Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity

  • 80 Replies
  • 6821 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 23446
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #60 on: November 27, 2022, 01:26:30 AM »
Because it applied all the force TO the ball, at first contact.
Which accelerated the ball.
Just like if you put a knife through an apple to cut it in 2, it doesn't magically stick itself back together after you take the knife away.

The force makes it move, it doesn't keep it moving.

If that force stopped acting on the ball immediately after contact, the ball would immediately stop moving.
No, it would stop accelerating.
All you are doing now is just repeatedly asserting the same delusional BS.

If it was still acting, it should feel as if you are still pushing on the ball, and if you pull your hand back, the ball should stop, and if the ball hit a wall, it should feel like you smashed your hand into the wall.
In reality, there is no longer a connection between the ball and your hand. Your hand has stopped acting on the ball, the force has stopped acting.

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?
Try actually answering the question.
Why should the magnitude of the force matter at all?
Why shouldn't they all just die out after some time?

The ball moves faster because it received a larger impulse, and it takes longer to stop because it has more momentum which must be acted against to slow it down.
No need for any magical connected forces.

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
No, that is a direct consequence of the delusional BS you have spouted.
If you want to claim the main cause of things stopping is because the force dies out, that means breaks on a car are useless as they do not significantly impact how long it takes the car to stop.

With my belief, which is based upon all the available evidence that I know of, the car needs a force to stop it moving, which can be either the forces associated with deforming the tyres, or the force of air resistance, or the force of friction on the countless components of the car that are rotating, or the force of the breaks. Because cars are designed to minimise losses, without breaks, it can continue for quite some time, while using the breaks will stop it quite quickly.

So my belief matches reality quite well.
Your belief directly contradicts it.

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.
Force is a particular type of applied energy. But energy doesn't act, at least not in that sense.
The force accelerates the object, increasing its kinetic energy.
In order to stop, that energy has to go somewhere.
For example, it could go to heat due to frictional forces.

But with your delusional BS, that energy just magically vanishes.

Your delusional BS doesn't even need that force to keep acting, as there is nothing trying to stop it, so why should it need to act?

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?
If the force magically dies in 10 seconds, why shouldn't it just die in 10 seconds? Why should the magnitude of the applied force have any impact on how long it magically lives for?

If you apply a force twice as large to an object twice the mass, what should happen? Should it still die out after a longer time, or should it now magically die out in the same amount of time?

And of course, yet again you just ignore all the simple observations which so trivially demonstrate that you are spouting nonesnse.
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #61 on: November 27, 2022, 02:57:00 AM »

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.
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.

Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.

Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #62 on: November 27, 2022, 03:07:14 AM »

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.
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.

Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.


No.  Gravity is demonstrably real. Because we have this…. Regenerative Braking


Quote
These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking

They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022

https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp


Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!


*

JackBlack

  • 23446
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #63 on: November 27, 2022, 03:13:53 AM »
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
If it is getting less resistance, shouldn't it be easier for it to move?

But regardless, the orientation clearly doesn't matter, as people, even standing upright, find it harder to go up a hill.
And it clearly isn't what part of the stack they are in, as if it was, it would be harder walking at the top of a hill (even going down) than at the bottom.

Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
Until you can provide a viable alternative, gravity, and the entirely non magical force it actually is, is needed.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #64 on: November 27, 2022, 03:16:11 AM »

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.
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.

Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.


No.  Gravity is demonstrably real. Because we have this…. Regenerative Braking


Quote
These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking

They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022

https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp


Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!

That offers nothing for magical gravity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #65 on: November 27, 2022, 03:25:27 AM »
A car transitioning from flat to uphill offers much less resistance to the ground/foundation because it's been slowly turned into a missile as opposed to a flatter-resistant chunk of metal.
The reason for this is the car sits much more within the atmospherically stacked layers above and around it and much less resistance to the car by the stacking below it.
If it is getting less resistance, shouldn't it be easier for it to move?
It is easier to move once it stops in the stacked layers and becomes returned energy or what's known as potential energy.
Quote from: JackBlack

But regardless, the orientation clearly doesn't matter, as people, even standing upright, find it harder to go up a hill.
Nobody stands upright when going up a hill without angling their bodies to resist the push back down via the hill foundation.


Quote from: JackBlack
And it clearly isn't what part of the stack they are in, as if it was, it would be harder walking at the top of a hill (even going down) than at the bottom.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you expound upon it?

Quote from: JackBlack
Gravity and the magical force it's said to be is obviously not needed.
Until you can provide a viable alternative, gravity, and the entirely non magical force it actually is, is needed.
I already have provided it and gravity is a magical fantasy force.

Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #66 on: November 27, 2022, 04:06:50 AM »
That offers nothing for magical gravity.


It’s practical engineering solution that uses the very real force of gravity to use regenerative braking.  Gravity is a force being used to motivate the reluctance of electrons to move in a regenerative breaking circuit to charge batteries.  The force of gravity being converted to electrical potential, or the force to cause electrical current to flow.

And Hooke’s law as used in a hanging spring scale also kills your no gravity delusion.

Quote
Springs follow Hooke's Law which states that the restoring force, FR exerted by the spring is equal to the stretch or compression distance, known as the displacement (Δx), multiplied by spring stiffness (k) and the direction of the force is opposite to the direction of the displacement.

(1)  quicklatex.com-4240bd39c525f948de5148fce9d6c5d9_l3.png

A higher spring stiffness means the spring shows a greater resistance to stretching or compressing. Spring stiffness is often called the spring constant.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Conceptual_Physics/Book%3A_Body_Physics_-_Motion_to_Metabolism_(Davis)/07%3A_Strength_and_Elasticity_of_the_Body/7.05%3A_Measuring_Weight#Springs

Regenerative braking and Hooke’s Law are engineering principles that harness the very real, and demonstrably gravity, and has a level of predictability in ways your butchered version of gravity cannot reach. 

That’s the funny thing like individuals like you a turbo.  You claim no gravity.  Then bend over backwards trying to butcher gravity to claim it isn’t gravity.  Just to make some delusional version of gravity.


So.  Three individuals posting about “no gravity”. bulmabriefs144, turbonium2, and sceptimatic?  And yet there is no real coherent explanation for what gravity does between the three of you. 

*

JackBlack

  • 23446
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #67 on: November 27, 2022, 04:13:22 AM »
It is easier to move once it stops in the stacked layers and becomes returned energy or what's known as potential energy.
You mean gravitational potential energy, the very thing you are trying to reject?

Nobody stands upright when going up a hill without angling their bodies to resist the push back down via the hill foundation.
Well if you want to go to that level of detail, people angle themselves forwards when going up a hill, which would be comparable to a car angling itself down as it goes down a hill.
So that should make it easier to walk up a hill than walk on a flat surface.

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you expound upon it?
If you are saying the car being in a higher up part of the stack makes it harder for it to move, then this should be based upon altitude. i.e. if you are in a higher up part of he stack, it is harder to move, regardless of if you are going up or down.

So collectively, the only thing left is the upwards motion. But as the air should be pushing things up, and without a force like gravity trying to push/pull things down, that shouldn't be the case at all.

Quote from: JackBlack
Until you can provide a viable alternative, gravity, and the entirely non magical force it actually is, is needed.
I already have provided it and gravity is a magical fantasy force.
You are yet to provide any coherent explanation for why things fall.
Instead you claim one thing, which is outright contradicted by reality, and you then proceed to contradict it.
You can't even remain consistent on if it is the object itself trying to go down, or if it is just the air trying to push it down.

Likewise, you are yet to show anything magical or fantastical about gravity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2022, 04:27:23 AM »
That offers nothing for magical gravity.


It’s practical engineering solution that uses the very real force of gravity to use regenerative braking.  Gravity is a force being used to motivate the reluctance of electrons to move in a regenerative breaking circuit to charge batteries.  The force of gravity being converted to electrical potential, or the force to cause electrical current to flow.

And Hooke’s law as used in a hanging spring scale also kills your no gravity delusion.

Quote
Springs follow Hooke's Law which states that the restoring force, FR exerted by the spring is equal to the stretch or compression distance, known as the displacement (Δx), multiplied by spring stiffness (k) and the direction of the force is opposite to the direction of the displacement.

(1)  quicklatex.com-4240bd39c525f948de5148fce9d6c5d9_l3.png

A higher spring stiffness means the spring shows a greater resistance to stretching or compressing. Spring stiffness is often called the spring constant.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Conceptual_Physics/Book%3A_Body_Physics_-_Motion_to_Metabolism_(Davis)/07%3A_Strength_and_Elasticity_of_the_Body/7.05%3A_Measuring_Weight#Springs

Regenerative braking and Hooke’s Law are engineering principles that harness the very real, and demonstrably gravity, and has a level of predictability in ways your butchered version of gravity cannot reach. 

That’s the funny thing like individuals like you a turbo.  You claim no gravity.  Then bend over backwards trying to butcher gravity to claim it isn’t gravity.  Just to make some delusional version of gravity.


