be the case' and not 'This is why this is the case.'

Well point 4 is certainly correct, with you claiming it must be the case because you need it to be the case for your attack to work.

then they are NOT appeals to "nebulous laws".

When all you say is 'The alws say it's fine' and then fail to say which laws, or how they show it's fine, then it very much is. The quote of yours I was responding to was "Baselessly assuming your atoms will just magically accelerate for no reason at all, rather than following the well established laws of motion, to try to then claim there is a contradiction between the laws of motion and heat, because of this alleged random motion." Note the lack of any actual chain of implication beyond "I am saying it works."

Yet again you are trying to distract from the simple example that shows there is no problem.

You are describing a situation that could not possibly arise naturally -as I said - and insist me pointing that out is off-topic. You are appealing to magic in order to set up a perfect, impossible system every single time an object is not at absolute zero. No distraction - this is crucial to your whole claim.

I am pointing out how an honest reading of your words, indicates that you were acting like the molecule needs to magically be at rest rather than continuing with the same motion, with you appealing to one atom dragging the other acting like they would be moving along, which would still allow for a constant velocity for the centre of mass.

You either don't understand what you're talking about, or you just can't let anything go (and I await your inevitable childish 'You're projecting again!!!!!!!!111!!''). The idea that this and constant velocity of center the mass are the same thing is simply false. But of course, your usual tactic, complaining that you never said they were the same thing, even though if you aren't saying that, this is utterly pointless. You throw out implications, I do the charitable thing of assuming they're relevant, and then you throw a fit that I dared read into your posts.

When all you say is 'The alws say it's fine' and then fail to say which laws, or how they show it's fine, then it very much is.

Good thing that wasn't what I was doing.
But again, that does appear to be all you do.
You try to justify there being a contradiction, by just asserting there must be.

Again, can you explain how one of the atoms changes velocity, without the other one having a corresponding change in velocity?

The quote of yours I was responding to was "Baselessly...

So not the part you actually quoted to respond to, and the part where I was showing how you were doing the very thing you accused me of, rather than the part which is actually explaining why there is no contradiction?

You are describing a situation that could not possibly arise naturally

It is an idealised case.
Just like the entire first law of motion. There is almost always going to be some external force acting.

So are you now changing your claim yet again to be that the idealised case can't exist due to external forces, rather than focusing on how you started with the internal forcing allegedly making the overall object being at rest impossible?

You either don't understand what you're talking about, or you just can't let anything go (and I await your inevitable childish 'You're projecting again!!!!!!!!111!!'').

So I'm not supposed to call you out for doing the very thing you accuse others of?

Just what was "one atom drags the other" meant to mean, other than both are moving together?

Here is the part of the post that was from:

Certainly, but bonding the two atoms wouldn't prevent motion unless one is fixed in place. Say, the left atom goes up a little way - the other might resist that, but unless it was already going down in a very specific direction at a very specific rate, it will be dragged just as much as it drags the other, and will prevent the molecule from ever being at rest.

You appealed to one of the atoms needing to be fixed in place, implying it being at rest, absolutely.
You pointed out that without that being fixed in place, you need them to have the up and down motion cancel perfectly, and that otherwise, one atom will drag the other along, i.e. the centre of mass will move along.
The point is that by being able to pick any arbitrary reference frame, you can make the average velocity 0, that is you can pick a reference frame such that the upwards motion of one atom is perfectly cancelled by the other.
So by being able to pick any arbitrary reference frame, that comment of yours makes no sense.

Smono is doing a lot of whining.

Ill be irrelevant again and ask he clarifiy is issue about heat-motion-newton, as its been muddied up some along the way and clearly infleunced by their current spat in the DK thread.

Quote from: sobchak on May 22, 2021, 01:04:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2021, 12:45:43 AM

Everything is connected. There is no free space for random molecules to move about unaided.
Everything is attached, no matter what it is or where it is.
The reason things move is down to energy applied to certain masses and is dependent on the pressure in those mass or against them.

There can never be a vacuum, only the breakdown of molecules within a container that are acting against themselves in order to follow a lower pressure movement.

When you look at explanations for so called space and get told there's just random particles floating about in it, in essentially a vacuum, it makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.


To think we've swallowed this absolute hogwash goes to show just how subservient we really are, growing up.

You are certainly welcome to that opinion, and you can build whatever imaginary world you would like in your mind. If you like to pretend everything is connected, go for it.

If you like to pretend they aren't then you go for it.

Glad that you are okay with me thinking your imagined world only exists in your imagination! 

Thanks.

