Why don’t things just float down to earth if no gravity.

When everyone tells you there is gravity, you assume it is so. But let's say you calculate for a rollercoaster ride.

Quote

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

<word salad>

Now even though gravity is conspicuously absent in this formula...

It's not absent.

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

The relevant term is emphasized for your convenience. In this context the acceleration is due to the force of gravity on the mass of the accelerated object (the rollercoaster and all it's carrying, here). Since the force of earth's gravity is proportional to the total mass of the object, and force = mass × acceleration [Newton's second law of motion], then force / mass = acceleration, so acceleration due to earth's gravity is constant (for practical purposes), independent of the mass of the falling body, since its mass divides out.

When everyone tells you there is gravity, you assume it is so.

No, when there are mountains of evidence showing the reality of gravity, with it being able to explain so much, we accept that it exists, especially when no one can provide a viable alternative.

Now even though gravity is conspicuously absent in this formula

Until you get to the point where the rollercoaster is going down a hill and is accelerating due to gravity, or going up a hill and slowing down.

Also, your test is against a control, not against another idea. I never found tests against controls particularly satisfying, which is why I think the scientific method should be revised. One control, two distinct tests.

If you think this, then you fail to understand the scientific method.
The test is meant to be able to distinguish between 2 competing ideas, one being the null hypothesis, the other being the suggested hypothesis/theory/model.

As objects fall, they pick up speed until they reach terminal velocity.

And the question is WHY?
What is causing the sledge hammer to accelerate?

If we put the same speed horizontally

Then you are quite clearly applying a force to accelerate it.
What is doing this when it is just released with nothing except gravity acting on it?

It all comes back to those simple questions you keep on avoiding:
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

Then you are quite clearly applying a force to accelerate it.
What is doing this when it is just released with nothing except gravity acting on it?

Yes, right. Because that's the only way you can think of matter working, is as driven by forces.

I attach a hammer to a chain, and fix it on a pulley system (similar to a garage door). As the chain travels along the path, it moves to the object. But dragging it along encounters wind resistance because it's easier to drop something than it is to pull it along a track. The latter requires energy to move. 

None of this is any more than kinetic energy.

Lemme ask you a question. You said this "head" had a hammer just sitting on it, and nothing happened?



Sorry, but you just disproved your own theory. Gravity, as you explain it, is a constant force that pushes objects to the ground. So where are these newtons of yours not crushing Mr Pumpkin? No, I'm afraid that force you called "gravity" is indeed momentum, which only acted on the hammer because it was already in motion. The hammer that is not crushing said pumpkin, until you actually dropped it.

And if you need a force for the hammer on the chain, it's momentum also.

Sorry, but you just disproved your own theory. Gravity, as you explain it, is a constant force that pushes objects to the ground. So where are these newtons of yours not crushing Mr Pumpkin?

Because it didn’t have the force until it was raised to a certain hight and released.

Where in the flat earth model where g is zero, the dropped sledgehammer should apply the same amount of force as when it sits on the pumpkin.  There is nothing in the flat earth model to motivate the sledgehammer to move against the friction of the air to even move down in accordance with the three laws of motion. 

Again…

The higher that an object is elevated, the greater the gravitational potential energy. These relationships are expressed by the following equation:

PEgrav = mass • g • height

Then when the hammer was released, the stored potential energy from gravity and height was converted to kinetic energy.


Example

When an object falls, its gravitational potential energy is changed to kinetic energy. You can use this relationship to calculate the speed of the object’s descent. Gravitational potential energy for a mass m at height h near the surface of the Earth is mgh more than the potential energy would be at height 0. (It’s up to you where you choose height 0.)

For example, say that you lift a 40-kilogram cannonball onto a shelf 3.0 meters from the floor, and the ball rolls and slips off, headed toward your toes. If you know the potential energy involved, you can figure out how fast the ball will be going when it reaches the tips of your shoes. Resting on the shelf, the cannonball has this much potential energy with respect to the floor:



The cannonball has 1,200 joules of potential energy stored by virtue of its position in a gravitational field. What happens when it drops, just before it touches your toes? That potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. So how fast will the cannonball be going at toe impact? Because its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, you can write the problem as the following:




Plugging in the numbers and putting velocity on one side, you get the speed:



The velocity of 7.7 meters/second converts to about 25 feet/second. You have a 40-kilogram cannonball — or about 88 pounds — dropping onto your toes at 25 feet/second. You play around with the numbers and decide you don’t like the results. Prudently, you turn off your calculator and move your feet out of the way.

The velocity of 7.7 meters/second converts to about 25 feet/second. You have a 40-kilogram cannonball — or about 88 pounds — dropping onto your toes at 25 feet/second. You play around with the numbers and decide you don’t like the results. Prudently, you turn off your calculator and move your feet out of the way.

Now you try to solve the same story problem with the flat earth model where g is zero.

And again…

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class02/notes2_freefall.html

What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?

Why does the force of gravity effect how high an object will reach  if there is no gravity. And to an extent greater than what is accounted for by air resistance?


