Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity

After being assured density can do work with no applied force, here’s a story problem challenge..

Say a 2X4 wood stud will break under 40N applied to its mid length.

Mathematically with a detailed account, please show how density with no force applied breaks the 2x4.  As in a sledge hammer head dropped on the 2x4 in a no gravity flat earth model.  Say a sledge hammer head of 7.86 g/cm3?

Thank you

Or substitute a pumpkin for the 2x4 if you like?

Force = Mass × Acceleration.

Density does effect its penetrating power. That's why bullets are made out of lead, or depleted uranium, I guess.



Edit.

It's a good song.
I cannot stress how much I miss the far left that used to call people corporate whores, goodness I miss them. Where did they all go?

Anyway I've spoken to scepti about this, who is genuinely special. If I can speak for him things still fall because of boyuoncy and density. Like how objects rise and fall in liquid.

Using sceptis model I could easily show how the sledgehammer (I call them precision adjustment instruments) breaks the wood but it would be boring because the equations would be the same as using the equations for gravity, obviously.

The sledgehammer accelerates towards the wood and its mass creates a force large enough to break the wood.

It's boring but it's just how things work. This equation doesn't involve gravity at all if someone is swinging it and still technically doesn't involve gravity even if it is dropped. Just the observed acceleration we see when we drop everything plus the obvious and measurable mass of the sledgehammer. You can argue about what causes the acceleration of dropped objects but there is no account for curved space time in your equations.

I don't think it's that difficult to conceptualise.

The sledgehammer accelerates towards the wood and its mass creates a force large enough to break the wood.

I was wondering if someone would pick up on that.  But three points..


One, The problem is to show that density it’s self has the property of a “force”.

Two.  I guess with the pumpkin I moved the goalpost a bit by showing the sledge hammer sitting on the pumpkin.  Then implying in a no gravity flat earth why the sledge hammer after sitting on the pumpkin can get the force to break the pumpkin by dropping.

Three.  In the spherical earth, air resistance in this kind of experiment is negligible because the force of gravity is so much more of a factor than friction with the atmosphere. 

But in a flat earth no gravity where there is no force acting on the object dropped, air resistance would be a major factor.  In the flat earth model, what overcomes friction of the atmosphere to even get an object to move down.   

But the challenge still stands.  Might need to tweek it a bit.

How about this.  Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions. 

 

The density alone cannot break the 2x4.

That is a correct assertion and easily measured. You're an interesting poster don't get me wrong.

The density alone cannot break the 2x4.

That is a correct assertion and easily measured. You're an interesting poster don't get me wrong.

This stemmed from another thread where an individual assured those participating in the thread density is a force on its self.  No gravity needed.   I was wanting to simplify the item, and see if they would take up the actual debate.

But they would rather just move goalposts and muddy the waters of the thread mentioned instead of meeting the challenge head on in this thread to add clarity.

You can lead a horse to water…

Quote from: disputeone on November 10, 2022, 03:03:12 AM

The density alone cannot break the 2x4.

That is a correct assertion and easily measured. You're an interesting poster don't get me wrong.

This stemmed from another thread where an individual assured those participating in the thread density is a force on its self.  No gravity needed.   

No gravity exists, nor WOULD be needed, if it DID exist at all, in some form, somewhere.

All things on Earth, originate on Earth, or it's waters, except those in the heavens ABOVE the Earth.

Objects do NOT originate in air, except those within the heavens. You cannot point to something that was NOT in air, first of all, then put INTO air, while totally IGNORING THAT PART, like it isn't true, or matters at all!

If objects DID originate in air, and THEN fell down to the surface, you could argue that it is due to some 'pulling down' force within Earth.

But objects do NOT originate within air, they originate on the surface.

You cannot ignore that, overlook it, or whatever...

This is the most important part of it, fact. Objects do NOT originate within air, they originate the surface, and the waters of Earth.

No gravity exists, nor WOULD be needed, if it DID exist at all, in some form, somewhere.

Then stop babbling and show through math how density is a force on to itself and requires no external force like gravity to produce the force/newtons to break the 2*4.

All things on Earth, originate on Earth, or it's waters, except those in the heavens ABOVE the Earth.

One word: Meteorites

No gravity exists, nor WOULD be needed, if it DID exist at all, in some form, somewhere.

If that was the case you would have been able to provide an alternative.

All things on Earth, originate on Earth, or it's waters, except those in the heavens ABOVE the Earth.

You have tried this delusional BS before, entirely failed, and then fled the scene to try and escape your failure.

