Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity

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 a object doesn’t have to move to apply a force.  Static force / load.

Two.  The vacuum removes any meaningful resistance that you need. 

Three.  The “force” applied doesn’t change in any meaningful way as vacuum is drawn.   It shows there doesn’t need to be opposition in the atmosphere for a sledge hammer to break a 2x4.  In fact, less air resistance, the more force the sledge hammer can apply from the input energy to the 2x4 that wasn’t used in friction with the atmosphere.

So.  No, atmosphere pressure on the sledgehammer is not required to break the 2x4.  Less or no air resistance allows the input energy to be used more efficiently.

If there is no gravity.  There is nothing to motivate a dropped object to overcome friction with the atmosphere to fall.

It’s no different than holding a ball open palm up. The ball doesn’t move parallel to the ground unless thrown it that way.  You have to apply a force to get the ball to move parallel to the ground.  Do it in a vacuum, the ball will travel farther.  The ball will hit with more force.

The only difference from the ball being thrown parallel to the ground vs being dropped is gravity is always pulling on the ball while you have to supply the force to get the ball to travel out parallel to the ground.  Don’t think there is no force of gravity.  Hold a 50 pound weight straight out at arms length from your body.  You can even use gravity and formulas for levers to calculate the force transmitted to your shoulder.  And with a space suit, you could do it in a vacuum in a earth based vacuum chamber. There would still be the stain on your shoulder from gravity pulling on the 50 pound weight your holding out at arms length.  And the strain on the shoulder will not change proportional to the amount in change in air pressure. 

It doesn't. It works in low pressure just like it does in high pressure, as long as it has a foundation to resist any dense mass placed upon it.

A vacuum of zero pressure does not and never will exist.

It doesn't. It works in low pressure just like it does in high pressure, as long as it has a foundation to resist any dense mass placed upon it.

A vacuum of zero pressure does not and never will exist.

No.  One.  Show that a sledgehammer can’t break a 2x4 in a vacuum.

Two.  You need to shown the ability of the sledgehammer to break the 2x4 becomes proportional degraded / inefficient as atmospheric pressure is reduced.

Three.  Back to my example of holding a 50 pound weight straight out with your arm at shoulder height.  The atmosphere has little to do with the strain transmitted to your shoulder from gravity pulling on the 50 pound weight held out at arms length at shoulder height. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2022, 01:53:31 AM

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 a object doesn’t have to move to apply a force.  Static force / load.

An object has to move to apply a force unless you wish to use force as a resistance of dense mass against its atmospheric displacement.

Two.  The vacuum removes any meaningful resistance that you need. 

No.
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.

Three.  The “force” applied doesn’t change in any meaningful way as vacuum is drawn.

What do you mean by drawn?
A vacuum cannot ever be anything. Low pressure is created by energy pushing higher pressure away and compressing it, leaving a lower pressure.

  It shows there doesn’t need to be opposition in the atmosphere for a sledgehammer to break a 2x4.

There has to be opposition for anything to work. The entire action and equal and opposite reaction must offer a force and a reply to that force in equal measures.

In fact, less air resistance, the more force the sledge hammer can apply from the input energy to the 2x4 that wasn’t used in friction with the atmosphere.

Only if you raise the hammer and then allow air pressure to become lower and enabling the hammer to overcome the weaker resistance to it.
It would be minimal in the containers we can use to do that experiment.

So.  No, atmosphere pressure on the sledgehammer is not required to break the 2x4.

Yes it is.
You can never raise a sledgehammer unless you raise it under pressure, even lower pressure.

  Less or no air resistance allows the input energy to be used more efficiently.

No, not from an equal start without cheating it.
Less resistance to force means less push on the dense mass. Equal and opposite reaction to action.

If there is no gravity.  There is nothing to motivate a dropped object to overcome friction with the atmosphere to fall.

The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 13, 2022, 05:06:26 AM

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.

No the law isn't nonsense.

The irony of you saying such is that you can imagine your land of denspressure, but can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it.

An object has to move to apply a force unless you wish to use force as a resistance of dense mass against its atmospheric displacement.

No.  A 50 pound weight held out at arms length is placing a measurable strain/force/load that your muscles have to exert energy to hold.

Then there is the whole thing where a reed can bend in the wind where the same wind might break a rigid tree.

Are you saying a car up on jack stands isn’t applying a force to the jack stands and the floor?

No.
A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.

 Ok.  Show there is enough collusions from gas molecules in a near perfect vacuum to be a factor.

What do you mean by drawn?
A vacuum cannot ever be anything. Low pressure is created by energy pushing higher pressure away and compressing it, leaving a lower pressure.

External source

The best vacuum in a laboratory setting has a pressure around 13 picoPascals (13 x 10-12 Pa). A cryogenic vacuum system achieves a near-perfect vacuum with a pressure around 6.7 femtoPascals (6.7 x 10-15 Pa). In comparison, atmospheric pressure is around 100 kPa or 100,000 Pa.

https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-perfect-vacuum-is-it-possible/

 Take a vacuum chamber.  Fill it with nitrogen. Determine how many gas molecules in a given space.   Draw or suck to a pressure where the number of gas molecules are reduced by half.  See what factor it has on the force applied by a dropped sledgehammer.

Repeat until sucking / drawing out the gas molecules doesn’t create a noticeable change in pressure drop.

There has to be opposition for anything to work.

That is not the same as applying a force. 

To do work you have to move a mass a distance with a force for example.  That is not opposition, it’s displacement.



Opposition is  friction. 

More

Solutions:
For this question, the additional thing to note is the work done against friction. All the energy possesses by the box at bottom is KE. This KE will decrease and be converted to remaining KE at height h + gain in GPE + work done against friction.

Conservation of energy,
KE at bottom = KE at h + GPE at h + friction force
1/2mv2 = 1/2mv2 +   mgh  +   F x d
(1/2 x 2 x 102) = (1/2 x 2 x 52) + (2 x 10 x h) + (2 x h/sin60)
h     = 3.36 m

https://evantoh23.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/energy-calculation-involving-work-done-agains/

Verify the math.  And notice gravity opposes the box being dragged up the inclined. If you did this experiment with a spring scale spliced into the rope, it’s going to read the force on the rope keeping the stationary box from sliding back.


Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.  No friction is needed.  The mass is treated as being in a perfect vacuum with no surface friction.  friction and air resistance, it only takes from the force generated/ delivered. Is the ideal value of force you get. Real life is going to be less because of friction and air resistance.

Expending energy is different.  I can hold a weight out steady at arms length, my body still expends energy fighting against the force of gravity.

The entire action and equal and opposite reaction must offer a force and a reply to that force in equal measures.

Where does the three laws of motion state your interpretation?

External

Newton's laws of motion are three basic laws of classical mechanics that describe the relationship between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it. These laws can be paraphrased as follows:[2]: 49 

A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.

When a body is acted upon by a force, the time rate of change of its momentum equals the force.


If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

You

Only if you raise the hammer and then allow air pressure to become lower and enabling the hammer to overcome the weaker resistance to it.

The only thing the atmosphere offers is opposing motion in the form of friction.

Yes it is.

Why?  Dictated by what formula?

You can never raise a sledgehammer unless you raise it under pressure, even lower pressure.

Again.  Because gravity is stronger than the force of friction with the atmosphere, air resistance is negligible.  It becomes even more negligible in a vacuum chamber as pressure drops as more gas molecules are removed to bounce around.  Which is what gas pressure is.

In fact….  You don’t understand gas pressure.  Do you?’



You certainly can raise a sledgehammer under no atmospheric pressure. 

For starters, the pressure around the sledgehammer is in equilibrium.  The gas molecules hitting the top of the sledgehammer are the same number as hitting the bottom.  They cancel each other out until you draw a vacuum where there are no molecules hitting the sledgehammer.  Or a statically low chance of being hit by gas molecules.

Pressure is not the same as air resistance that can only oppose the motion of the hammer through the air.

No, not from an equal start without cheating it.
Less resistance to force means less push on the dense mass. Equal and opposite reaction to action.

Funny for a stationary mass you ignore, “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”

You

The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.

Ahh, no.

One. Laws of motions you like to invoke.. what’s the one usually first listed?

“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”

Two.  For a mass sitting with zero motion.  The pressure is the same all around.  As many gas’s molecules are hitting the bottom of the sledgehammer as the top.  Without gravity there is no force to break the equilibrium.  No force to overcome friction with the atmosphere.  No force to start motion in accordance with the first law of motion.

A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.

You're right, a perfect vaccuum can't exist on earth. However, we can get very close...

The ambient pressure is altitude dependent. For example, at sea level, the maximum vacuum will be 760 Torr, in Omaha Nebraska (1000 feet altitude) it's 733 Torr...

An average rated acrylic vacuum chamber can get down to about 0.1 Torr. Yes, it's not a perfect vacuum but don't you see the vast difference between 760 and 0.1?

So yes, we can test these things in a 0.1 Torr vacuum chamber as opposed to regular atmosphere of 760 Torr. And in doing so, we can show that your theory does not hold any validity. A 0.1 vacuum chamber shows you are wrong. Simple as that. 

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

No, atmosphere pushes all mass up.
Even you accept it is the object itself causing it to go down.

Density doesn't make anything magically fall down.

That's right, it needs something like gravity to act on it.

To have anything fall down it first has to be raised by applied energy

No, it just needs to have somewhere to fall to. It does not need to be raised first.

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.

And that appeal to "dense enough" is appealing to gravity.

If it was the air, the density of the object shouldn't matter.

I take it by you ignoring the section about the RE you now fully accept that your delusional BS works just as well on a FE or RE? That the shape of Earth doesn't matter.
So there would be no reason to reject it to try and save a RE?

Only if you think a vacuum offers zero resistance

No, it shows the air isn't important for explaining why things fall and just slows things down.

If the air was important reducing the air pressure so much should drastically reduce how quickly it falls.

No they don't.

Yes they do.
You dismissing the evidence as a con-job doesn't magically make it one.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide your own evidence showing that they do fall at different rates.

Remember any dense mass placed into the atmosphere is already spring-loaded by its very own dense mass displacement of that atmosphere.

Only in the sense that the air pressure is greater below, and thus will try to force the object up.
The atmosphere doesn't explain why things fall.

Everything is attached throughout Earth. No free space is ever available and cannot ever be available which rules out vacuums

No, that is just your baseless assertion which can't rule out anything.
The drastically different properties of gasses compared to liquids and solids, and the phase change between them, dictates there MUST be free space.

scales will work in that environment but will not work the same as in a higher pressure environment.

No, they work the same. The same principles are at work.

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

While a lack of displacement will mean no work is done, that doesn't mean a force ALWAYS has to displace something.
It isn't a dichotomy.
You can have the application of a force to an object resulting in that object accelerating or moving against friction to do work on the object. Or you can have the application of a force to an object, countered by another force acting on that object to result in no overall motion.

There are no contradictions, at all.

You contradict yourself all the time. It is a real problem for you.
You want to pretend the air alone is what is pushing the object down. But when faced with the reality that the air would push the object up as the pressure is greater below, and that that should mean it doesn't matter what the object is; you instead appeal to the object itself.
But then you jump straight back to it magically being the air, because you hate space and want to pretend the air is needed for everything.

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

No, it would offer the opposite, based upon the pressure gradient and how much energy would be provided by pushing it upwards out of that pressure gradient.
Importantly, this force depends upon the pressure, not the mass of the object.

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

Plenty works without it.
Air resistance is only important when you have a significant relative velocity between the air and the object.
That is because air resistance is based upon this relative motion.
No relative motion, no air resistance.

The only force needed is atmospheric resistance.

All that would cause is for the object to slow down relative to the air.
It would not explain why things fall.

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

You mean you just don't understand them or their purpose?

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.

No, it needs to act to put it into motion, but then it can stop acting.
The point of it is that you need a force to change the motion of an object.
So it is quite realistic and quite accurate.

These two are basically just one law.

No, they are 2 separate laws.
If anything, it would be the first 2 laws which are effectively the same.
The second law provides a numerical relationship between the net force, mass and acceleration.
This can also be used to show if F=0, then a=0 (i.e. the first law).

The third law is stating how if you apply a force to an object, it will apply a force back to you.