****Why is it with gravity and Newton’s three laws of motion precise models can be constructed and accurate predictions made.  How do you think physics simulation software works and provides accurate simulations?***

Numerous mathematical models have been cited to show gravity exists, and gravity must be taken in account for accurate modeling of simple machines, spring scales, and simple ballistics.  What accurate flat earth models with g being zero have you offered that make accurate predictions concerning friction, inclined planes, a ball thrown straight up, and a cannon ball dropped?

Quote

Then you are quite clearly applying a force to accelerate it.
What is doing this when it is just released with nothing except gravity acting on it?

Yes, right. Because that's the only way you can think of matter working, is as driven by forces.

I attach a hammer to a chain, and fix it on a pulley system (similar to a garage door). As the chain travels along the path, it moves to the object. But dragging it along encounters wind resistance because it's easier to drop something than it is to pull it along a track. The latter requires energy to move. 

None of this is any more than kinetic energy.

Lemme ask you a question. You said this "head" had a hammer just sitting on it, and nothing happened?



Sorry, but you just disproved your own theory. Gravity, as you explain it, is a constant force that pushes objects to the ground. So where are these newtons of yours not crushing Mr Pumpkin? No, I'm afraid that force you called "gravity" is indeed momentum, which only acted on the hammer because it was already in motion. The hammer that is not crushing said pumpkin, until you actually dropped it.

And if you need a force for the hammer on the chain, it's momentum also.

Gravity isn't pushing.  It pulls.  If you leave that hammer on top of a pumpkin long enough, the force of gravity will exceed the resistance provided from the walls of the pumpkin as a result of decay and the hammer will fall through, crushing the pumpkin.  The hammer wouldn't be in motion at the time.  For the hammer to fall through a force would have to be acting on it, and that force is gravity.

Explain what force is acting on the can that is being moved upward to cause it to break and fall through the paper towel in the below gif.

I attach a hammer to a chain, and fix it on a pulley system (similar to a garage door). As the chain travels along the path, it moves to the object. But dragging it along encounters wind resistance because it's easier to drop something than it is to pull it along a track. The latter requires energy to move. 

None of this is any more than kinetic energy.

Yes it is.
There are lots of things involved there.
But a key one you are overlooking are the forces involved.
The wind resistance is the wind applying a force to slow down the object, a force which needs to be overcome as otherwise it would stop.
But I highly doubt it will be wind resistance in that case as that requires a decent speed.
More important is the force between the chain and the hammer.
As the chain is initially moved, it applies a force to the hammer.
That is when you want to move something with a chain, you need a suitably sized chain, as it needs to be able to transfer the force.

Sorry, but you just disproved your own theory. Gravity, as you explain it, is a constant force that pushes objects to the ground. So where are these newtons of yours not crushing Mr Pumpkin?

Why should they crush the pumpkin?

The hammer that is not crushing said pumpkin, until you actually dropped it.

And why should dropping it cause it to go down? You are yet to answer that.
Once more, simple trivial questions demonstrate your idea is BS:
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

Until you can address these, you need gravity to do so for you.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 15, 2022, 05:43:02 AM

When everyone tells you there is gravity, you assume it is so. But let's say you calculate for a rollercoaster ride.

Quote

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

<word salad>

Now even though gravity is conspicuously absent in this formula...

It's not absent.

Quote

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

The relevant term is emphasized for your convenience. In this context the acceleration is due to the force of gravity on the mass of the accelerated object (the rollercoaster and all it's carrying, here). Since the force of earth's gravity is proportional to the total mass of the object, and force = mass × acceleration [Newton's second law of motion], then force / mass = acceleration, so acceleration due to earth's gravity is constant (for practical purposes), independent of the mass of the falling body, since its mass divides out.

Acceleration has to do with increased speed.

It's globetards who added gravity into the equation. On a completely flat surface, gravity would not even be seen as relevant to the equation, but on an uphill or downhill slope, they say that gravity is involved, even though you can slowly make your way down, and can ninja your way up.

So you're assuming because acceleration is part of some formula, that this automatically means acceleration is part of gravity? Sorry, but that's stupid. That's like saying that because birds have bones and humans have bones, that birds are evolved into humans.

Shared components does not a connection make.

By the way, a similar equation exists.

Momentum = mass x velocity

Why should they crush the pumpkin

If I put my foot on an egg, and press down, this is active force, and the egg will be crushed.

But this so-called passive gravitational force never exerts itself on the pumpkin. This would be gravity, yet it is not present here.

Yet you call "gravity" what actually has more to do with the dropping motion of the hammer. That's momentum.

Likewise, yes you are right, it is probably going too slow to have wind resistance. But it is being dragged across the air, in a motion similar to a wrecking ball. So we should use those physics.

Unfortunately those physics state that the pendulum has "gravitational potential energy". So I've lost the argument, right?
Well no. Gravity is a constant force, remember? So the idea that it creates potential energy is absurd. It would keep the wrecking ball from moving forward by constantly exerting downward pressure. At all points, we are talking about transfer of mass from position A to position B. Velocity and mass. Momentum.

