ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Brilliant, just brilliant.  Says IF in the bold stuff, ignores IF when it contradicts the obviously stupid conclusion, uses the actual definition which says the opposite of the incorrect point made, thinking it supports the incorrect point. 
Beautiful execution, still the same dance moves but with more flair.

By all means stick with the word, IF as long as you know there's no reality ot it, which is what we're arguing.

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.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 17, 2021, 09:40:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic=87840.msg2317757#msg2317757
[/quote

Equal and opposite?
The third law is  action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.

So the equal action and opposite reaction aren't equal in magnitude?
Why do you believe this third law if the other two laws are incorrect?

Because the third law is correct.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning you only get out of something what you put into it, in that order.

You are simultaneously claiming there is an egual and opposite reaction, but claiming it is not equal in magnitude to the action? and you don't find that contradictory?

There is no contradiction.

The energy put in is the resultant energy put out, nothing more and nothing less.
Or, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means there has to be an action first and then a reaction after that.

What you cannot have is an action without a reaction which is exactly what you people are claiming about constant velocity  in motion in terms of, once in motion there is no reaction so it keeps a constant velocity, unless there is a reaction.


It's silly and is not a reality and never will be, so why even use it as a law when there is no existence of it to calculate anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 10:56:06 PM

Quote from: Bored on May 17, 2021, 10:24:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 10:19:39 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 17, 2021, 09:40:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic=87840.msg2317757#msg2317757
[/quote

Equal and opposite?
The third law is  action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.

So the equal action and opposite reaction aren't equal in magnitude?
Why do you believe this third law if the other two laws are incorrect?

Because the third law is correct.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning you only get out of something what you put into it, in that order.

You are simultaneously claiming there is an egual and opposite reaction, but claiming it is not equal in magnitude to the action? and you don't find that contradictory?

There is no contradiction.

The energy put in is the resultant energy put out, nothing more and nothing less.
Or, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means there has to be an action first and then a reaction after that.

What you cannot have is an action without a reaction which is exactly what you people are claiming about constant velocity  in motion in terms of, once in motion there is no reaction so it keeps a constant velocity, unless there is a reaction.


It's silly and is not a reality and never will be, so why even use it as a law when there is no existence of it to calculate anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 10:56:06 PM

The third law is  action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced
The energy put in is the resultant energy put out, nothing more and nothing less.

You don't even understand what you are trying to say.

I do but you certainly don't seem to.

Inertia is nothing unless it is used as resistance, not the lack of it.

It is resistance to change in motion.
Again, this just further shows your claim that all resistance is simply just resistance is pure BS.

Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic=87840.msg2317757#msg2317757

The third law is  action and equal and opposite reaction to that action. Note how it's to that action. They are never equal, they are always unbalanced otherwise nothing would work.

There is no contradiction.

There is a massive contradiction.
In one sentence you state they are equal and opposite, and then in the very next you claim it is never equal and that they are always balanced.
You can't get much more contradictory than that.

Or, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means there has to be an action first and then a reaction after that.

No, it doesn't.
It means they act at once.
If you apply a force to an object, it applies and equal and opposite reactionary force to you.

What action and reaction is not is an actionary force to accelerate the object and then a magical reactionary force some time later to stop it.
When you hit a ball with a bat, the action is the bat applying a force to the ball to accelerate it. The reaction is the ball applying a force to the bat to accelerate it.

That is the action-reaction pair.
That is the pair of forces which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Again, you either fail to comprehend basic mechanics, or you intentionally misrepresent it.

What you cannot have is an action without a reaction which is exactly what you people are claiming about constant velocity

No, it isn't.
Not in the slightest. Again, you blatantly lie about reality and mainstream science to pretend there is a problem when there is not.

It is not a reaction to the force that accelerates it that would cause it to stop. Instead it is another force, completely separate from that action-reaction pair.
So your claim is silly, and in no way indicative of reality.

And again you ignore simple questions which expose your claims as the BS they are, and simple explanations that you are wrong.
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?

So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude? Or are 'they are never equal, they are always unbalanced'?