An object has to move to apply a force

More nonsense. Why should it have to move to apply a force?
Consider a spring. It can apply a force while being held compressed or in tension, without moving.
The lack of motion doesn't magically cause it to stop applying a force.

(And no, the air has nothing to do with this).

A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.

That is what it is defined as.
The point is all meaningful interaction with the air can be removed.
You can even get vacuums that are so good that the air doesn't act as a gas and instead it acts as a collection of particles bouncing off the walls.
Under these conditions the air is not part of the explanation for how things work.

There has to be opposition for anything to work. The entire action and equal and opposite reaction must offer a force and a reply to that force in equal measures.

That opposition does not need to come from the atmosphere.
In the example of the sledge hammer and 2x4, there are a few action-reaction pairs involved.
There is the action-reaction pair of the force between the hammer and Earth (gravity), with the hammer pulled down by Earth and the Earth pulled up by the hammer.
There is the action-reaction pair of the 2x4 and Earth in the same way.
There is the action-reaction pair of the hammer and the 2x4.
As the hammer isn't accelerating down, the net force is 0, so it must be supported by the 2x4 applying a force upwards to it, with a reaction of the hammer pushing down.
As the 2x4 isn't accelerating down, the net force is 0, so it must also have a force supporting it (and the weight of the hammer).

There is no need to invoke the air in this.

The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.

No, it doesn't.
The atmosphere pushes up.
It does explain why the hammer falls or breaks the 2x4 at all.
Even you accept that fact and appeal to the mass of the hammer.

Except Newton ignored the fact objects are first PUT into motion, BY a force.

No, he didn't.

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

Earth, the moon, the sun, technically everything on Earth as it is moving with Earth, and so on.

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

No, he wouldn't, as that is delusional BS.
The force acts to accelerate the object. When that force stops acting, the object continues until another force acts to change its motion.
The force doesn't magically keep acting on the object to keep it going.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 13, 2022, 07:13:14 AM

A vacuum cannot exist. Low pressure can but never a vacuum unless you want to define a vacuum as being low pressure.

You're right, a perfect vaccuum can't exist on earth. However, we can get very close...

The ambient pressure is altitude dependent. For example, at sea level, the maximum vacuum will be 760 Torr, in Omaha Nebraska (1000 feet altitude) it's 733 Torr...

An average rated acrylic vacuum chamber can get down to about 0.1 Torr. Yes, it's not a perfect vacuum but don't you see the vast difference between 760 and 0.1?

So yes, we can test these things in a 0.1 Torr vacuum chamber as opposed to regular atmosphere of 760 Torr. And in doing so, we can show that your theory does not hold any validity. A 0.1 vacuum chamber shows you are wrong. Simple as that.

There should also be some correlation in increasing pressure in a pressure chamber if sceptimatic’s ideas had any validity? 

A diving chamber is a vessel for human occupation, which may have an entrance that can be sealed to hold an internal pressure significantly higher than ambient pressure, a pressurised gas system to control the internal pressure, and a supply of breathing gas for the occupants.

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



The decompression chamber at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab

No the law isn't nonsense.

The irony of you saying such is that you can imagine your land of denspressure, but can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it.

I can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it because it simply cannot happen and anyone who cares to take a bit of time to realise it will see it's utter nonsense.

Here's the simplicity of motion. To create motion you need to create friction/energy and to do this you absolutely need something to push off of.
No matter what you look at or use you will see it requires resistance to offer work and equal resistance to counter it for every effort/energy put into that force of motion.

We are being coaxed into a belief system of somehow being offered something magically getting into motion and immediately staying in exact motion with absolutely no reactionary force applied to the object put into motion.

It's impossible.
The law is a nonsense law. It's magical fantasy and will never become a reality so it's basically a law that can be scrubbed leaving only two laws left which can be merged into one simple law.

No.  A 50 pound weight held out at arms length is placing a measurable strain/force/load that your muscles have to exert energy to hold.

Yes and that's because you hold the dense mass of the hammer away from its original solid foundation and now your grip and muscles become the new foundation and will expend energy keeping the potential energy of that dense mass aloft until you release it which will allow the atmosphere to basically spring crush it down as it overcomes the atmospheric stacked resistance below aided by the atmosphere above to its own dense mass.

Then there is the whole thing where a reed can bend in the wind where the same wind might break a rigid tree.

The bending reed is a massive clue. It does not become a wind barrier and actually bends to flow with that wind at its weakest points. A tree being more rigid cannot offer the same generally so may break.

Are you saying a car up on jack stands isn’t applying a force to the jack stands and the floor?

The car raised on jack stands is applying its own dense mass displacement of the atmosphere and that very same compressive atmosphere back onto the car pushed it against the resistance of the jack stands and the foundation of which they rest.

Ok.  Show there is enough collusions from gas molecules in a near perfect vacuum to be a factor.

Nothing ever separates to leave free space. You can break down molecules but you can never break them down to offer free space between them. There will always be an attachment of less dense molecules or more dense molecules depending on the pressure applied.

There will never be any near-perfect vacuum, just extremely low pressure.

The best vacuum in a laboratory setting has a pressure around 13 picoPascals (13 x 10-12 Pa). A cryogenic vacuum system achieves a near-perfect vacuum with a pressure around 6.7 femtoPascals (6.7 x 10-15 Pa). In comparison, atmospheric pressure is around 100 kPa or 100,000 Pa.

https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-perfect-vacuum-is-it-possible/

It doesn't matter what you use you can never offer a true vacuum or a near vacuum.
You can offer lower pressure to the extreme but that's it.

Take a vacuum chamber.  Fill it with nitrogen. Determine how many gas molecules in a given space.   Draw or suck to a pressure where the number of gas molecules are reduced by half.

You can never suck pressure. Lower pressure has to be caused by pushing away higher pressure to allow higher pressure to become lower pressure behind that push by allowing natural molecular expansion which leaves less dense molecules behind as they actually compress themselves by expansion into themselves.

  See what factor it has on the force applied by a dropped sledgehammer.

Less resistance to the drop is all you get but it would be on such a minuscule offering that it becomes negligible in any controlled environment.

Repeat until sucking / drawing out the gas molecules doesn’t create a noticeable change in pressure drop.

A pressure drop will always occur if you use energy to push high pressure away and allow molecules behind that push to expand out, as above.