But let's assume that you did an experiment where you rested that hammer on the pumpkin for hours. And over time it caved in. Yes, maybe you could tell me that gravity worked on the pumpkin. But I could also tell you that the mass of the hammer being greater than air meant it was slowly "falling" at the rate of less than 1 m/s, and that the downward pressure was similar to me pushing a car against a pumpkin with a wall behind it (do not try this at home, the car could crash into the wall). The wall in this case being the ground. I have known hammers to make impeessions on objects, but they also stop when something is harder than them. If this were not so, we wouldn't be able to hold objects on shelves.

Acceleration has to do with increased speed.

How’s that work where g = 0?



https://oxscience.com/laws-of-motion/

@ bulmabriefs144


And again…

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class02/notes2_freefall.html

What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?

Acceleration has to do with increased speed.

It's globetards who added gravity into the equation.

You mean it is those who want an explanation for why the object is accelerating, who used the best available explanation, based upon mountains of evidence, that involved gravity.

on an uphill or downhill slope, they say that gravity is involved, even though you can slowly make your way down, and can ninja your way up.

Yes, because gravity is involved. You not liking that, while refusing to provide an alternative wont change that fact.

If I put my foot on an egg, and press down, this is active force, and the egg will be crushed.

That depends on what force you apply.
All objects have a certain which they can withstand before the object breaks.
If you rest a car on the pumpkin it would be crushed, but if you rest a light enough object on it it wouldn't.
The same applies for all solid objects, but the force required varies.

Unfortunately those physics state that the pendulum has "gravitational potential energy". So I've lost the argument, right?
Well no. Gravity is a constant force, remember? So the idea that it creates potential energy is absurd. It would keep the wrecking ball from moving forward by constantly exerting downward pressure.

Yes, especially with the delusional BS you tried to back yourself up with.

Gravity is not magical glue which magically holds things in place.
It exerts a force.

A pendulum is quite simple.
Pull it up and release it.
Gravity pulls it down, with the tension in the spring pulling it towards the pivot point, with the combined force causing it to follow an arc.
As it moves, it accelerates.
As it passes the lowest point, it is travelling entirely sideways.
Gravity can't magically just make it stop here.
In fact at this very point, the force acting on the bob from the string is equal and opposite the force due to gravity, so its momentum is unchanged.
Once it passes this point and starts moving upwards, gravity now acts on it to slow it down. But it isn't magic so it doesn't stop it instantly.
Instead it slows it down gradually, with the pendulum eventually reaching a peak.

Pendula can easily be simulated on computers with these forces.

And you can also easily understand this as the conversion between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy.

So no, gravity should NOT magically make a wrecking ball or pendulum magically stay vertical.

Stop trying to pretend gravity is some magical super glue.
Instead treat it as a force acting on objects, attempting to accelerate them towards each other, with a force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

But I could also tell you that the mass of the hammer being greater than air meant it was slowly "falling" at the rate of less than 1 m/s

The problem is you have no explanation for WHY that should be the case.
Why should the air be exerting a downwards force? Especially when we know the pressure of the air is greatest below the object meaning it should be pushing up.

This again relates the questions you refuse to answer (because you know you have no answer).
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

Yet you call "gravity" what actually has more to do with the dropping motion of the hammer. That's momentum.

Momentum is the representation of the amount of motion within a moving body.

You need a force to put a body in motion. Momentum is not a force.

Ummmm, yeah it kinda is?

Momentum is the combination of mass and velocity. Velocity is speed and direction. If I crash into a wall with my car, what is it they say? "An irresistible force meets an immovable object." That force is the momentum of the car. The immobile object is the brick wall which is said to have inertia, but inertia (like gravity) does not exist, so the brick wall gets smashed up.



But yes, feel free to keep defining forces as it suits you.

Here's how we know gravity doesn't exist.




A perpetual motion device could only work if it had a perpetual source of energy.

Energy-> System (Cycle) -> Energy

Otherwise, as energy is drawn from the system, the system grinds to a halt. It can only truly be perpetual when it has a source feeding it (e.g. a wind mill or water wheel). Energy out, but none in, the device stalls.

Momentum is not a perpetual source of energy. The kinetic energy is transferred when the object falls and hits something. Or gradually as it presses down on something.
Gravity is supposed to a continuous energy, supplied by the constant rotation of the Earth.

Yet the energy seems to run out... Did the Earth stop rotating, hmmm?

Momentum, not gravity. This is the force you are looking for. And aside from that, buoyancy.

Ummmm, yeah it kinda is?

No, it really isn't.

A force is needed to change momentum.
So if you have a moving object, and try to stop it (such as by a collision with a wall), a force must be applied to slow it down, and that results in a reactionary force.

The immobile object is the brick wall which is said to have inertia, but inertia (like gravity) does not exist, so the brick wall gets smashed up.

Your example demonstrates inertia.
If inertia didn't exist, the car would just stop.

Here's how we know gravity doesn't exist.

A youtube video explaining why perpetual motion machines are fake?
That doesn't disprove gravity.

Momentum is not a perpetual source of energy.