Firstly, you have no justification at all for that claim.
Second, if this was the case, why doesn't it go back to the point of origin? Why does it magically go down instead? It makes no sense at all. Instead of a point of origin you need to claim it magically somehow goes to the surface of origin.
But it is trivial to refute with simple examples, examples you cannot address because you know it refutes your delusional BS.

Once more, water is a simple demonstration that your claims are pure BS.
You can take liquid water and pour it out of a bottle and observe it falling to the ground, so clearly it must have originated there.
But heat it up and it turns into a gas and starts moving upwards.
That would mean it needed to originate away from the surface.
And you can keep doing this in a cycle.
This shows a contradiction and shows that water is not simply going back to where it originated from.

Likewise, a rock in an outcrop shows the delusional BS. This relies on the fact that a surface is not always down.
A rock can be knocked loose from an outcrop, and instead of falling back up to the outcrop from where it originated, it falls down.
So it isn't falling towards any surface it originated from, instead it is falling down.

So once more, you have failed to provide an alternative for gravity.

And you have already had this BS exposed before. So why dishonestly spout the same refuted garbage again?

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.

Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.

Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.

Why?

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.

And that displacement of the atmosphere results in an upwards bouyant force acting on it.
Not a downwards force.

You have had your BS refuted countless times. Unless you can address the multitude of issues already raised regarding it, (such as why the atmosphere magically pushes down in direct conflict to the observed, measured pressure gradient, and why there is a pressure gradient in the first place), then there really isn't any point in you bringing it up again.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

As above, the pressure from the atmosphere around the hammer head pushes it upwards, not down.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

Again, everything in that statement is wrong.
Firstly, there is nothing magical about gravity.
Secondly, unless you can explain how the atmosphere magically pushes down, rather than pushing up as the pressure gradient should cause (and explaining the directionality in the first place) you need gravity or something to replace it.
The RE is not fiction. It is supported by mountains of evidence, with all evidence that I know entirely consistent with a RE, and plenty which is entirely inconsistent with a FE.
And last, and most certainly least (although for your BS perhaps not), your delusional nonsense works just as well for a RE. So if your nonsense was true, gravity would not be needed for a RE.

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.

Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.

Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4

This is where the thread left off before you posted…

“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”

I guess start here.


Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.

Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.

Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4

This is where the thread left off before you posted…

“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”

I guess start here.


Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?

Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 12, 2022, 02:57:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.

Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.

Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4

This is where the thread left off before you posted…

“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”

I guess start here.


Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?

Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.

Naaaaaa.

Density = Mass/Volume or mass per unit volume if you prefer. It been agreed by everyone, apart from YOU.

Thats what density is what you are talking about is not density.
You cant go and make up stuff to suit yourself ! The definition of density is spoken for. you'll have to go away and come up with a new name for what you are on about.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.

Why?

Because there always has to be a counteraction to any applied energy offered by an object into resistance to it. There can never be zero resistance to any object.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.

And that displacement of the atmosphere results in an upwards buoyant force acting on it.
Not a downwards force.

The buoyant force stops if the object hits a foundation. If the object does not hit a foundation then that can be construed as a steady or continued buoyant force which basically means the object sits atop denser layers of mass or carries on being squeezed up, whether it's water, sand, or atmosphere and so on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

As above, the pressure from the atmosphere around the hammer head pushes it upwards, not down.

No. It resists from below and is overcome from above along with the dense mass of the object (hammerhead).
It can still be construed as a push from below but the reality is, it's a squeeze down against a resistance to it by the dense mass below it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

Again, everything in that statement is wrong.
Firstly, there is nothing magical about gravity.

There's everything magical about gravity. It has to be for it to work in the fiction we're led to believe is factual.

The RE is not fiction. It is supported by mountains of evidence, with all evidence that I know entirely consistent with a RE, and plenty which is entirely inconsistent with a FE.

There is no evidence at all for a global Earth but there are plenty of made-up efforts to proclaim Earth to be a globe.

And last, and most certainly least (although for your BS perhaps not), your delusional nonsense works just as well for a RE. So if your nonsense was true, gravity would not be needed for a RE.

Not at all.
Gravity is required for a Global Earth rotating in space and everything that goes with that because it wouldn't work in the model offered to take it out and replace it with the reality, which is simply density and buoyancy against the atmosphere within Earth. Denpressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 07:02:53 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 12, 2022, 02:57:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.

Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.

Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

That’s lots of assumptions with no mathematical proof how density is a force on to itself to break the 2x4

This is where the thread left off before you posted…

“Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.”

I guess start here.


Density is a force onto its self. Yes or no?

Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.

Naaaaaa.

