ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Can this resistance be measured?
Why not?
If it cannot be measured, it therefore doesn't show up in measurements, so either it's not there or it is of such small magnitude as to be of no concern, and we can just ignore it.

If you think life can progress without resistance, then you crack on.

Quote

It will always slow down.

The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.

And you aren't taking away that force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 15, 2021, 04:03:35 AM

There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.

What about when the forces are very small?  So small that they have no effect on the object.  So small that they can be safely ignored.

They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.
There can never be constant velocity.
There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 12:38:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2021, 06:53:56 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 15, 2021, 04:03:35 AM

There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.

What about when the forces are very small?  So small that they have no effect on the object.  So small that they can be safely ignored.

They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.
There can never be constant velocity.
There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.

If there is a constant resistance. An object must eventually come to rest, with a constant velocity of 0.
Can this resistance be measured?

We are human beings that can do a lot of stuff of minute scale...but not all.
We can measure resistance and force but not every resistance and force.

However, it doesn't matter.
What matters is, there can never be a situation or time when there is zero force or zero resistance, so there can never be a time when constant velocity becomes a reality.


There can never be a situation where an object can stay in motion under zero force.
There can never be a situation where and object is put into motion or resists a force if there is no force or resistance to it.


The law of resistance in equal measures is all fine.
There is no law that omits it, so law one is simply resistance to force/energy applied.

So no ones ever measured it, because it's too small to measure.
No one has ever seen it, because it too small to see.
And you are the only one that knows it there. How do you know it's there?

You're still missing the entire point.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 02:59:29 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 16, 2021, 02:53:33 AM

So no ones ever measured it, because it's too small to measure.
No one has ever seen it, because it too small to see.
And you are the only one that knows it there. How do you know it's there?

You're still missing the entire point.

The point being. How do you know it's there?

How do I know what is there?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 03:03:14 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 16, 2021, 03:02:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 02:59:29 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 16, 2021, 02:53:33 AM

So no ones ever measured it, because it's too small to measure.
No one has ever seen it, because it too small to see.
And you are the only one that knows it there. How do you know it's there?

You're still missing the entire point.

The point being. How do you know it's there?

How do I know what is there?

Okay what is the entire point that i am missing?

The so called first law.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 15, 2021, 02:27:31 PM

Quote

It will always slow down.

The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.

And you aren't taking away that force.

A force accellerates the mass.
Accellerate is a change in velocity over time.
If velocity no longer changes it is.... constant!

Since we live in a world of air and water and other things there is bound to be some resistance force like drag or friction.
So resitance is a force.
A decelleeating force.
A nefative change in velocity over time.
It is a decellerstion acting on the mass.
It is still dsscribung inertia as defined.

Youve just described to it albiet in a less eloquent way.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2021, 06:53:56 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 15, 2021, 04:03:35 AM

There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.

What about when the forces are very small?  So small that they have no effect on the object.  So small that they can be safely ignored.

They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.

Why not?

There can never be constant velocity.

What if that velocity was zero?

There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.

What happens when the resistance and the force balance each other perfectly?

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.

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.

Newtonian physics is very well defined spearate from quantum physics.
Both work for the required analysis.
Dont try and tomB this up.

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.

Newtonian physics is very well defined spearate from quantum physics.
Both work for the required analysis.
Dont try and tomB this up.

Who mentioned quantum physics?

You did when you started talking about molecules.

You did when you started talking about molecules.

The user 'Bored' mentioned that objects appear to move on a molecular level. This is not quantum physics. Rather, it is basic knowledge of heat: the (wrong) conventional model states that heat is represented by the vibration of molecules, and thus anything that is not at absolute zero is moving on that molecular level. This predates quantum physics by a very significant timeframe. Please do not insert yourself into a conversation you are clearly not equipped to deal with.

Sure
Ill give you i wasnt follwiing boreds conversation.
I came in when i noted you trying to dance around newtonian vs quantum vs cosmic which has been a talking point of TomB for some time.