And no one is saying it is.
If a force is collides with another object, exerting a force on that object, with a reactionary force exerted on it to slow it down, it will lose energy.

Gravity is supposed to a continuous energy, supplied by the constant rotation of the Earth.

You sure do love this delusional BS.
Gravity is not supplied by the rotation of Earth. Why do you continually spout this garbage?
And it is not an unlimited source of energy.

If you want to get energy from gravity, you need to have something fall.
That means it will lose gravitational potential energy.
If you want the same object to supply more energy, it either needs to fall further, or have something give it energy to go back up.

Momentum, not gravity. This is the force you are looking for. And aside from that, buoyancy.

Momentum in no way acts as a substitute for gravity.
Buoyancy relies upon gravity and applies an upwards force on objects.

Once more, trivial questions which expose your nonsense:
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

@bulmabriefs144



I can place a hand under the ball and above the ball.

No mater how I move my hands away, the ball goes from a state of zero velocity, zero momentum, zero inertia to end up moving down.  Why in the zero gravity flat earth model. 

Let me know if you need a YouTube video.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 11:51:26 PM

Ummmm, yeah it kinda is?

No, it really isn't.

A force is needed to change momentum.

No, it really isn't. Because objects in motion tend to stay in motion is best demonstrated  by momentum, not "gravity" while there is no opposite corollary (inertia does not exist), rather transference of motion is a thing. That make momentum a force, and you wrong. Sorry. But sometimes you should admit it.

So if you have a moving object, and try to stop it (such as by a collision with a wall), a force must be applied to slow it down, and that results in a reactionary force.

So if you try to stop a car's momentum, even is it were made all of plastic and as dense as a puppy, you would have exert opposing force (actually invest in holding your ground) because Newton's equal and opposite force (which he calls inertia) doesn't actually exist. The closest thing we have is thermodynamic entropy, and the second closest is the active exertion of opposite force (when I pivot in order to catch plastic puppy car instead of letting myself be run over).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 11:51:26 PM

The immobile object is the brick wall which is said to have inertia, but inertia (like gravity) does not exist, so the brick wall gets smashed up.

Your example demonstrates inertia.
If inertia didn't exist, the car would just stop.

It demonstrated transfer of momentum. After momentum is transferred, it becomes force, and both objects stop. When a cue ball hits another ball does that ball "stay in motion" indefinitely? No, it spends the excess energy, and then stops.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 11:51:26 PM

Here's how we know gravity doesn't exist.

A youtube video explaining why perpetual motion machines are fake?
That doesn't disprove gravity.

Yes, it does. And do you know why? Because many of such machines, including the first, were built based on the idea that an object (e.g. mercury on unbalanced platforms) could remain in motion by downward motion as the cycle turns.

But that's the whole point. It doesn't keep moving! The mercury mill runs out of "gravity" to push it forward.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 11:51:26 PM

Momentum is not a perpetual source of energy.

And no one is saying it is.
If a force is collides with another object, exerting a force on that object, with a reactionary force exerted on it to slow it down, it will lose energy.

Right, we agree. But gravity is a sad attempt to assign the Earth as a perpetual energy source. Momentum is a force, though. A definition of a force is that it becomes active when there is a situation where it comes into play, and that it can do work. But a constant source of energy has not been found. Not electromagnetism (magnets run out or energy in perpetual motion experiments), not heat, not any force. The closest thing is energy from buoyancy. Meanwhile, your gravity clock ran out of momentum.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 11:51:26 PM

Gravity is supposed to a continuous energy, supplied by the constant rotation of the Earth.

You sure do love this delusional BS.
Gravity is not supplied by the rotation of Earth. Why do you continually spout this garbage?
And it is not an unlimited source of energy.

Yes, that is explicitly what is listed as the source of Earth's gravity.

Quote

When earth rotates, it takes the atmosphere with it and that pressure is what we experience it as gravity.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95091/does-rotation-cause-gravity
And it is explicitly a natural perpetual motion device, as mentioned in the second video. Yet we can't wind down this supposed motion of the Earth by funneling it into our 8th grade iron ball mill. [/color]

If you want to get energy from gravity, you need to have something fall.
That means it will lose gravitational potential energy.
If you want the same object to supply more energy, it either needs to fall further, or have something give it energy to go back up.

But iron, cold iron, is the master of them all (until it stops off camera).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 11:51:26 PM

Momentum, not gravity. This is the force you are looking for. And aside from that, buoyancy.

Momentum in no way acts as a substitute for gravity.

Gravity is a pipe dream. The device above winds down. The only explanation for this is that the supposed constant you have doesn't even exist, and the actual force is only the next best thing. It is however a real force.

Both of Newton's forces violate the laws of thermodynamics (you can't keep kinetic energy going indefinitely, nor is potential energy something that stops other motion) and are curiously "constant" yet absent when we need them to show themselves.

No, it really isn't. Because objects in motion tend to stay in motion is best demonstrated  by momentum, not "gravity" while there is no opposite corollary (inertia does not exist), rather transference of motion is a thing. That make momentum a force, and you wrong. Sorry. But sometimes you should admit it.