To do work you have to move a mass a distance with a force for example.  That is not opposition, it’s displacement.
Opposition is  friction. 

It's everything. It's the displacement with every motion and friction with every motion and obvious equal reaction to that action.

Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.  No friction is needed.

Force is friction, Mass is always moving which means it's friction. and acceleration is simply more friction pushing on mass to move the mass more quickly over time.

The mass is treated as being in a perfect vacuum with no surface friction.

It's impossible.

  friction and air resistance, it only takes from the force generated/ delivered.

There will always be air resistance and always friction. You cannot move without it. Nothing can.

Expending energy is different.  I can hold a weight out steady at arms length, my body still expends energy fighting against the force of gravity.

Your arms and body expend energy holding the dense mass displacing the atmosphere along with your own arms and body. No gravity is ever required in any magical form.

A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.

A body is never at rest, it's always expanding and contracting by agitation or friction, or vibration. Take your pick.
There is no unless acted upon by a force. It's always acted upon by a force and never ever would it be not acted upon so the law is make-believe. It's a fantasy.

When a body is acted upon by a force, the time rate of change of its momentum equals the force.
If two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

It's very simple. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. One law to fit everything.
You do not get more out of something than you put in.

The only thing the atmosphere offers is opposing the motion in the form of friction.

It's all it ever has to offer. It's what keeps everything working. It's what keeps this Earth working and everything in it.

Again.  Because gravity is stronger than the force of friction with the atmosphere, air resistance is negligible.

Gravity is a fantasy, made up to keep a spinning globe and planets and a universe alive in people's minds.

  It becomes even more negligible in a vacuum chamber as pressure drops as more gas molecules are removed to bounce around.  Which is what gas pressure is.

They only bounce around because they are pressurised against each other and vibrate by expansion and contraction depending on pressure applied or released.

You certainly can raise a sledgehammer under no atmospheric pressure. 

No you can't.

For starters, the pressure around the sledgehammer is in equilibrium.

It never truly is.

  The gas molecules hitting the top of the sledgehammer are the same number as hitting the bottom.

No they aren't. Not quite, hence why we have a layered and stacked atmosphere. Close to our primitive heads but still not exact.

They cancel each other out until you draw a vacuum where there are no molecules hitting the sledgehammer.

It'll never happen.

  Or a statically low chance of being hit by gas molecules.

You're offering free-flowing gas molecules in free space. It's impossible and simply gives rise to fictional space vacuums. It's literally utter fantasy.

Pressure is not the same as air resistance that can only oppose the motion of the hammer through the air.

Pressure is exactly that.

Funny for a stationary mass you ignore, “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”

It's always acted upon. Always.

Quote

The atmosphere itself does this job against the dense mass placed within it. It becomes a spring compression.

Ahh, no.

Ahhh yes.

One. Laws of motions you like to invoke.. what’s the one usually first listed?

“A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force”

It is always acted upon, as above.
It can never ever be at a constant speed no matter what.

Two.  For a mass sitting with zero motion.  The pressure is the same all around.

Not quite but close.

  As many gas’s molecules are hitting the bottom of the sledgehammer as the top.

No.
You see the sledgehammer can only sit on stacked layers and requires holding. All it's doing is resting its bottom on those layers. They are not pushing it up, just more resisting mildly due to another force/energy allowing this which could be your arm and grip, and body and feet are being that foundation.

  Without gravity there is no force to break the equilibrium.

No need for fictional gravity.

  No force to overcome friction with the atmosphere.  No force to start motion in accordance with the first law of motion.

The atmosphere is the force against the energy applied by whatever force is placed against it, which requires it in order to do any work in the first place.

I can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it because it simply cannot happen and anyone who cares to take a bit of time to realise it will see it's utter nonsense.

Used this in another thread

Let’s start with, what does changes in atmospheric pressure have to do with an object’s gravitational potential energy?  And that potential energy being converted to kinetic energy…

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?

Note. Added…

Please show using the three laws of motion how a stationary sledgehammer overcomes the friction of air uses “momentum” to become motivated to move and accelerate down.


It’s no different if you hold the sledgehammer off the ground and use a force to throw the sledgehammer out instead of down.

If you hold the sledgehammer in your open palm up, why doesn’t it just start to go out away from you?  You claim there is no gravity, no force to make it fall down. Why can’t I make the sledgehammer go out away from me with no force.  Like how you say there is no force to make the sledgehammer go down.

Or up?  There is less air resistance up.  Why can’t I just hold the sledgehammer in my open palm and make it go up with no force.  I can even place my hand on top and remove it.  It takes a force to make the sledgehammer to raise up off my hand.  Why does it not take a force to motivate a sledgehammer to move from no momentum/inertia to overcome friction with the atmosphere to not only move down, but accelerate down.

Let’s start with, what does changes in atmospheric pressure have to do with an object’s gravitational potential energy?  And that potential energy being converted to kinetic energy…
Because it didn’t have the force until it was raised to a certain hight and released.

It always has a force but a foundation offers that force only potential energy at that point because that atmospheric displacement by the object cannot be realised because the density of the ground is far greater and so resists the effort.

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.

No.
Each stacked layer the sledgehammer is raised into offers more resistance below it but the displacement above it of its own dense mass and energy produced to raise it ensures the sledgehammer is sprung back down against that resistance and is crushed further with each layer advanced into by that very same layer which is now compromised.

****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?

Note. Added…

Please show using the three laws of motion how a stationary sledgehammer overcomes the friction of air uses “momentum” to become motivated to move and accelerate down.

What instrument shows gravity?
Explain the simple instrument that offers accuracy due to gravity.

It’s no different if you hold the sledgehammer off the ground and use a force to throw the sledgehammer out instead of down.

If you hold the sledgehammer in your open palm up, why doesn’t it just start to go out away from you?  You claim there is no gravity, no force to make it fall down. Why can’t I make the sledgehammer go out away from me with no force.  Like how you say there is no force to make the sledgehammer go down.

If you throw the hammer away from you you're still displacing the atmosphere by that dense mass of hammer and that hammer along with your own applied energy now compresses the atmosphere with more force and compresses it more, meaning more spring horizontally meaning the atmosphere above cannot force it down as quickly to overcome the stacked layers below because it also has the horizontal stack to overcome causing an arc to the ground.