Density = Mass/Volume or mass per unit volume if you prefer. It been agreed by everyone, apart from YOU.


Thats what density is what you are talking about is not density.
You cant go and make up stuff to suit yourself ! The definition of density is spoken for. you'll have to go away and come up with a new name for what you are on about.

My definition is more bang-on than the one offered.
The one offered factors in gravity and a spinning Earth to aid it.
Mine does not and that's why it differs.

By all means, accept what's on offer as most do. I do not.

Density is not a force at all.

Which means it cannot explain why things move. You need something more, a force acting on the object to move it.

Because there always has to be a counteraction to any applied energy offered by an object into resistance to it.

Which in no way addresses the issue.
Firstly, that doesn't need resistance all around.
But more importantly, that is effectively just repeating the claim that it needs resistance without explaining why.

The counteraction required is the resistance of the object itself, applying a force back to the object imparting a force onto it.
In this case the resistance would be the 2x4 resisting the force applied by the hammer.

The buoyant force stops if the object hits a foundation.

No, it just goes through the foundation.
If you get a helium filled balloon and place it firmly against a surface, it will still float up due to the buoyant force.

It resists from below and is overcome from above

No, it pushes from all direction, and the push from below is greater, meaning the atmosphere is applying an upwards force.

along with the dense mass of the object (hammerhead).

i.e. It is not the atmosphere pushing it down, so stop pretending it is.
Instead you are just going back to claiming it is the mass of the object.
But we both know that the mass alone provides no motive to move. It is not a force, it has no directionality.
So yet again you are implicitly appealing to gravity.

There's everything magical about gravity.

Then why are you unable to show any of this magicalness and instead just repeatedly dismiss it as magical?

There is no evidence at all for a global Earth

You not liking the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You have been presented with a large amount of this evidence, and all you can do is run away from it, spout nonsense which is quickly refuted, or just dismiss it as fake.

Not at all.
Gravity is required for a Global Earth rotating in space and everything that goes with that

Why?
Why can't your delusional BS work just as well, with the atmosphere stacking outwards from the sphere to magically cause the mass itself (not the atmosphere) to push it down towards Earth?
Sure, it doesn't actually work as an explanation due to all the holes, but there is nothing about the shape of Earth which affects that.

My definition is more bang-on than the one offered.

No, it isn't.
Density is a scalar intensive property of the material which tells you its mass per unit volume.
So if you know the extensive property volume or mass you can determine the other.

The one offered factors in gravity and a spinning Earth to aid it.

You mean the one offered doesn't try to make density do something it doesn't?
Whereas your one makes no sense and instead tries to make density make things magically fall down for no reason at all?

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.

Do the experiment in a vacuum.  Kills your BS dead.

The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

One.  Objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.



Two.  You missed the end discussion on this post…

Quote from: disputeone on November 10, 2022, 02:08:58 AM

The sledgehammer accelerates towards the wood and its mass creates a force large enough to break the wood.

I was wondering if someone would pick up on that.  But three points..


One, The problem is to show that density it’s self has the property of a “force”.

Two.  I guess with the pumpkin I moved the goalpost a bit by showing the sledge hammer sitting on the pumpkin.  Then implying in a no gravity flat earth why the sledge hammer after sitting on the pumpkin can get the force to break the pumpkin by dropping.

Three.  In the spherical earth, air resistance in this kind of experiment is negligible because the force of gravity is so much more of a factor than friction with the atmosphere. 

But in a flat earth no gravity where there is no force acting on the object dropped, air resistance would be a major factor.  In the flat earth model, what overcomes friction of the atmosphere to even get an object to move down.   

But the challenge still stands.  Might need to tweek it a bit.

How about this.  Show how density alone of carbon steel can break the 2x4 with no assumptions.

Mathematically solve using only density of carbon steel snd 40n to break the 2x4.  No assumptions.


You

Density is not a force at all. It's a resistance.

Then state density in units of resistance.  Which would make it like the force of friction.  Which is a force that opposes motion..

So.  You contradicted yourself.

What Is Friction?

https://sciencing.com/calculate-force-friction-6454395.html

Friction describes the force between two surfaces when you try to move one across the other. The force resists motion, and in most cases the force acts in the opposite direction to the motion.

Scales work just fine in a vacuum to measure the force gravity experts on a mass.