What does this have with the argument your avoiding.

What motivates the object with zero motion, velocity, momentum, inertia to move in the first place.

First law of motion.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

Why does the ball from a state of rest in this scenario always end up traveling downward in zero gravity earth. 

But gravity is a sad attempt to assign the Earth as a perpetual energy source.

One.  It’s not perpetual if you have to work to raise something to a certain height to get it to fall back down.

When all the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.

Perpetual would be an infinite amount of potential energy converted to endless kinetic energy.

https://study.com/skill/learn/how-to-calculate-the-gravitational-potential-energy-of-an-object-above-earth-explanation.html

Please provide the equation where there is infinite potential energy being converted to endless kinetic energy.

Two.
Again…

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class02/notes2_freefall.html

What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?

The flat earth model, there is no force to cause the ball to loose all upward momentum faster than what is accounted for by the friction of air.  Stop.  Change direction.  Then fall back to earth. 

Both of Newton's forces violate the laws of thermodynamics (you can't keep kinetic energy going indefinitely, nor is potential energy something that stops other motion) and are curiously "constant" yet absent when we need them to show themselves.

It’s one thing to have forces in equilibrium.  It’s another thing to output more work than what is placed in the system.  Like 110 percent efficient.  What most people mean by perpetual motion.   

Please give a specific example what in our solar system or on earth is breaking the laws of thermodynamics?

No, it really isn't. Because objects in motion tend to stay in motion is best demonstrated  by momentum, not "gravity"

You sure do love spouting pure nonsense.
Yes, momentum best demonstrates that objects in motion stay in motion.
Unless they are acted upon by another force to change their momentum.

That is the point, if it is just momentum then everything maintains the same motion.

inertia does not exist

Repeatedly stating your falsehoods wont make them true.
Again, if inertia wasn't true you should be able to stop anything without any problem. Your car example would just be stopped by the wall.
But in the same vein, there would be no reason for the wall to remain held together rather than have the bricks spontaneously fly it out in all directions.

That make momentum a force

No, it doesn't.
If momentum was a force objects would just keep on accelerating with no end.

and you wrong. Sorry. But sometimes you should admit it.

Follow your own advice.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong, on almost everything you have said.
Yet you never admit it.

So if you try to stop a car's momentum, even is it were made all of plastic and as dense as a puppy, you would have exert opposing force

Yes. Conversely, if you didn't, even if the car was made of solid osmium, and hurtling towards you at 10 times the speed of sound, you should be able to stop it without needing any force at all and with no damage to you.

It demonstrated transfer of momentum. After momentum is transferred, it becomes force, and both objects stop

No, momentum transfer requires a force.
After momentum has been transferred the resulting velocity of the object is the weighted average of their previously velocities.
i.e. the total momentum remains the same.

When a cue ball hits another ball does that ball "stay in motion" indefinitely?

Friction with the table applies a force slowing it down.
A good example of this can be found using an air hockey table.
Turn the air off and hit the puck and it slows down quite quickly.
But turn the air on to reduce friction with the surface, and it can keep going for quite some time.

With accurate measurements, you can extrapolate back to 0 friction and see that in that case, it keeps going.

It doesn't need to spend energy to keep moving, other than than the energy that is converted to heat due to friction (which is a force, which acts to slow the object down).

Yes, it does. And do you know why?

No, it doesn't.
Do you know why?
Because all of them are based upon attempting to violate the laws of nature, including gravity.

Because many of such machines, including the first, were built based on the idea that an object (e.g. mercury on unbalanced platforms) could remain in motion by downward motion as the cycle turns.

No, that is the con that it is sold on.
But in reality, if you do the actual math to analyse it, you see that gravity should not make it keep spinning.

In the simplest versions, the balls on one side of the wheel are further out, and thus exert a greater torque; but there are more balls on the other, countering that.
If you just focus on a single aspect of it, it would indicate the wheel should move in one direction, while focusing on the other aspect alone would indicate it should turn in the opposite direction.
But if you consider both together, then you either get a balanced wheel, or just a tiny force to push the centre of gravity to below the axel with the wheel then stopping.

The only way to have a continually unbalanced wheel is with things like a water mill, where water is added to one side at the top and then falls off the bottom.

But perhaps the best and simplest reason why this doesn't refute gravity, and is entirely useless in the context of this discussion is that the exact same arguments can be made if you replace gravity with whatever you want to claim magically causes things to fall.
That means if it did refute gravity, it would also refute anything you try to replace it with.

But gravity is a sad attempt to assign the Earth as a perpetual energy source.

No it isn't.
Gravity can provide energy from things falling, but to keep the cycle going, you need to provide energy to lift it back up.
For example, if we take a water mill, you get energy out from the water falling and causing the wheel to rotate. But to keep it going in a closed loop, you need to provide energy to put the water back up the top, such as by you manually picking it up with a bucket and pouring it up there, or using a pump.
And due to losses in the system (such as friction in the bearings of the water mill) you will lose some of that energy on each cycle.