Or up?  There is less air resistance up.  Why can’t I just hold the sledgehammer in my open palm and make it go up with no force.

Because the hammer itself massively displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere as I explained and that has the equal and opposite reaction along with the above push down.

 I can even place my hand on top and remove it.  It takes a force to make the sledgehammer to raise up off my hand.  Why does it not take a force to motivate a sledgehammer to move from no momentum/inertia to overcome friction with the atmosphere to not only move down, but accelerate down.

As above.

It always has a force but a foundation offers that force only potential energy at that point because that atmospheric displacement by the object cannot be realised because the density of the ground is far greater and so resists the effort.

Sorry.  Meaningless word salad by you.

Now.  Let’s take your delusion the extra steps. 

Remember this?

Let’s start with, what does changes in atmospheric pressure have to do with an object’s gravitational potential energy?

And this formula;

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

With no meaningful correlation with atmospheric pressure.  The amount of potential energy and why a falling object has force is negligible concerning atmosphere in most cases.  And the atmosphere is not responsible why an object falls to earth, and why it has force.

Let’s take a 1kg mass with potential energy .152 meters off a surface and calculate the potential energy..

The solution should be 1.470998 j

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy

In a compression chamber at twice the normal atmosphere, your saying potential energy should be double?  As atmospheric pressure increases, so should potential energy.  If not.  Why? 

So. In your model.  If this is the scenario.  The vacuum chamber is purged with nitrogen.  The pressure is drawn off until almost zero. The vacuum chamber is chilled to cooler than the point nitrogen turns to liquid.

What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure?  Is potential energy almost zero?  If the 1kg weight is let loose?  Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?


No.  The F’n weight is going to drop as fast, if not faster.  With the same force.  If not more force from lack of air friction.  Like dropping a feather in a vacuum. 

The notion items fall to earth because of air pressure, and not gravity is bollocks.  It’s not seen in the modeling and math behind things falling to earth.  And not in ballistics other than opposition as in air friction.

Let’s take a 1kg mass with potential energy .152 meters off a surface and calculate the potential energy..

The solution should be 1.470998 j

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy

In a compression chamber at twice the normal atmosphere, your saying potential energy should be double?  As atmospheric pressure increases, so should potential energy.  If not.  Why? 

No I'm not saying that.
If you raise the pressure you raise it throughout and placing your dense mass within it is still going to offer a higher spring back to the ground against a higher resistance beneath.

So. In your model.  If this is the scenario.  The vacuum chamber is purged with nitrogen.  The pressure is drawn off until almost zero. The vacuum chamber is chilled to cooler than the point nitrogen turns to liquid.

Purging it with nitrogen is going to do what?
It will still have pressure within.

What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure?  Is potential energy almost zero?  If the 1kg weight is let loose?  Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?

What you have to remember is, you're placing the dense mass into that chamber and that lower pressure in that chamber still offers a spring for the object that's displaced that part of the lower pressure so all you do is have less of a spring but also much less resistance to it beneath.

No.  The F’n weight is going to drop as fast, if not faster.  With the same force.  If not more force from lack of air friction.  Like dropping a feather in a vacuum. 

Of course it'll drop faster because there's much less resistance to the very same dense mass.

The notion items fall to earth because of air pressure, and not gravity is bollocks.  It’s not seen in the modeling and math behind things falling to earth.  And not in ballistics other than opposition as in air friction.

It's bollocks to you because you believe in a fictional force.
The reality is, the truth of it is all around us and in anyone's face who wishes to bother to take the time to see past the coerced learning of a fantasy gravity.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 16, 2022, 09:20:56 AM

Let’s take a 1kg mass with potential energy .152 meters off a surface and calculate the potential energy..

The solution should be 1.470998 j

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy

In a compression chamber at twice the normal atmosphere, your saying potential energy should be double?  As atmospheric pressure increases, so should potential energy.  If not.  Why? 

No I'm not saying that.
If you raise the pressure you raise it throughout and placing your dense mass within it is still going to offer a higher spring back to the ground against a higher resistance beneath.

Meaningless.  If things fall because of atmospheric pressure, then there should be a direct correlation between potential energy and atmospheric pressure.There is not. 

As shown in a vacuum changer where a feather and a bowling ball fall at the same rate and have different potential energies. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

So. In your model.  If this is the scenario.  The vacuum chamber is purged with nitrogen.  The pressure is drawn off until almost zero. The vacuum chamber is chilled to cooler than the point nitrogen turns to liquid.

Purging it with nitrogen is going to do what?
It will still have pressure within.

Purge with nitrogen pushes out items like argon gas that take a lower temperature to turn to liquid.  You can just about purge all other gas out to where the vacuum chamber probably 99.99 percent nitrogen. Draw out as much pressure as possible.  Drop the temperature to where the nitrogen turns to nitrogen.  Then no more gas pressure in the vacuum chamber.

Again…

What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure?  Is potential energy almost zero?  If the 1kg weight is let loose?  Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

What is the potential energy of a 1kg weight .152 meters (six inches) off the bottom of the vacuum chamber with almost zero atmospheric pressure?  Is potential energy almost zero?  If the 1kg weight is let loose?  Will it almost fall with almost zero velocity?

What you have to remember is, you're placing the dense mass into that chamber and that lower pressure in that chamber still offers a spring for the object that's displaced that part of the lower pressure so all you do is have less of a spring but also much less resistance to it beneath.

How does it act like a spring.  It acts like the force of friction.  The only time gas acts like a “spring” is if it’s confined in a piston like a gas shock.  Would you say a ship sailing through water acts like a spring.  No, the water provides friction because the ship cuts through the water.  It doesn’t compress it like a trapped hydraulic cylinder. Like the 1kg weight can fall through and cut through the gas in a vacuum chamber.  Where a piston cannot cut trough a gas because the trapped gas has nowhere to escape.  The piston pushes it to compression that can be read.   What is the increase pressure of dropping a sledgehammer in a closed box where the sledgehammer makes no kind of seal to trap pressure?

Friction opposes motion.  Springs work within Hooke’s law.