So.  Three individuals posting about “no gravity”. bulmabriefs144, turbonium2, and sceptimatic?  And yet there is no real coherent explanation for what gravity does between the three of you.
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2022, 04:29:35 AM »
It is easier to move once it stops in the stacked layers and becomes returned energy or what's known as potential energy.
You mean gravitational potential energy, the very thing you are trying to reject?


Atmospheric reaction to action against it by any dense mass.

Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2022, 04:59:16 AM »

There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.


Again…

Then where is the force coming from to drive the regeneration braking circuit?  Why does the process work in this example because the weight in the cars with gravity is supplying the force to charge the batteries to drive the empty train back up hill.

What force is driving the weighted train downhill to motive the electrons in the regenerative braking system to provide enough electrical potential to charge the batteries for the unloaded return trip uphill?

In a normal fuel / motor/ generator system, energy from gas/diesel would be used to drive an engine to drive the generator to charge the battery.  The more depleted the battery, the more energy required to charge the battery, thus more fuel.

In the example of just weighted trains and gravity, where is the energy coming from to drive the regenerative braking “generators” to charge the batteries.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2022, 10:09:30 AM »
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.

What's the motive for millions of people to hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves?

How do millions of people get away with using gravity in designing everything from airplanes to the accelerometer in your smartphone all using gravity and not just atmospheric pressure against any dense mass?

What are your calculations for atmospheric pressure against any dense mass that they all should be using instead?

*

JackBlack

  • 23446
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2022, 12:15:21 PM »
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.
There is no full explanation of why because gravity is a fundamental force, and like all forces there is the question of why.
Why do opposite electric charges attract, why do like electric charges repel?

But once you have either the simple Newtonian explanation of mass attracts mass or the relativistic explanation of mass/energy curves spacetime with objects following a geodesic through space time unless acted upon by another force, we do have an explanation for what gravity does.

What is quite clear, is that it is not the atmospheric pressure.

Once more, if it was pressure, then it would be a push upwards, on everything, due to the greater pressure below.
If you instead want the atmosphere to magically defy that, and push in some other direction, then you need an explanation for why it should, and you have none.
It also means that the atmosphere should then push everything down. So why should anything go up?
It also means that the weight of an object should depend on atmospheric pressure.
And it means you shouldn't be able to have things like a mercury filled barometer.

Even you recognise the atmosphere can't explain it by repeatedly appealing to the dense mass of the object at least helping it overcome the push from below.

Gravity is the best explanation we have.
Your nonsense doesn't even come close to an explanation.

Atmospheric reaction to action against it by any dense mass.
You mean like how if you push an object to the left, the atmosphere pushes it back to the right?
Except it doesn't.

Or do you mean how the atmosphere tries to push all objects upwards, out of the atmosphere?

Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #73 on: November 27, 2022, 12:51:55 PM »
At least when you explain something obvious to a box of rocks, it accepts what you say. But not Scepti.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #74 on: December 01, 2022, 12:38:20 AM »

There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.


Again…

Then where is the force coming from to drive the regeneration braking circuit?  Why does the process work in this example because the weight in the cars with gravity is supplying the force to charge the batteries to drive the empty train back up hill.

What force is driving the weighted train downhill to motive the electrons in the regenerative braking system to provide enough electrical potential to charge the batteries for the unloaded return trip uphill?

In a normal fuel / motor/ generator system, energy from gas/diesel would be used to drive an engine to drive the generator to charge the battery.  The more depleted the battery, the more energy required to charge the battery, thus more fuel.

In the example of just weighted trains and gravity, where is the energy coming from to drive the regenerative braking “generators” to charge the batteries.
As I mentioned about the massive amount of energy needing to be applied in the first place and then regular additions to ensure a working setup.

You seem to be omitting this.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2022, 12:39:16 AM »
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.

What's the motive for millions of people to hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves?

How do millions of people get away with using gravity in designing everything from airplanes to the accelerometer in your smartphone all using gravity and not just atmospheric pressure against any dense mass?

What are your calculations for atmospheric pressure against any dense mass that they all should be using instead?
If you can actually tell me what exactly is used to show this gravity I'll have something to go on.
Do you actually know?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #76 on: December 01, 2022, 01:06:41 AM »

There is no full explanation of why because gravity is a fundamental force, and like all forces there is the question of why.
There's no explanation because it's a made-up force to basically hide the reality (my opinion) of what's really happening which is any dense mass displacing atmosphere, including denser liquids (water as an instance) of it.

Quote from: JackBlack
Why do opposite electric charges attract, why do like electric charges repel?
To understand this you only need to understand water flow.