Pepertual motion machiens are a sad attempt at an application of gravity, or electromagnetism, or whatever else the pedlers are claiming powers it.

Momentum is a force, though. A definition of a force is that it becomes active when there is a situation where it comes into play, and that it can do work.

No, momentum is not a force, and that definition is so confusing and convoluted it isn't funny.
Here is a simple definition from Google for the context we are discussing:
an influence tending to change the motion of a body or produce motion or stress in a stationary body.
That is not momentum.

If you have relative motion, then the collision between these can apply a force. But that is not momentum being a force.
If you have 2 objects both moving, both with momentum, but with the same velocity, then there is no collision.

But a constant source of energy has not been found. Not electromagnetism (magnets run out or energy in perpetual motion experiments), not heat

And not gravity.
No one (except you and perpetual motion machine peddlers) wants to pretend it does.
So why bother bringing that up?

Yes, that is explicitly what is listed as the source of Earth's gravity.

Quote

When earth rotates, it takes the atmosphere with it and that pressure is what we experience it as gravity.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95091/does-rotation-cause-gravity

Care to edit your post to properly indicate you had said those things? (The quote breaks the color tag).

What you have provided is a link to a question of someone asking what causes gravity. That is not any reliable source listing it as the source of Earth's gravity.
This is someone wanting to discard all of science and instead pretend the atmospheric pressure causes gravity.
That is closer to what FEers claim.
Earth's gravity is caused by Earth's mass.
More specifically, an object falling due to gravity is due to the interaction between the mass of the object and the mass of Earth.
Just like the electromagnetic force is based upon interaction between charges and/or magnetic fields which ultimately also typically come from charges.

Science does not have gravity caused by Earth's rotation.

And it is explicitly a natural perpetual motion device, as mentioned in the second video.

Do you mean the PBS space time video, which provides it as an example of part of the idea behind such devices, but also explains why they don't work?

It is not saying it is a perpetual motion device.
And plenty of other forces like electromagnetism are also used as justifications for perpetual motion machines.

Yet we can't wind down this supposed motion of the Earth by funneling it into our 8th grade iron ball mill.

I have no idea what you mean by this.
How are you planning on funnelling the motion of Earth into a ball mill?
If you want something winding down the motion, that would be the moon, where along with causing tides, it causes the moon to move outwards and Earth to slow down.

Gravity is a pipe dream.

No, using gravity to power a perpetual motion machine is a pipe dream, as gravity is not a source of unlimited energy.
People misusing gravity to pretend they can make a perpetual motion machine in no way demonstrates any flaw with gravity.
And as I said above, it works equally well (which in both cases is only upon superficial inspection by not at all with a deeper examination) with anything else you want to use to explain why things fall.

Both of Newton's forces violate the laws of thermodynamics (you can't keep kinetic energy going indefinitely, nor is potential energy something that stops other motion) and are curiously "constant" yet absent when we need them to show themselves.

No, they don't violate the laws in any way, as the object continuing to move does not decrease entropy or cause more energy to be taken out than is put in.

If you try to take energy out you will necessarily be applying a force which will act to slow the object down.

Potential energy isn't something that stops other motion, instead if you have a potential gradient, which could be gravitational or electrical (or plenty of others), then it will apply a force based upon the gradient which will act to stop the motion, with the motion through that potential gradient generating potential energy.
Overall, there is no net change in total energy, instead it is the conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy.

And again, you still have simple questions you can't answer:
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 17, 2022, 06:04:03 AM

No, it really isn't. Because objects in motion tend to stay in motion is best demonstrated  by momentum, not "gravity" while there is no opposite corollary (inertia does not exist), rather transference of motion is a thing. That make momentum a force, and you wrong. Sorry. But sometimes you should admit it.

What does this have with the argument your avoiding.

What motivates the object with zero motion, velocity, momentum, inertia to move in the first place.

First law of motion.

Quote

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

Why does the ball from a state of rest in this scenario always end up traveling downward in zero gravity earth.

Can you prove this law actually works? Because if you can't, you're just arguing nonsense.

And by your own admission, you have told me that the object at rest does not stay at rest, despite it being a zero gravity Earth. Welp, thanks, I guess. You just saved me the trouble of explaining that. Slope is not a force.

Now, consider this.

The reason perpetual energy devices always always fail is that there is no feed-in. For example, I have a wind up wooden toy (it was a build-it yourself model) that sends balls along a track. It is not a perpetual energy device, as it is powered by mechanical energy. I wind the device, the wheels turn, which moves the balls into position. The balls get into little buckets which move them up the course, down the slope, then drop them into the wheel again. Energy is fed into the device, which allows it to complete its path. This will last unless overwork it, pretty until whenever.

On the other hand, this perpetual energy device is run on "gravity". It violates a real first law (that of thermodynamics) but trying to generate energy that was not put in.



At least, that's what it claims. Actually, it's tension from the strips, and magnetism (as alot of the posters pointed out). It's also motorized. Left to its own devices (i.e. no trickery), this device powers down rather quickly, usually by the source of tension breaking or slipping off course. Or it runs out of pull, and pulls back up.