Where in open atmosphere does the atmosphere act like a spring in accordance with Hooke’s law

In physics, Hooke's law is an empirical law which states that the force (F) needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance (x) scales linearly with respect to that distance—that is, Fs = kx, where k is a constant factor characteristic of the spring (i.e., its stiffness), and x is small compared to the total possible deformation of the spring.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

No.  The F’n weight is going to drop as fast, if not faster.  With the same force.  If not more force from lack of air friction.  Like dropping a feather in a vacuum. 

Of course it'll drop faster because there's much less resistance to the very same dense mass.

Then if there is less resistance where you state….

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

Air resistance is negligible in most simple physics problems.  We can statistically take away almost, if not all gas molecules collisions, in a cold vacuum chamber for a dropped object.

In your model in a vacuum chamber with zero pressure, there is no reason for an item to fall.  No reason the item should transmit any appreciable force.  That is how we know your model is false.  And just plain BS.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

The notion items fall to earth because of air pressure, and not gravity is bollocks.  It’s not seen in the modeling and math behind things falling to earth.  And not in ballistics other than opposition as in air friction.

It's bollocks to you because you believe in a fictional force.

Again.  Force should be dependent on atmospheric pressure in your model, and it’s not. Air resistance is negligible.  There is no meaningful correlation between potential energy and atmosphere pressure.

Tthe reality is, the truth of it is all around us and in anyone's face who wishes to bother to take the time to see past the coerced learning of a fantasy gravity.

Then show how to model atmosphere pressure with potential energy in a predictable and meaningful way that is more accurate than the gravitational model.

And…

In accordance with the three laws of motion.

Where gravity is zero.

What motivates the sledgehammer to overcome friction / resistance from the atmosphere with a starting point of zero inertia/ momentum to fall?  Why is it always down.  Why can’t I take something like a apple.  Place a hand below and above the apple.  Remove both hands at the same time to have it always fall straight down?  There is less air resistance above than below.  Why can’t I trick the apple to fall up?

The reality is, the truth of it is all around us and in anyone's face who wishes to bother to take the time to see past the coerced learning of a fantasy gravity.

Actually the reality is that a vacuum chamber experiment blows up your theory. A device with an accelerometer blows up your theory. A roller coaster blows up your theory. Things are designed, engineered, built everyday that use gravity and gravity calculations at their core and funny enough, they work spectacularly well as intended. Zero things use denpressure.

Now if you could demonstrate how all these things should be using denpressure instead and with equal or better results, that would be something. But as it stands, denpressure is useless to everyone around the globe.

But let's try this out. How do I calculate for denpressure when, say, designing/engineering a roller coaster drop? It can't have too much force, neg or pos, or my passengers will suffer, but needs to have enough neg & pos forces to provide a thrill.

- It has 5 cars, 2 passengers each, for a total combined estimated weight of 1360 kilos
- First drop is 30 meters at an angle of 75°

How might I use denpressure to calculate the forces exerted throughout the run to make sure it's safe and provides a thrilling experience? What speed will the 5 cars achieve at the end of the drop?

I can't fathom an object in motion with no opposing force enacting on it because it simply cannot happen

Prove it.
Are you sure this isn't based upon your fantasy of a vacuum being impossible because you want to pretend molecules/atoms are unpoppable balloons which just inflate to always fill the gap so such an object will always be being pushed on by these atoms if it tries to move through them?

Here's the simplicity of motion. To create motion you need to create friction/energy and to do this you absolutely need something to push off of.

And that can simply be the object you are putting into motion.
It is only if you want to remain where you are that you need something to push off.

Imagine a hypothetical world where there is a compressed spring sitting right up against a solid block with a similar mass to the spring, with nothing else there.
What happens?
Does it all just magically sit there, or does the compression of the spring cause it to expand, with this expansion hitting the solid block pushing the solid block and spring apart?

If you want, you could even have 2 identical compressed springs sitting directly adjacent.

No matter what you look at or use you will see it requires resistance to offer work and equal resistance to counter it for every effort/energy put into that force of motion.

Only in the sense that you need to apply a force to accelerate an object and that object pushes back, resisting that change in motion.

We are being coaxed into a belief system of somehow being offered something magically getting into motion and immediately staying in exact motion with absolutely no reactionary force applied to the object put into motion.

No, we are not.
Instead we just aren't be coaxed into a ridiculous belief of needing to push against something else.

will expend energy keeping the potential energy of that dense mass aloft

Why?
This makes perfect sense with gravity. But makes no sense in your model.
Especially as you want to claim it is just the air (even though you repeatedly contradict that) which should just push the object up, not down.

until you release it which will allow the atmosphere to basically spring crush it down

Again, as the pressure of the atmosphere is greater below the object, it should push the object up, not down.
Why should it magically overcome the atmosphere below?

aided by the atmosphere above to its own dense mass.

And yet again, you wish to claim it is the mass causing it.
So why bother with the atmosphere at all?
Why not just appeal to the mass and only deal with the atmosphere when it comes to buoyancy where the force of the atmosphere pushing up is significant?
Repeatedly appealing to the atmosphere as if it pushes objects down doesn't help your case at all.

But even with this, you still need to explain what is causing that mass to want to go down, and you can't use the atmosphere.

Nothing ever separates to leave free space.

Again, the massive difference in properties of a gas compared to the same substance as a liquid or a solid; and the phase transition to the gas clearly demonstrates that you can.
Brownian motion clearly demonstrates that you can.

If your nonsense was true, there should not be a clear barrier between liquids and gasses.
Instead, as you heat a liquid up it should just expand, becoming less and less dense as it does so as the molecules expand, with no clear transition to the gas phase.
But back in reality, we have a quite clear transition. As you heat a substance, the liquid becomes slightly less dense, but typically only changes by a very small amount. Until it reaches the boiling point, where it sits at the same temperature as more and more of the molecules overcome the intermolecular forces holding them together as a liquid, breaking free with plenty of free space between the molecules in the gas phase, until it has all boiled, at which point the gas then continues heating.

That large amount of energy needed to turn it into gas (for water, it is more energy to turn it into gas than it is to take it from ice to its boiling point) is the energy required to overcome the intermolecular forces holding it together.

Again, if the molecules simply expanded and remained held together, there would not be this large energy requirement as the intermolecular forces would not be overcome.