Im going to DunningK myself here.

Maybe im reaching here but...arent molecules made up of... atoms?
Seriously
theyre the next largest thing after an atom.

You areguing that newtownian motion physics needs to apply directly to molecules?

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.

Thats the way i read it

Maybe im reaching here but...arent molecules made up of... atoms?

Simply that an object cannot be at rest when every part of it is undergoing motion. The idea that all the individual velocities simply cancel themselves out consistently and constantly is so unlikely as to be beyond belief.

So we re in agreement then.
As i said
 - Quantum and newtonian dont play in the same ballpark.



Also
Having to calculate all individual directions is pointless when you look at the object as a whole - it moves or it doesnt.

So we re in agreement then.
As i said
 - Quantum and newtonian dont play in the same ballpark.



Also
Having to calculate all individual directions is pointless when you look at the object as a whole - it moves or it doesnt.

I don't understand why you're still talking about anything related to quantum nonsense. This is simply a demonstration that the heat model is false.

If resistance is the first law then I'm happy with it.

It is not simply resistance.
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?
Are you happy with that?

And you aren't taking away that force.

And that means you are using a force to slow it down.
Do you accept that?
That in order to change the velocity of an object, you need to apply a force?

You're still missing the entire point.

That would be you. Entirely missing the point of the first law.

The entire purpose of the first law is to understand inertia. One of the many things you seem to despise about reality.
It is not to say there actually exists an object that is in motion which is not acted upon by any external force.
But you cling to the alleged lack of existence of such an object to try to pretend that the first law is nonsense.

Just like you try to pretend all the problems with your model have already been addressed.
Again, you fail basic mechanics. With that it isn't surprising you fail to have an answer for the simple questions which show your model is garbage:
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?

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.

You mean it is a good example of where dishonest people can pretend it does.
You need to distinguish between the object as a whole and the individual parts of the object.
Yes, for objects made of many atoms/molecules, they are always applying forces to each other. But that doesn't mean the net force on the actual object is non-zero.

You also need to understand the difference between a net force and any force.
Newton's first law cares about the net force, i.e. the sum of all the forces acting.

You can have multiple forces acting on an object, but a net force of 0. That means there is a total force of 0 acting on the object.
When you have 2 components of an object apply a force to each other, the net force on the object is 0.

There is no contradiction here. There is no lack of consensus.

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

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.

You mean it is a good example of where dishonest people can pretend it does.
You need to distinguish between the object as a whole and the individual parts of the object.
Yes, for objects made of many atoms/molecules, they are always applying forces to each other. But that doesn't mean the net force on the actual object is non-zero.

You also need to understand the difference between a net force and any force.
Newton's first law cares about the net force, i.e. the sum of all the forces acting.

You can have multiple forces acting on an object, but a net force of 0. That means there is a total force of 0 acting on the object.
When you have 2 components of an object apply a force to each other, the net force on the object is 0.

There is no contradiction here. There is no lack of consensus.

Rather than defaulting to throwing out accusations of dishonesty, it might benefit you to consider where someone else's perespective comes from. I am aware of everything you say - it is the implications you make that do not follow. The net force on an object is only zero when all the component forces of it cancel each other out. What do you think the likelihood of that is when countless forces in all directions are acting on every aspect of the object?

Mechanical mathematics always models objects under a force as individual particles, and not the multitude of particles they truly are. There is a reason for this.

Rather than defaulting to throwing out accusations of dishonesty, it might benefit you to consider where someone else's perespective comes from.

Rather than defaulting to throwing out accusations of consensus falling apart, it might benefit you to consider if you are just misunderstanding and that there is actually consensus.

I am aware of everything you say - it is the implications you make that do not follow.

So you are able to clearly refute it all, or are you only able to boldly claim it is wrong?

What do you think the likelihood of that is when countless forces in all directions are acting on every aspect of the object?

Assuming no external force is being applied, 100%.
Thinking anything different shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how forces work.
Do you know and understand the third law of motion?