It is an idealised case.
Just like the entire first law of motion. There is almost always going to be some external force acting.

So are you now changing your claim yet again to be that the idealised case can't exist due to external forces, rather than focusing on how you started with the internal forcing allegedly making the overall object being at rest impossible?

So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.

So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.

I haven't been backed into a corner. You are just looking for a way out without needing to justify your claim.

The law describes an idealised situation.
External forces will always be there if you wait long enough.
But that does not mean there is a contradiction or a lack of consenus.

Your posts indicated there is a contradiction even in the idealised case.

Are you now going to agree that there is no contradiction, and that the kinetic model of heat does not contradict with the laws of motion?

Quote from: snomial on May 22, 2021, 05:15:02 AM

So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.

I haven't been backed into a corner. You are just looking for a way out without needing to justify your claim.

My claim was:

Quote from: Bored on May 16, 2021, 04:49:56 AM

An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be  moving.

This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.

The law describes a situation that cannot occur. You now agree that it cannot occur. You are still trying to fight.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 22, 2021, 05:20:54 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 22, 2021, 05:15:02 AM

So now you agree that the law describes a situation that could never naturally occur, once you were backed into a corner, while pretending you still have some recourse to fight. I don't know why I bothered.

I haven't been backed into a corner. You are just looking for a way out without needing to justify your claim.

My claim was:

Quote from: snomial on May 16, 2021, 08:46:59 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 16, 2021, 04:49:56 AM

An object at rest, will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Unless you are measuring on a molecular level, where it will appear to be  moving.

This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.

That was ONE part of your claim, and I have emphasised a fairly important part.
You are appealing to each part of it exerting a force on every other part of it, not on external things applying a force.
And when you have those external things applying a force which doesn't balance out, the thing as a whole is not stationary.

You also indicated a lack of consensus, implying a contradiction between various parts of science.
But again, no such contradiction exists between the kinetic model of heat and Newtons' laws of motion.

Other parts of your claim include:

Simply that an object cannot be at rest when every part of it is undergoing motion.

Again, no appeal to external forces moving it.

We are talking about the heat present in this object: that energy is an additional factor that must be accounted for. That energy makes each particle move independently, it does not make just one particle move that the other might resist, it imparts motion onto both. Why would this motion serve as a perfect mirror?

Here you are appealing specifically to the heat present IN the object, not interactions with other objects.

Equally, you talked about the difference in situations where heat is externally being added, as opposed to an object simply resting - okay then, imagine an object being heated, the random motions of molecules at this addition of an external force, only for that heating element to be taken away and the object allowed to reach a consistent non-zero temperature. How does order emerge from this chaos, how does the random movement of molecules even out in such a way that molecules pair off neatly and predictably?

Here you even go as far as noting that heat flowing in or out of an object and remove that source and have it reach a consistent temperature. (and when you include those normally dismissed as insignificant external interactions, just like it will never be at rest, it will never be a consistent temperature).


Again, do you agree that there is no contradiction/lack of scientific consensus?
Because that is what I have been "fighting" from the start. And that is why you haven't backed me into a corner, because you haven't shown that contradiction.

Thanks for reposting.

Ill co tinue being irrelevant by pointing iut your arguement that a SOLID object is at rest and trying to apply kinetic energy of an oxygen atom is misapplied.
Oxygen is normally not a solid object at room temp.
And the heat absorbed by liquid oxygen introduced to room temp is enough to cause vibrations such that the maxtrix bust any bonds and the stuff going flyig off.

So irrevelenatly spekaing, youre using one exmaple incorrectly applying it to another and saying it doesnt work by definition will yield an unworking model.
Your model is incorrect.
Try and be more correct.

Quote from: MouseWalker on May 17, 2021, 07:33:56 PM

I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic

Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?

Energy within the Earth.

in a cents that is true, that energy is the results of gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2021, 12:34:36 AM

Everything is heat.

So you no longer claim that everything is air?

Everything in the atmosphere and in Earth, is heat, including air.
Trying to twist it will not do anything to my argument.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 09:21:57 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on May 17, 2021, 07:33:56 PM

I will repeat the question to Sceptimatic

Then there is an object, that has been observed since the recording of time; the Moon, please explain its motion.
What is the cause, of that motion?

Energy within the Earth.

in a cents that is true, that energy is the results of gravity.

The energy is the reason for the holographic moon from reflection from within the Earth centre.


Gravity does not exist and cannot even be described as a force. It's just a magical fantasy force to cater for what's really happening, which is reliant on atmospheric pressures pushing into each other all through the Earth....not pulling.

Gravity is absolute and utter nonsense in the extreme.