We can even demonstrate the kind of behaviour expected under your nonsense with the transition to a supercritical fluid where the volume is so small and the pressure is so great there the free space between molecules is insignificant.

So no, we know that in the gas phase, the molecules are not tightly held together like they are in a liquid or solid phase. Instead we know that there is free space between them. But because the molecules are contained, there is no expansion as it turns to gas.

You repeatedly rejecting this when you have no explanation at all for the observed properties shows that you are happy to wilfully reject reality to pretend your fantasy is true.

Less resistance to the drop is all you get

Why?
If it is the air pushing the hammer down, why don't we also get less of a push down?
Again, you are effectively appealing to gravity. You are appealing to gravity acting on the mass of the hammer to pull it down, with the air just resisting the subsequent motion.

Force is friction, Mass is always moving which means it's friction.

No, friction is a specific type of force. Not all forces are friction.
Friction is a force based upon relative lateral motion (or preventing that).
i.e. if you have a plate sitting on a table, friction tries to prevent that plate sliding on the table. But it isn't friction preventing that plate going through the table or flying up into the air.

And as objects in motion do not need a force to continue their motion, that means it definitely doesn't need friction.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

The mass is treated as being in a perfect vacuum with no surface friction.

It's impossible.

While it is impossible to get to that perfect state, we can get to a state where the amount of air and friction is entirely negligible.

Your arms and body expend energy holding the dense mass displacing the atmosphere along with your own arms and body. No gravity is ever required in any magical form.

Of course it isn't required in a magical form. You are the one trying to use magic.
Gravity is required in a quite normal form. Gravity is what you are fighting to hold the dense mass up.
It clearly isn't the atmosphere as less atmosphere (by mass) is displaced at this higher altitude, and the atmosphere is trying to push the hammer up to reduce that displacement as much as possible.

So what are you fighting that requires you to provide that energy? Gravity.

A body is never at rest, it's always expanding and contracting by agitation or friction, or vibration.

That is the individual components of the object, not the object as a whole.
But what if the object is a single atom? Or a single proton?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

The only thing the atmosphere offers is opposing the motion in the form of friction.

It's all it ever has to offer.

So you accept that it does not push things down.

Gravity is a fantasy, made up to keep a spinning globe and planets and a universe alive in people's minds.

Gravity is a reality, backed up by mountains of evidence, with no one able to provide a viable alternative.
And as pointed out, your delusional BS works just as well on a RE.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

For starters, the pressure around the sledgehammer is in equilibrium.

It never truly is.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  The gas molecules hitting the top of the sledgehammer are the same number as hitting the bottom.

No they aren't. Not quite, hence why we have a layered and stacked atmosphere.

That's right. It is never truly equal, at least not in a gravity well.
Instead you have a greater pressure at the bottom. This greater pressure acts to push the hammer up. Not down, UP!
This means if it was just the air, the hammer should be going upwards.

We can also demonstrate this by weighing substances in various fluids, where we see the lower the density of the fluid the more the object appears to weigh, and if we do that with a gas, we can see that as the pressure drops the density does as well, and the weight approaches the true weight of the object, that is the weight the object would have without being immersed in a fluid.

You're offering free-flowing gas molecules in free space.

i.e. REALITY!
You should not be surprised by this.
Your inability to refute it means people will continue to use it.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  Without gravity there is no force to break the equilibrium.

No need for fictional gravity.

But a real need for real gravity.
Unless you can provide an alternative.
And as we have already firmly established, the air pushes up, not down, so the alternative cannot be the air.

We also know it isn't the atmosphere magically resisting a force that was applied earlier.
This is easy to demonstrate by moving the hammer sideways instead. The air doesn't magically push it back. So why should it magically push it back down?

@ceptimatic

The Fundamentals Of Vacuum Theory

https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html


Under lower and lower pressure, the molecules spread out further and further, until, at ultra-high vacuum (10-12 mbar), there are only 2.65 x 104 or 26,500 molecules per cubic centimeter. At this density, there is only one molecule roughly every 0.33 mm in space. Since the diameter of each gas molecule is much less than this (4 x 10-8 cm for air, for example), there is a great deal of space between molecules. To put it into proportion, if gas molecules were grains of sand, at ultra-high vacuum they would be 1,650 meters apart. At these extremely low pressures, the collisions between molecules, which normally dictate the properties of gases, become very infrequent and a different theoretical model is required to explain their properties (the so-called Kinetic Theory of Gases).

https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html

@sceptimatic




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.

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's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!

Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 13, 2022, 05:06:26 AM

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's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!

Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.

Oceans are in motion.  How did the oceans first become in motion?  I'll wait.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 25, 2022, 02:41:13 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 13, 2022, 05:06:26 AM

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's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!

Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.

Oceans are in motion.  How did the oceans first become in motion?  I'll wait.

Um, no, Newton was referring to objects in general, here on Earth. Not about clouds, or stars, or humans, which ARE 'objects', that DO move, he wasn't referring to humans, as objects in motion, which stay in motion unless acted on by another force, but let's say he was.....

When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'? No, we just stop walking ourselves, there's no 'force' that MAKES us stop walking, right?

Nothing makes us STOP moving, if we want to stop moving, it's OUR energy that CAUSED our moving, our walking, and our ENDING of energy that stops our moving around, too!

Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.

Nice try at twisting it, but no dice!

So he was talking about objects, after put into motion, will tend to STAY in motion, unless acted on BY ANOTHER FORCE!


There ARE NO OBJECTS IN MOTION, without being PUT into motion by a FORCE acting on them, BEFORE they ARE in motion, AFTERWARDS. 

Why would THAT possibly be RELEVANT to this? Hmm, any idea?

Because 'when objects are in motion', is complete BS, and is just another TRICK! They use many tricks, like this, over and over again. 

Objects 'in motion' - let's start with that - ignore WHY they're 'in motion', TO BEGIN WITH!


All good to go, after that point, right?

It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!

That also relies upon something you haven't supported. What makes you say objects magically began to exist at rest? How do you know objects didn't magically begin to exist already in motion, and then slow down?

But regardless, what put them into motion is quite irrelavent to discuss what happens once they are in motion.

When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'?