Quote from: JackBlack
But once you have either the simple Newtonian explanation of mass attracts mass or the relativistic explanation of mass/energy curves spacetime with objects following a geodesic through space time unless acted upon by another force, we do have an explanation for what gravity does.
Mass attracts mass? What exactly does that mean?
It's nonsense.



Quote from: JackBlack
What is quite clear, is that it is not the atmospheric pressure.
What is quite clear is, it's all to do with atmosphere but most people can't grasp it because they only think of moveable air as if it was the only thing we negotiate of the atmosphere.
Quote from: JackBlack
Once more, if it was pressure, then it would be a push upwards, on everything, due to the greater pressure below.
It squeezes either up or down depending on any dense mass displacement of it.

Quote from: JackBlack
If you instead want the atmosphere to magically defy that, and push in some other direction, then you need an explanation for why it should, and you have none.
It pushes in all directions as long as there's an imbalance which there always is but some imbalances are so mild we actually do not register them in everyday life.

Quote from: JackBlack
It also means that the atmosphere should then push everything down. So why should anything go up?
Any dense mass will be squeezed up if that dense mass is less dense than the stacked atmospheric layers it is energetically placed into.
Basically, a dense mass that's broken down to become less dense than the environment it is placed into which will then be squeezed into a stacked layer that fits that broken-down molecular makeup.
Helium is one such breakdown of more dense matter.

Quote from: JackBlack
It also means that the weight of an object should depend on atmospheric pressure.
It does, absolutely.
As long as you understand that weight is a person-made measurement of dense mass displacement of the atmosphere by use of a scale.

Quote from: JackBlack
And it means you shouldn't be able to have things like a mercury filled barometer.
Mercury is no different against atmospheric displacement except it is denser a liquid and so, less porous, meaning it offers a better atmospheric reading without allowing seepage into the low pressure gap that already exists within the tube.

Quote from: JackBlack
Even you recognise the atmosphere can't explain it by repeatedly appealing to the dense mass of the object at least helping it overcome the push from below.
I am explaining it but you seem to brush it aside and basically set yourself back to the start.
You of all people should grasp it but you're far too set in your ays to dare to understand it.

Quote from: JackBlack
Gravity is the best explanation we have.
There is no explanation which is why you can't explain it, except to say, gravity.

Quote from: JackBlack
Your nonsense doesn't even come close to an explanation.
To you, I agree. I wouldn't expect any difference and I'm answering to you to offer others the opportunity to actually pay attention.

Quote from: JackBlack
Atmospheric reaction to action against it by any dense mass.
You mean like how if you push an object to the left, the atmosphere pushes it back to the right?
Except it doesn't.
Except it does but it doesn't equally push it back because generally you push something on the open which allows compression of the atmosphere in front to be pushed out of teh way rather than compressed directly to the front, meaning much less reaction to that initial force of dense mass pushed against that.

However, if you try to push a plunger down a shaft that has no exit, you will get exactly what you argue against, which is a near-equal reaction to the force (action) to put on the plunger and it will be pushed right back.

Try it with a bicycle pump and hold your finger over the exit hole and then plunge it and leave go. See it spring back.

Quote from: JackBlack
Or do you mean how the atmosphere tries to push all objects upwards, out of the atmosphere?
The atmosphere squeezes and if you took the time to understand the layering system of the stacking then you'd see why.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #77 on: December 01, 2022, 01:07:30 AM »
At least when you explain something obvious to a box of rocks, it accepts what you say. But not Scepti.
Maybe that's your problem. Try not to converse with boxes of rocks and thinking they talk back.

*

JackBlack

  • 23446
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #78 on: December 01, 2022, 01:48:36 AM »
There is no full explanation of why because gravity is a fundamental force, and like all forces there is the question of why.
There's no explanation because it's a made-up force to basically hide the reality (my opinion) of what's really happening which is any dense mass displacing atmosphere, including denser liquids (water as an instance) of it.
I just explained why there is no full explanation of gravity.
It has nothing to do with your opinion.

Dense mass displacing atmosphere provides no incentive for it to go down.

Quote from: JackBlack
Why do opposite electric charges attract, why do like electric charges repel?
To understand this you only need to understand water flow.
No, no one knows, it is simply a fundamental property of the universe.
Due to how dipoles act, we know it isn't water flow or anything like that.