Here's an even more blatant one.



At 0:08, he has to actually PROVIDE the force because there is no downward pull naturally occurring on this object. In fact, that it's stopped here likely means it came to a stop earlier.    And it visibly had slowed from 0:10 to 0:37. Despite the imbalance, which gravity should have kept going because gravity is a constant force, not a reactive force like momentum, it was already slowed down after only 20 seconds. This is longer than a simple wheel, but still pathetic.

Momentum. Admit it, already. Or show something that cannot be momentum.

Perpetual motion machines don’t exist. You can’t even patent one in the US if you wanted to.

I’m only mentioning this because I can’t tell from your rambling word salad whether you believe one way or the other.

Btw…

The same page you quoted cited two more refernces to "Explore" more regarding roller coaster design; A NYT article and a video.

From the NYT article interviewing roller coaster designers:

Mr. Miller and his three partners, who work in a small suite of offices on the outskirts of Cincinnati decorated with coaster posters and odd leftovers from various projects, crunch the numbers carefully, using their own programs (with names like Splinal Tap) that can turn the squiggly lines of a rough initial design into a more polished one. At regular intervals along the route, the software calculates G-forces — up and down, side to side and forward and back — on riders in the front, middle or back of the car.
Coaster designers are constrained by the amount of potential energy they have to work with, which is determined by the weight of the car and its riders, height and gravity.

From the video interviewing a roller coaster designer, he opens with:

The design of a roller coaster is very simple of course we have to thank isaac newton for most of it although now with space age technology they say that he wasn't always correct in his uh formulas for gravity, however, until something better comes along I still use his formulas.

Weird that roller coaster designers/engineers use gravity in their calculations regarding momentum, inertia, resistance, all kinds of neat physicy stuff.
Not only that, but then these contraptions are built according to the physicsy specs created by the designers/engineers.

And even funnier, if not ironic, the roller coaster engineers interviewed above that you inadvertently linked to, the name of their design firm, wait for it…The Gravity Group
https://thegravitygroup.com/

Can you prove this law actually works? Because if you can't, you're just arguing nonsense.

Which one? Newton's first law?
If so, yes. Be observing the effects of friction and other forces acting on an object, and extrapolating to 0 force.

And by your own admission, you have told me that the object at rest does not stay at rest, despite it being a zero gravity Earth. Welp, thanks, I guess. You just saved me the trouble of explaining that. Slope is not a force.

No, they asked you a question.
A question you clearly can't answer.

On the other hand, this perpetual energy device is run on "gravity". It violates a real first law (that of thermodynamics) but trying to generate energy that was not put in.

Correction: This claimed perpetual energy device is claimed to run on gravity.
In reality, it is a con.

Notice how there are not complete equations using gravity to demonstrate just how this should magically work?

And again, replacing gravity with whatever BS you want to use to try to explain why things fall will work the same.
Providing people lying about gravity in no way refutes it.

Now stop using this crappy false claims as a deflection from the topic.
Try answering the trivial questions:
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?
Modify message

And by your own admission, you have told me that the object at rest does not stay at rest, despite it being a zero gravity Earth. Welp, thanks, I guess. You just saved me the trouble of explaining that. Slope is not a force.

The actual context of what was posted…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 17, 2022, 06:04:03 AM

No, it really isn't. Because objects in motion tend to stay in motion is best demonstrated  by momentum, not "gravity" while there is no opposite corollary (inertia does not exist), rather transference of motion is a thing. That make momentum a force, and you wrong. Sorry. But sometimes you should admit it.

What does this have with the argument your avoiding.

What motivates the object with zero motion, velocity, momentum, inertia to move in the first place.

First law of motion.

Quote

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

Why does the ball from a state of rest in this scenario always end up traveling downward in zero gravity earth.

So.   Still no answer by you “What motivates the object with zero motion, velocity, momentum, inertia to move in the first place” in accordance with the laws of motion.



You

The reason perpetual energy devices

Consider what?

This thread is..
Why don’t things just float down to earth if no gravity.

Go start your own thread on perpetual motion machines. Are you really this lazy?  Or just afraid to draw more attention to your ideas that provide no practical application in real life.

Stop hijacking threads.  But that is how flat earthers work, and why they get zero respect from people that have more wits about them.  You change the subject, misquote, use false authority, and are intellectually dishonest to the core.

And again…

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class02/notes2_freefall.html

What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?

What force slows the object faster than what is accounted for by friction with the air, stop, change direction, and accelerate back to earth. 

You look stupid because you hide from the truth of the model. 

heel, but still pathetic.

Momentum. Admit it, already. Or show something that cannot be momentum.

One.  Like a ball at rest with no momentum overcomes friction with the air to fall to earth.

Two.  Like how a ball thrown straight up looses all forward momentum faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Air resistance that should be a huge factor in zero gravity earth, but is usually negligible.  Where the ball stops.  Changes the direction of travel 180 degrees.  And then not only falls back to earth, but accelerates back to earth.

What property of momentum accounts for the scenario? 