Understand the word opposite.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 09:10:49 PM

Inertia is nothing unless it is used as resistance, not the lack of it.

It is resistance to change in motion.
Again, this just further shows your claim that all resistance is simply just resistance is pure BS.

You really need to read back what you just typed.
I just sit here shaking my head.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 11:45:18 PM

Quote from: Bored on May 17, 2021, 11:27:36 PM

So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude? Or are 'they are never equal, they are always unbalanced'?

Understand the word opposite.

Understand the word magnitude

I do. You don't seem to.

So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude?

Yes.

You really need to read back what you just typed.

To understand that you are wrong? I already know that.

I just sit here shaking my head.

Because you can't refute it or justify your blatant lies nor your delusional model.
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?

Quote from: Bored on May 17, 2021, 11:27:36 PM

So are the action and reaction of equal magnitude? Or are 'they are never equal, they are always unbalanced'?

Understand the word opposite.

Understand the word balanced.

Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic. There is just something off about your debating. It just doesn't add up to logic or reason. Maybe in a different universe with different laws of nature but sure as hell ain't this one

Yep, physics don't match desired opinions so points awarded to the one espousing viewpoints that match your own.  Yep, must be points for stupidity.  Congrats my little dancing fool.  You certainly earned it.  You are now class 3 stupid, come get your chartreuse dunce cap.

Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic. There is just something off about your debating. It just doesn't add up to logic or reason. Maybe in a different universe with different laws of nature but sure as hell ain't this one

jackB and co:  points, points, points, numbers, diagrams, photos

sceppy:  nuh-uh and why don't you explain it some more so i don't have to talk.


yes
sceppy will always win the troll award.

It depends on what you deem as being, balanced.

I deem equal and opposite to be balanced.  What do you deem balanced?

You see, we can place two 1kg masses on a scale and balance them to our knowledge of how we balance things.

Right, because the masses exert equal forces on opposite sides of the balance.

If we don't look past the physical view of that we can say they are balanced.

Actually, we're trying to get you to look past the "physical view" and see the fundamental concepts that describe the "physical view".

...it's an argument against constant velocity being a fictional state where an object can stay in motion forever unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
It's always going to happen and never would there be a case for an object o ever kep motion without any external/unbalanced force.

That's basic logic and no law can change that to gain any physical end product.
Only fiction/fantasy can keep that as something from a nothing.

If you were to replace "fiction/fantasy" with "theory", we might be able to make some progress.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 09:10:49 PM

It depends on what you deem as being, balanced.

I deem equal and opposite to be balanced.  What do you deem balanced?

There can never be any immediate balance.
You can have an equal reaction to any action.
Basically you can have equal reactionary energy to any applied energy.
None are ever balanced. They are always unbalanced until the reaction caters for the action.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 09:10:49 PM

You see, we can place two 1kg masses on a scale and balance them to our knowledge of how we balance things.

Right, because the masses exert equal forces on opposite sides of the balance.

To our visual, yes but the reality would be different outside of our visual.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 09:10:49 PM

If we don't look past the physical view of that we can say they are balanced.

Actually, we're trying to get you to look past the "physical view" and see the fundamental concepts that describe the "physical view".

Yes you are but that's like trying to tell me you want me to look past the magicians sleight of hand and accept that the magician is really magic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 17, 2021, 09:10:49 PM

...it's an argument against constant velocity being a fictional state where an object can stay in motion forever unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
It's always going to happen and never would there be a case for an object to ever keep motion without any external/unbalanced force.

That's basic logic and no law can change that to gain any physical end product.
Only fiction/fantasy can keep that as something from a nothing.

If you were to replace "fiction/fantasy" with "theory", we might be able to make some progress.

No, we wouldn't.
A theory can give rise to a potential. Constant velocity cannot be married up to reality or a theory. It is fiction/fantasy.

Constant velocity cannot be married up to reality or a theory. It is fiction/fantasy.

*sigh*  Newton's first law is not meant to work in isolation.  It's meant to work with his second and third laws in order to describe reality.