Mass attracts mass? What exactly does that mean?
It's nonsense.
Pretty much the same thing as opposite charges attract.
If you have 2 objects, with mass, they will attract each other, with a force proportional to the product of the masses.
Just like if you have 2 opposite charges, they will attract each other, with a force proportional to the product of the charges.
And in both cases, inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Just why do you say it is nonsense?
Because with this one thing, so much can be explained?
Or because you can't figure out how to make a FE work with it?

What is quite clear is, it's all to do with atmosphere but most people can't grasp it because they only think of moveable air as if it was the only thing we negotiate of the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this. It wont make it true.
People can grasp what you claim, and people can recognise that it is wrong and doesn't work.

It squeezes either up or down depending on any dense mass displacement of it.
And you can provide no justification for how or why it does this, and more importantly, why it entirely defies the known ways gasses interact, the known ways pressure interacts with matter.

The air squeezes objects inwards, and pushes them up, or in more general terms, it pushes them from high pressure to low pressure.

It pushes in all directions as long as there's an imbalance which there always is but some imbalances are so mild we actually do not register them in everyday life.
And that imbalance pushes upwards due to a greater pressure below.

Any dense mass will be squeezed up if that dense mass is less dense than the stacked atmospheric layers it is energetically placed into.
Why?
If it is the atmosphere, why should the density matter at all?
Why isn't it just the atmosphere pushing everything?

Quote from: JackBlack
It also means that the weight of an object should depend on atmospheric pressure.
It does, absolutely.
No, it doesn't, at least not in the sense discussed.

We observe a buoyant force pushing objects upwards, which does depend on atmospheric pressure due to the relationship between pressure and density.
But with your model we should expect the weight of an object to decrease drastically when the pressure is reduced.
This is not observed at all.

Mercury is no different against atmospheric displacement except it is denser a liquid and so, less porous, meaning it offers a better atmospheric reading without allowing seepage into the low pressure gap that already exists within the tube.
The issue is how the barometer works, which only functions with gravity.
You have a pressure gradient due to the weight of the mercury.

I am explaining it but you seem to brush it aside and basically set yourself back to the start.
You of all people should grasp it but you're far too set in your ays to dare to understand it.
I don't brush it aside, I explain the fault with it.
That is me grasping it and recognising that it is wrong.
You just say I am setting myself back to the start, because I recognise it doesn't work.

There is no explanation which is why you can't explain it, except to say, gravity.
Or as above, the attraction of mass.
But this then explains a lot more, including things like buoyancy.

Quote from: JackBlack
Your nonsense doesn't even come close to an explanation.
To you, I agree. I wouldn't expect any difference and I'm answering to you to offer others the opportunity to actually pay attention.
Not just to me, to everyone.
I do pay attention, which is why I was able to describe key parts of it to others.
But because I don't agree with what you say, you accuse me of not paying attention or not understanding it.

Except it does but it doesn't equally push it back because generally you push something on the open which allows compression of the atmosphere in front to be pushed out of teh way rather than compressed directly to the front, meaning much less reaction to that initial force of dense mass pushed against that.
Unless you are pressing it into a sealed container, or pushing it very quickly, it doesn't push back any significant amount. So why should we expect it to push back when we push something up?

The atmosphere squeezes and if you took the time to understand the layering system of the stacking then you'd see why.
I have taken the time to understand. Perhaps you should try the same instead of acting like anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot that can't understand?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #79 on: December 01, 2022, 02:20:38 AM »
There's no explanation about what gravity does because gravity is a made-up force to actually hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves.

What's the motive for millions of people to hide the reality of what atmospheric pressure against any dense mass achieves?

How do millions of people get away with using gravity in designing everything from airplanes to the accelerometer in your smartphone all using gravity and not just atmospheric pressure against any dense mass?

What are your calculations for atmospheric pressure against any dense mass that they all should be using instead?
If you can actually tell me what exactly is used to show this gravity I'll have something to go on.
Do you actually know?

Already been provided. But you still haven't answered the questions as to how one can practically apply Denpressure to real world efforts. E.g., the accelerometer in a smart phone. It has been provided to you how gravity is used in the calculations used to engineer and code such an instrument. How might engineers utilize Denpressure instead? You don't need to know how gravity is used, you need to explain the calculations needed for how Denpressure should be used instead. A simple question you should be able to easily answer. Unless Denpressure has no practical use.

Re: Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
« Reply #80 on: December 02, 2022, 06:00:56 PM »
At least when you explain something obvious to a box of rocks, it accepts what you say. But not Scepti.
Maybe that's your problem. Try not to converse with boxes of rocks and thinking they talk back.
Ha. I'd rather explain something to a box of rocks than try to explain it to you. I don't get back nonsense from the rocks.