Maybe if you could write out the flat earth laws of momentum there would be something to actually debate.  But you would rather ignore certain arguments where in contrast people of the spherical earth camp meet every aspect of what you post head on.  While you try to change subjects, hijack threads.  Or just use false arguments…

Like…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 16, 2022, 06:11:15 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 15, 2022, 02:40:36 AM

Quote from: Grimus on November 15, 2022, 02:19:15 AM

The "south pole star"  sigma octantis is viable from australia, south america, south africa..  this.means those must be facing the same(ish) directions..  this can only happen on flat earth if the flat earth map, although mapped circular,  was actually elliptical shaped.. 

Can you please draw that out?

should

You have a collection of the same memes that you pull out regardless of how often people have debated them.

Good to know.

By all means link and cite where it’s been debunked. 

Just more intellectually dishonesty and false authority by you.

Your just like flat earth.  Lots of BS and empty promises where you cannot even come up with a coherent physics explanation how a child’s toy travels when thrown. With no modeling to accurately predict how it will act.  Unless, of course, you use gravity and Newton’s laws….

Perpetual motion machines don’t exist. You can’t even patent one in the US if you wanted to.

I’m only mentioning this because I can’t tell from your rambling word salad whether you believe one way or the other.

That's the point, dudebro.

Most of these machines say they use gravity from the Earth to keep going. But when the chips are down, the machine runs out of energy and stops. Don't you think that's a little suspicious?

I mean, gravity is defined as a force that never stops. Yet these machines don't work. They all claim

Momentum is a force, yes, despite your protests. If when they use Newton to say that it's not, they do say that it is similar to force. But the definition of force that I have is something that acts upon objects in order to create motion and use energy. For example, magnetism is a force because it pulls objects

On the other hand, gravity is not a force. Why not? Because it violates thermodynamics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

For a closed system, in any arbitrary process of interest that takes it from an initial to a final state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, the change of internal energy is the same as that for a reference adiabatic work process that links those two states.

Layman's Terms? You can't get more than you put in. You can't keep draining energy from an object and expect it to both hold up, and keep providing energy.

"Objects in motion staying in motion" indefinitely? Impossible.

Kinetic energy at every waking moment, is being pressed down toward the center of Earth. This is the claim of gravity, that we are pushed down not conditionally to being heavier than the air, but because a force is constantly acting on us. Sorry, no.
Such an event would quickly deplete itself. But if you were to ask people online "Does gravity run out?" they would look at you like you were crazy.

Real forces, however, do deplete themselves. It's part of the energy-entropy balance of the universe ( and no, I do not believe in the one-way trip toward entropy, known as the Heat Death of the Universe; the two are in balance). But this means all real forces turn themselves on and off situtionally. Momentum is a real force. When I push a ball across a pool table it keeps going, until it doesn't. This momentum is a finite reflection of the relationship with kinetic energy and potential energy. The potential of the pool ball turns into kinetic energy when I roll or hit it. It continues until the energy that is enough to move it runs out. If during its path, it hits another pool ball, that energy is transferred to the second object, and the first object stops. This isn't "inertia" it's momentum transfer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_transfer

Something that applies not only on the pool table but in particle physics. Something that applies to the first law of thermodynamics.

Real forces are finite variables, not constants that somehow maintain the number despite reasons why it should deplete.

I mean, gravity is defined as a force that never stops.

How does force equate a perpetual motion machine.

External source..

The Four Fundamental Forces and their strengths
Gravitational Force – Weakest force; but has infinite range. (Not part of the standard model)
Weak Nuclear Force – Next weakest; but short range.
Electromagnetic Force – Stronger, with infinite range.
Strong Nuclear Force – Strongest; but short range.
Gravitational Force
The gravitational force is weak but very long-ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive. It acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.


https://www.clearias.com/four-fundamental-forces-of-nature/

Is a “magnet” a perpetual motion machine?

Electromagnetic Force
The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive and acts only between pieces of matter carrying an electrical charge. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force.

https://www.clearias.com/four-fundamental-forces-of-nature/

Is this a perpetual motion machine with a magnet?  Where the magnet is tight on the string, hanging in air?  Trying to pull to the wrench?






 And if the magnet gets the least bit too far from the wrench, gravity overcomes the force of magnetism to pull the magnet to the table.

Quote from: Stash on November 17, 2022, 11:33:32 PM

Perpetual motion machines don’t exist. You can’t even patent one in the US if you wanted to.

I’m only mentioning this because I can’t tell from your rambling word salad whether you believe one way or the other.

That's the point, dudebro.

Most of these machines say they use gravity from the Earth to keep going. But when the chips are down, the machine runs out of energy and stops. Don't you think that's a little suspicious?

No.

A machine that doesn’t exist, regardless of how someone says it works, doesn’t discredit the properties they claim to use.

That’s like saying, “I have a windmill that runs on gas.”  “No you have a windmill that runs on wind power, therefore gas doesn’t exist.”

Which brings up the point, how come roller coaster designers all use Newtonian gravity in their designs and engineering?

Momentum is a force, yes, despite your protests.

According to whom?