Think of it this way:
Newton's first law describes how an object behaves it there are no forces acting on it.
Newton's second law describes how an object behaves when there are forces acting on it.
Newton's third law describes the relationship between the forces acting on the object.

Or:
First law: No forces means no changes.
Second law: Adding forces means changes.
Third law: Forces work both ways.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 08:27:48 AM

Constant velocity cannot be married up to reality or a theory. It is fiction/fantasy.

*sigh*  Newton's first law is not meant to work in isolation.  It's meant to work with his second and third laws in order to describe reality.

Think of it this way:
Newton's first law describes how an object behaves it there are no forces acting on it.

If there were no forces acting upon an object then the object and the forces would not exist, meaning there's nothing to even contemplate.

And also, this isn't the full picture because the argument is also the object with zero forces just happens to be in motion forever. It's absolutely nonsensical.

Newton's second law describes how an object behaves when there are forces acting on it.

Basically the third law of action and equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's third law describes the relationship between the forces acting on the object.

Same thing. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Or:
First law: No forces means no changes.

It's not a law. It's meaningless.

Second law: Adding forces means changes.

Adding resistance/force will change reactionary resistance/force.

Third law: Forces work both ways.

Just like the second law, so why 3 laws?


First so called law is not a law, at all.
The second is just another way of explaining the third, so basically we have one real law.

First so called law is not a law, at all.
The second is just another way of explaining the third, so basically we have one real law.

No, no and no.
The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.
The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)
The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.

Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.  Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.

Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll.  Scepti knows exactly what he is doing and why, it's all an act.

Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll.

Doesn't understand the concept of concepts.

Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll.  Scepti knows exactly what he is doing and why, it's all an act.

Markos trying reeally hard and is being met by an equal and opposite force.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 18, 2021, 11:00:00 AM

Intentionally hung up on one law, i.e. cherry picking for the express intent of being a forum troll.  Scepti knows exactly what he is doing and why, it's all an act.

Markos trying reeally hard and is being met by an equal and opposite force.

Scepti is a living example of intellectual inertia.

Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic.

Of course you would. You just want to stir up trouble whenever possible.
Fortunately, I don't really give a damn who you want to award things to, as it has no baring on reality.

It just doesn't add up to logic or reason.

And is that just your baseless assertion, or can you actually demonstrate a problem?

And yet again you avoid trivial questions which expose your model and claims as pure 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?
Do you accept that resistance to relative motion and resistance to change in motion are different?

You can have an equal reaction to any action.
Basically you can have equal reactionary energy to any applied energy.
None are ever balanced.

Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.

They are always unbalanced until the reaction caters for the action.

So they are never unbalanced as the reaction always caters for the action.
You cannot have an action without the equal and opposite reaction.

Again, you fail to understand basic mechanics.

No, we wouldn't.
A theory can give rise to a potential.

Which the laws of motion do, and allow us to accurately describe the motion of plenty of objects.
You not liking that because it doesn't fit with your delusion of everything is air wont change that.

If there were no forces acting upon an object then the object and the forces would not exist

Why?

And also, this isn't the full picture because the argument is also the object with zero forces just happens to be in motion forever.

Or to put it more honestly, with no forces acting on it, it will never have its motion change.
There is nothing nonsensical about it. You just hate it because it doesn't fit with your fantasy.

Quote from: markjo

Newton's second law describes how an object behaves when there are forces acting on it.

Basically the third law of action and equal and opposite reaction.

The third is fundamentally different and describes an interaction between 2 things.
Object A applies a force to object B, object B applies a reactionary force to object A.
Action-Reaction.
It is nothing like what you want to pretend it is.


This is fundamentally different to the second law which ties together acceleration, mass and force.
But because it doesn't rely upon the air like you delusion demands, you do whatever you can to avoid it.

It's not a law. It's meaningless.

Its meaning is quite clear for anyone who doesn't just want to reject reality.

So no, we have 3 distinct laws, all with a specific meaning.

If you want to try combining 2 laws, that would be the first and second, as if there is no force, then there is no acceleration.

You not liking these laws of motion because they do not match your delusional fantasy will not magically change them.

The first law describes how an object acts if there are no forces acting on it.