You can exert a force without even displacing anything…

2. Car Resting on a Bridge
A car resting on a bridge exerts a considerable amount of force and pressure on the contact surface between the bridge and the car. This force does not cause any change in the state, position, or shape of the car or the bridge. Hence, the type of force existing between the bridge and the car is known as static force.

https://studiousguy.com/static-force-examples/

Static load test on progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete structure in Korea

http://www.i-asem.org/publication_conf/structures22/9.CD/CD666/3.%20CD2666_7384F1.pdf


Test Procedure and Instrumentation
Fig. 3 shows the test setups and the linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) for the measurement of displacement. Using 1000 kN oil pressure machine, a vertical loading was applied to the top of the specimen. In the prototype model, the sub-frame is laterally supported by the adjacent beams and columns. To simulate such frame action, in the specimens, the top of the 2nd floor columns were laterally supported at the contraflexure point. The vertical displacements of the beam were measured at the four locations: middle of each span, and loading columns. The plastic hinge deformation of the beams and the deformation of the columns were measured.

i.e. It is not the atmosphere pushing it down, so stop pretending it is.
Instead you are just going back to claiming it is the mass of the object.
But we both know that the mass alone provides no motive to move. It is not a force, it has no directionality.
So yet again you are implicitly appealing to gravity.

Atmosphere squeezes any dense mass down or even up depending on where it's placed in the stacking system.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 07:24:44 AM

My definition is more bang-on than the one offered.

No, it isn't.
Density is a scalar intensive property of the material which tells you its mass per unit volume.
So if you know the extensive property volume or mass you can determine the other.

Mass is the amount of material making up an object, including volume within the structure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 07:21:55 AM

The one offered factors in gravity and a spinning Earth to aid it.

You mean the one offered doesn't try to make density do something it doesn't?
Whereas your one makes no sense and instead tries to make density make things magically fall down for no reason at all?

Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy and be dense enough to overcome the resistance below it aided by the squeeze from above and around the vertical areas of it because this is what sits within the layered stacking system.

Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy and be dense enough to overcome the resistance below

You just contradict yourself. 

So?  I can raise an object just a bit and it will not fall?

For it to start to move down it has to overcome this resistance, that requires a force like gravity. 

The three laws of motion still holds true.


Gravity lets us accurately and predictable model the energy because of height off the ground. It even has a name.

 

Gravitational Potential Energy

PEgrav = mass • g • height

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy

What’s the flat earth math and formal/modeling  for the energy a object has due to its position above earth?

As pointed out.  Air resistance is negligible in many applications because the force of gravity is so much more than the friction with the air.

In a flat earth model with no gravity.  The only force on a dropped object is air resistance.  This means the air friction is the major force/ factor, and in flat earth there is no motivation for an object above the ground to fall if dropped through the resistance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 12, 2022, 02:04:19 AM

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides.

Do the experiment in a vacuum.  Kills your BS dead.

Only if you think a vacuum offers zero resistance, meaning totally empty space, which it cannot ever do.
So you've killed nothing stone dead except your own assumption.

One.  Objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum.

No they don't.
They may appear to do so in a low-pressure environment and using that Brian Cox setup is a complete and utter con job as far as I'm concerned.
The reality is a tennis ball and an iron ball dropped from waist height would appear to fall at the same rate but the truth is much different in a normal atmosphere and would be much different in lower pressure if there was enough distance to the drop rather than using small containers to supposedly show the same rate of fall.

But in a flat earth no gravity where there is no force acting on the object dropped, air resistance would be a major factor.  In the flat earth model, what overcomes friction of the atmosphere to even get an object to move down? 

The above atmosphere and what the dense mass sits inside, which would be what it takes up of the stacking system of the atmosphere above and around with only below as resistance to all of that.
Remember any dense mass placed into the atmosphere is already spring-loaded by its very own dense mass displacement of that atmosphere.
 

What Is Friction?

https://sciencing.com/calculate-force-friction-6454395.html

Friction describes the force between two surfaces when you try to move one across the other. The force resists motion, and in most cases the force acts in the opposite direction to the motion.

Friction is always around us. No friction means no life and no living Earth.
Everything is attached throughout Earth. No free space is ever available and cannot ever be available which rules out vacuums and is simply a case of lower pressures of friction.

Scales work just fine in a vacuum to measure the force gravity experts on a mass.

There never is any vacuum, just lower pressure and scales will work in that environment but will not work the same as in a higher pressure environment.

You can exert a force without even displacing anything…

You can't. Any force will always displace something. It has to or nothing works...ever.

2. Car Resting on a Bridge
A car resting on a bridge exerts a considerable amount of force and pressure on the contact surface between the bridge and the car. This force does not cause any change in the state, position, or shape of the car or the bridge. Hence, the type of force existing between the bridge and the car is known as static force.

The car alone displaces its own dense mass of the atmosphere whether it's on a solid land road or on a bridge or in sand or in water.