Yes.
An easy way to see this is if you are walking quickly, and something stops your feet.
You see how the top of your body keeps moving, because the force hasn't acted on that, resulting in you faceplanting into the pavement.
You can also see it to some extent on ice.

If you want to stop, you apply a force, typically to the ground, which applies a force back to you.

Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.

How many times will you repeat this garbage?
There is absolutely no reason at all to think a force keeps on acting after it has already acted to put the object in motion.
Again, all the available evidence indicates that objects stop because of forces acting to stop them.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 25, 2022, 02:41:13 PM

It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!

That also relies upon something you haven't supported. What makes you say objects magically began to exist at rest? How do you know objects didn't magically begin to exist already in motion, and then slow down?

But regardless, what put them into motion is quite irrelavent to discuss what happens once they are in motion.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 25, 2022, 07:01:19 PM

When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'?

Yes.
An easy way to see this is if you are walking quickly, and something stops your feet.
You see how the top of your body keeps moving, because the force hasn't acted on that, resulting in you faceplanting into the pavement.
You can also see it to some extent on ice.

If you want to stop, you apply a force, typically to the ground, which applies a force back to you.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 25, 2022, 07:01:19 PM

Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.

How many times will you repeat this garbage?
There is absolutely no reason at all to think a force keeps on acting after it has already acted to put the object in motion.
Again, all the available evidence indicates that objects stop because of forces acting to stop them.

Why would you think the force acting on the object, making it move, doesn't make it move throughout the time?
When using MORE force than before, the object moves faster, and for longer than it did when LESS force was used on it, right?

The more force was used, which proves it IS the initial force acting on it, of course. Other forces like friction are a minor factor in it, mainly it is the initial force that dies out, which makes it stop moving, primarily.

How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on. It doesn't just make it START to move, and that's all.

Why would you think the force acting on the object, making it move, doesn't make it move throughout the time?

Because you stop applying a force.
If I throw a ball, after the ball has been released, my hand is no longer in contact with it.
I can move my hand around all I want, without affecting the ball.
So how is my hand meant to keep the ball moving?

When using MORE force than before, the object moves faster, and for longer than it did when LESS force was used on it, right?

The more force was used, which proves it IS the initial force acting on it, of course.

No, it doesn't prove that at all.
If anything, it proves the opposite.

If it was the initial force dying out, why should the magnitude of that force make a difference?
Why shouldn't the force just magically die out after some time and cause the object to stop?


Also, the same can be achieved by applying the same force, but for longer.
So what that really is is the impulse, which is really just how much the momentum has changed.
So that is just appealing to momentum.


But again, there is no reason at all to think that means the momentum is magically dying for no reason causing the object to slow down.
Perhaps the most significant reason why is that all motion is relative. What is the momentum meant to die relative to?
If you throw something into water, it doesn't just magically stop moving relative to some magical absolute reference frame, instead it stops moving relative to that water.

Other forces like friction are a minor factor in it, mainly it is the initial force that dies out, which makes it stop moving, primarily.

Pure BS.
The fact that the geometry of the object and various things which influence friction and the like, and most importantly for this topic, the directionality play such a large role in how long the object takes to stop makes it abundantly clear that it is NOT just the initial force dying out. Instead it is another force acting to stop it.

There are plenty of tests you can do to demonstrate this.

If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
If your nonsense was true, cars and other objects would not be designed to be aerodynamic.
If your nonsense was true, gliders would not exist.

Again, take a brick, slide it along a rough surface, like dirt; slide it along a smooth, low friction surface like smooth ice, place it on an object with wheels and roll that, throw it straight up with, and throw it horizontally.
Drive your car along a straight private road/open area reaching 100 km/hr, and then put it in neutral, and see how long it takes to coast to a stop.
Then repeat, but this time slam on the breaks and see how long it takes to stop.
You will see a different behaviour each time.

This shows it is another force acting to stop the object, not just the object magically stopping because the magical force which magically put it into magical motion magically died out and cause it to stop.

How did it move to start with? That's what dies out, and stops it's movement later on.

Take a car moving at 55 mph on a flat surface with the computer showing the calculated gas mileage of about 26 miles per gallon.

For a no gravity delusion for the car transitioning from a flat surface to a steep hill.  Why does the gas mileage drop to around 10 miles per gallon, the transmission gear down, RPMs come up, and the car uses fuel at an increased rate to just keep its speed at 55 mph?  To go up hill.

The car is able to mechanically set the curse control to keep power output the same and constant.  Yet, because the force of gravity is pulling at the car going up hill, the car’s curse control must increase fuel consumption and power output to keep the same speed.  As kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy.

Because you stop applying a force.
If I throw a ball, after the ball has been released, my hand is no longer in contact with it.
I can move my hand around all I want, without affecting the ball.
So how is my hand meant to keep the ball moving?

Because it applied all the force TO the ball, at first contact. If that force stopped acting on the ball immediately after contact, the ball would immediately stop moving. But it keeps moving, AFTER the force acted on it, which means the force is STILL acting on it. Otherwise, the ball would stop moving the instant after the force acted on it.

If it was the initial force dying out, why should the magnitude of that force make a difference?
Why shouldn't the force just magically die out after some time and cause the object to stop?

The initial force does NOT die out immediately, that's why more force makes the ball move faster, and for longer, than with LESS force applied to it. There's nothing else that accounts for the ball moving faster and for longer, right?

If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.

No, that is what YOU believe, that the force stops acting right away on the object, which is NOT the case. You're very confused about you own argument here.

There is only ONE force which makes the object move in the first place, and KEEPS it in motion, afterwards, until it dies out. Force is simply applied energy. Energy does not stop acting on objects the instant it is gone, it acts on objects long afterwards, until it dies out.

When you apply one second of force to an object, and it moves at 20 mph hour, for a distance of 30 feet, and stops moving after 10 seconds, what happens to the object when you apply MORE force to the SAME object, for the SAME one second? Does it move at the same speed, over the same distance, for the same 10 seconds time?

No, of course not. It moves FASTER than before, over MORE distance than before, for a LONGER period of time, right? 

Why? The force acted on it for 1 second in both cases, right? If the force only acts on it for that 1 second, it would move at the SAME speed, over the SAME distance, for the SAME period of time, no?  Why doesn't that happen? Because the FORCE applied to the object is different, over the SAME one second of time.