An object cannot ct to be anything if there's no forces, so the law is non existent and there is absolutely no description of something that is non existent....unless it is passed off as fantasy.

The second law describes what makes a force (Force = Mass * Acceleration)

The second law simply describes the third law, so we only have one law.

The third law says that if you apply a force to an object, then the object will apply an equal and opposite force.

Yep and this is all that needs to count. Nothing else matters in terms of force and resistance.
The rest is just dressing it up for the same answer.

Each law builds on the previous law and together they give us a more complete understanding of motion than if you get hung up on just one law, which is exactly what you're doing.

A complete basic understanding of motion is action and equal and opposite, reaction.
That's all there is to it.
One law.

Don't worry about a force free environment being impossible because the second and third laws cover those forces.

How can the second and third laws cover an environment that cannot exist?

Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.

There's no contradicting myself. You not understanding it is not me contradicting.

Equal and opposite is exactly that.
A force will meet a resistance equal to that force but it will never balance out, it will fizzle out.
It simply won't be a balance like you think.


If  I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
I have to push my feet into the ground and use my hands and body to add that resistance/force to the mass of the car that is also using the ground as its resistance to my resistance/force.
If the car moves it's reacting to my action in equal measures but it will never rigidly balance out because the force is always greater or lower with each movement.
All that happens is, the balance is dissipated throughout as the reaction to each action...and so on.

Quote from: Shifter on May 18, 2021, 05:38:47 AM

Sorry, Jack I'm going to have to award this round (and all those before) to sceptimatic.

Of course you would. You just want to stir up trouble whenever possible.
Fortunately, I don't really give a damn who you want to award things to, as it has no baring on reality.

Well, your reality anyway. Fortunately for the rest of us, we live in actual reality

Quote from: Shifter on May 18, 2021, 05:38:47 AM

It just doesn't add up to logic or reason.

And is that just your baseless assertion, or can you actually demonstrate a problem?

Oh it has a base. A really big nice one. Wanna see it?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 18, 2021, 03:22:37 PM

Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.

There's no contradicting myself. You not understanding it is not me contradicting.

Equal and opposite is exactly that.
A force will meet a resistance equal to that force but it will never balance out, it will fizzle out.
It simply won't be a balance like you think.


If  I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
I have to push my feet into the ground and use my hands and body to add that resistance/force to the mass of the car that is also using the ground as its resistance to my resistance/force.
If the car moves it's reacting to my action in equal measures but it will never rigidly balance out because the force is always greater or lower with each movement.
All that happens is, the balance is dissipated throughout as the reaction to each action...and so on.

Forces don't fizzle out. F=m*a Apply a force to a mass and you will get acceleration. When an accelerating mass is providing a force to another object, a force equal to the force applied will be felt in the opposite direction.

To see this practically watch a billiards game. Or better yet

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 18, 2021, 10:13:35 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 18, 2021, 03:22:37 PM

Again, do you understand the word balanced?
Do you care about repeatedly contradicting yourself?
If they are equal and opposite by definition they MUST be balanced.

There's no contradicting myself. You not understanding it is not me contradicting.

Equal and opposite is exactly that.
A force will meet a resistance equal to that force but it will never balance out, it will fizzle out.
It simply won't be a balance like you think.


If  I push a car I have to use something to resist to push that car.
I have to push my feet into the ground and use my hands and body to add that resistance/force to the mass of the car that is also using the ground as its resistance to my resistance/force.
If the car moves it's reacting to my action in equal measures but it will never rigidly balance out because the force is always greater or lower with each movement.
All that happens is, the balance is dissipated throughout as the reaction to each action...and so on.

Forces don't fizzle out. F=m*a Apply a force to a mass and you will get acceleration. When an accelerating mass is providing a force to another object, a force equal to the force applied will be felt in the opposite direction.

To see this practically watch a billiards game. Or better yet

The force does fizzle out. It is action and then the equal and opposite reaction. Once it is spent, that particular force is over with.

Well, your reality anyway.

It isn't my reality.
You wanting to just spout shit like that to try and stir up trouble won't magically make me the delusional one. Grow up.