It still has to resist that pushback of its displacement which will see tyres take the brunt, visually on a solid road or even on a bridge but you would visually see the sand take the brunt of the resistance of that car by seeing those tyres sink a little and even more so in water where the displacement will see the car pushed into the less resistant water to its own displaced amount of atmosphere which will visually see it sink.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2022, 01:19:44 AM

Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.
To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy and be dense enough to overcome the resistance below

You just contradict yourself. 

There are no contradictions, at all.

So?  I can raise an object just a bit and it will not fall?

As long as your energy holds it will not fall nor rise.

For it to start to move down it has to overcome this resistance, which requires a force like gravity. 

For it to start to move down you must release your own energy keeping it up and then its very own displacement of its own dense mass against the atmosphere offers it a spring push back to the deck aided by the above atmosphere against the resistance of what is below it, atmospherically.

The three laws of motion still holds true.

Explain the three laws.

Gravity lets us accurately and predictable model the energy because of height off the ground. It even has a name.


Gravitational Potential Energy

PEgrav = mass • g • height

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy

Atmosphere offers the very same potential energy to any mass. No gravity is required.

As pointed out.  Air resistance is negligible in many applications because the force of gravity is so much more than the friction with the air.

Air resistance is massively pertinent because nothing works without it. It really is as simple as that.

In a flat earth model with no gravity.  The only force on a dropped object is air resistance.  This means the air friction is the major force/ factor, and in flat earth there is no motivation for an object above the ground to fall if dropped through the resistance.

The only force needed is atmospheric resistance. It's always a push on push or push against resistance to push.
Nothing is ever truly equal. It always has to be unbalanced even by so much as the minutest amount. Action and equal and opposite reactions are by all accounts immediate in terms of following a force and reactive resistance to it but the reality is one had to follow the other to actually initiate work.

Action and equal and opposite reactions are by all accounts immediate in terms of following a force and reactive resistance to it but the reality is one had to follow the other to actually initiate work.

You know you always make me think.
You're right one always does follow the other.

I'm quite sure he was referring to newton's laws of motion for the "three laws"

You know an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

And every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.

Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.

Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times? 

Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.

Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.

If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.

Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.

Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.

Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.

Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times? 

Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.

Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.

If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.

Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.

Are you retarded?

How the object came into motion is irrelevant.  Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2022, 02:04:57 AM

Action and equal and opposite reactions are by all accounts immediate in terms of following a force and reactive resistance to it but the reality is one had to follow the other to actually initiate work.

You know you always make me think.
You're right one always does follow the other.

I'm quite sure he was referring to newton's laws of motion for the "three laws"

You know an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

And every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Now when you look at them all, one does not exist and the other simply follows the same pattern as the last.

You know an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.

You see the saying appears to be reasonable until you actually realise that an external force always has to act upon anything in motion or you simply cannot have any motion in the first place.
The actual saying has no realistic meaning. It's basically offering a fantasy.
It's like saying if superman spun fast enough and turned the Earth he'd go back in time. Fantasy but people will use it as a theoretical possibility.

Force equals mass times acceleration.
And every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

These two are basically just one law.
They offer action and reaction in equal measures.

One law covers those two and the other does not exist as any legitimate law because it cannot exist.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 13, 2022, 04:30:19 AM

Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force. They aren't ALREADY in motion, Newton didn't include that part, in his so-called 'Laws'.

Calling it a Law, when it is absolute nonsense, isn't any sort of Law, it's just BS, they call a Law, to impress people it is a proven fact or something.

Do you know of any objects in motion, at all times? 

Only those in the heavens, of course, are always in motion, a constant, endless motion.

Other than that, no object on Earth is always in motion, right? The objects which Newton says are in motion, must first be PUT into motion, by a force acting on them.

If Newton had included that part, which MUST be part of it, he would need to admit that objects are first put into motion, BY a force. That is the force which PUT them in motion, and acts on the objects AFTER they are in motion, and will eventually die out, and no longer ACT on the object, which was the ONLY force which MADE it move to begin with.

Newton would have known that objects aren't in motion, by themselves, to say 'when they are in motion', anyone knows they must first be PUT into motion, by a force.

Are you retarded?

How the object came into motion is irrelevant.  Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.

It will always be acted upon by an opposing force, in motion and as it's put into motion. It will never be in constant motion at any time.

The law is nonsense.

You see the saying appears to be reasonable until you actually realise that an external force always has to act upon anything in motion or you simply cannot have any motion in the first place.
The actual saying has no realistic meaning. It's basically offering a fantasy.

Than why dose a scale work in a vacuum.