If all you have are internal forces, then a force acting on any part of the object will be cancelled out be an equal in magnitude and opposite in direction force on another part of the object. Those 2 forces MUST add to 0.
It doesn't matter if you only have 1 such pair, or an incomprehensibly large number of them, these pairs which add to 0, will then all add to 0.
All of these equal and opposite forces will sum to 0 for the entire object.
That means the net force on the object, from these internal forces, will be 0.

Mechanical mathematics always models objects under a force as individual particles, and not the multitude of particles they truly are. There is a reason for this.

No, that entirely depends on what it is you are modelling.
If you are modelling to determine internal stresses on different parts of the object, you need to do break it down into parts as that is the only simple way to see those internal stresses.
If you are modelling a soft body and want to see how it interacts with the environment, including distorting, then you need to model individual parts in order to see that distortion.

But even in those cases, they do not model every single particle.
That only occurs in molecular dynamics simulations. (And even then, they often just model atoms, or at best nuclei and electrons)
It provides far more resolution than is needed for most things.
Instead, most simulations which do break down the object into particles do it almost arbitrarily with no concern for the actual atoms (or subatomic particles) which make up the object.
Some don't even model the inside as particles and instead model it as a gas, only modelling the outside as a mesh.

If all you have are internal forces, then a force acting on any part of the object will be cancelled out be an equal in magnitude and opposite in direction force on another part of the object. Those 2 forces MUST add to 0.
It doesn't matter if you only have 1 such pair, or an incomprehensibly large number of them, these pairs which add to 0, will then all add to 0.
All of these equal and opposite forces will sum to 0 for the entire object.
That means the net force on the object, from these internal forces, will be 0.

This is simply insisting that it works. An empty claim is no substitute for reasoning. Why must a paired force exist between two unrelated parts of an object simply because of random heat vibration?

This is simply insisting that it works. An empty claim is no substitute for reasoning.

No, it is using the third law of motion, which is backed up by plenty of experimental evidence, to clearly show why it must be the case.
This is simply you dismissing logical reasoning, with no justification at all.

Why must a paired force exist between two unrelated parts of an object simply because of random heat vibration?

It isn't a pair existing between 2 unrelated parts.
They are related by a force.

You have made it clear by your prior posts that you are not discussing quantum mechanics.
So any technicalities due to that are irrelevant.

Just what do you think causes it to vibrate rather than just continually move?
Once it is displaced from the equilibrium position, they interact, primarily via columbic interactions, creating force pairs which act to restore it back to the equilibrium position.
Those columbic interactions are the forces, and what makes them related.
We aren't just randomly picking forces acting on the individual components. Instead we are specifically picking the action-reaction pairs.

Quote from: snomial on May 16, 2021, 02:59:30 PM

This is simply insisting that it works. An empty claim is no substitute for reasoning.

No, it is using the third law of motion, which is backed up by plenty of experimental evidence, to clearly show why it must be the case.

This is circular reasoning. The third law of motion holds in this instance, because you believe the third law of motion holds in this instance, never mind that it makes no logical sense for it to.

Just what do you think causes it to vibrate rather than just continually move?
Once it is displaced from the equilibrium position, they interact, primarily via columbic interactions, creating force pairs which act to restore it back to the equilibrium position.
Those columbic interactions are the forces, and what makes them related.
We aren't just randomly picking forces acting on the individual components. Instead we are specifically picking the action-reaction pairs.

Nothing causes it to vibrate, this is a lie perpetuated by mainstream physicists, as this demonstrates.
The claim is that heat manifests as vibration. Any object that is not at absolute zero possesses some degree of heat, and thus its components are moving in order to 'store' this energy. You have yet to explain how or why two particles would become paired in any way. This is what I asked in my previous post: "Why must a paired force exist between two unrelated parts of an object simply because of random heat vibration?"

As you did with respect to the third law of motion, you are simply claiming that it is true in spite of the problems with it. You are doing nothing to address these problems. If you are unwilling or unable, please do not waste your time and mine by responding.

This is circular reasoning. The third law of motion holds in this instance, because you believe the third law of motion holds in this instance, never mind that it makes no logical sense for it to.

And you fail yet again.
The third law is substantiated by plenty of evidence showing forces come in pairs (and even logic).
This is then applied in this case, to show the logical consequence of these action-reaction pairs.
I am not using this to prove the third law of motion applies.
I am using the third law of motion to show there is no problem.

Nothing causes it to vibrate, this is a lie perpetuated by mainstream physicists, as this demonstrates.

And there you go ignoring the question.
You are claiming it vibrates.
I have asked why it vibrates instead of just continues moving.
If you instead want to claim it doesn't actually vibrate and change your argument, or start appealing to quantum mechanics, go ahead. But that means you were wrong with this argument.

You have yet to explain how or why two particles would become paired in any way.

You mean I did, and you just chose to ignore that.
I pointed out that your question was wrong, as the force relates the 2 objects.
Again, I am not picking 2 random parts of the object and 2 random forces on this. Instead I am focusing on what is actually causing the force.
Or do you think the force just magically exists for no reason?

I even pointed out what causes the force. Coulombic interactions.

You are doing nothing to address these problems. If you are unwilling or unable, please do not waste your time and mine by responding.

You are doing nothing to substantiate any problem, and just dismissing anything that addresses your alleged problems.
You are the one wasting time here.

If you want to claim there is a problem prove it.
Because so far you have shown none.
You accuse me of circular reasoning, when it is in fact you that is using it.
You are claiming that the forces couldn't possibly add to 0, to claim there is a problem with the first and third laws of motion, and using nothing other than your baseless claim to try to substantiate it.

There is no reason at all to think there is any problem in terms of classical mechanics.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 16, 2021, 11:57:18 AM

Maybe im reaching here but...arent molecules made up of... atoms?

Simply that an object cannot be at rest when every part of it is undergoing motion. The idea that all the individual velocities simply cancel themselves out consistently and constantly is so unlikely as to be beyond belief.

Please define motion at a molecular level.  Last I heard, molecules in a solid are bonded by intermolecular forces and don't move relative to each other.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 12:36:21 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 15, 2021, 02:27:31 PM

Quote

It will always slow down.

The reason it will slow down is due to air resistance (and other similar forces).
That is a force which resists relative motion.
If you take away that force, it doesn't slow down.

And you aren't taking away that force.

A force accellerates the mass.
Accellerate is a change in velocity over time.
If velocity no longer changes it is.... constant!

It is never constant. It can never be constant.
Your implication of constant is to omit all resistance to a force and then. You can never do that, so you can never have constant velocity.

Since we live in a world of air and water and other things there is bound to be some resistance force like drag or friction.

And this is all you need to know as to why you cannot have a constant velocity.

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.

It doesn't matter what level you go to. There is always a force acting on an object. An object is never still and an object in motion will never stay in motion unless a force is applied and a resistance is reactionary to it.

You simply cannot have constant velocity because there is never a time when there will be no resistance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 12:38:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2021, 06:53:56 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 15, 2021, 04:03:35 AM

There is never a time with any object when it is free from force......ever.

What about when the forces are very small?  So small that they have no effect on the object.  So small that they can be safely ignored.

They can never be ignored. A force is a force, no matter what.

Why not?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 12:38:43 AM

There can never be constant velocity.

What if that velocity was zero?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 16, 2021, 12:38:43 AM

There is always a resistance to a force and always a force to a resistance.

What happens when the resistance and the force balance each other perfectly?

Resistance and force always balance out after the fact, even if it's just super nanoseconds or whatever lowest number you can think of.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You aren't talking about balancing anything out when you go with constant velocity.
You are assuming an object will travel forever if a force is applied and then magically no resistant force is against it from that point in.

You know that's fiction.