WHY would the government trick us?

Quote

Once you run out of things to push against, you can't change how you are moving. You keep moving as you were.

That's the fantasy rocket science tells people. But...

That's impossible.

Yes, momentum exists.

But if it really was about to do the things you say, then the previous momentum of an object ought to be enough to keep an object in motion.

Back to the drone video. This time, we're focusing on the drone.



The drone still had momentum left over from before. It should stay in motion. Only it doesn't. It doesn't drop like a stone, but it starts sinking toward the ground. This tells us that even if you could say momentum continues, object in motion tend to sink, not rise, in the absence of air. That is, you would need more momentum than you came in with, because a vacuum resists motion, it doesn't conduct motion.

Also "rocket based flight," he says, but it lurches forward and that immediately starts heading towards the ground with the balloon.

Quote

So you just ignore what people say and just continually spout the same crap.

Yes, I will ignore lies when I see them. As any sensible person should.

Quote

Do you understand that kinetic energy is a form of energy, and that you merely convert between different forms of energy. You cannot create energy nor destroy it.
Do you know what that means?
It means that in the total absence of air resistance, and other forces, that if an object is in motion, it MUST stay in motion.

Wrong. In order for kinetic energy to be infinite, energy that is lost through motion has to be created. It's not being destroyed, it's either convertung or transferring to its surroundings. In air, it would conduct through air. Magical thinking that because there is no air, there can't be an end, is just that. The energy has to transfer somewhere. Newton can say that meme all he wants, but infinite motion means that energy transferred out must be introduced in.

Or do you think these devices would all work if you moved them into a vacuum, generating motion enough to keep all of these in perpetual motion? Brilliant! You've solved the problem, we just needed to take away air.

Only what actually happens is that what stays in motion is the kinetic energy. Not the object. It spreads out, until it transfers to somewhere. The bigger the vacuum the farther this has to go. But the arrow or bullet or what have you doesn't stay energized. That involves a violation, where the object gains energy as it uses energy to push forward.

You can't have more energy than you put in!

Why do you like to post videos like the Action Lab video, which proves your opinion rockets cant fly in space to be totally idiotic? The drone can't fly in a vacuum, but the balloon expelling it's air, can. Well, fancy that! Just like the rockets that transported men to the moon!

That subconscious mind of yours is working extra hard to get through to your conscious mind you're being a complete idiot, isn't it?

If I place a block of steel in the bottom of a well in the ground, it is NOT magically building up potential to move. Instead, it remains there until a force acts on it to move it.

Not only do you have an extremely contrived situation (why is there a steel block in the well), designed not to move under any circumstances, but you'd be wrong it about not moving. I assume the well's top was removed in order to make space for getting this in. The question is also whether it is dropped or gently lowered. So let's do it.
1. The steel block is dropped in. It sinks all the way through, making a big splash, and smashing the floor of the well. Over time, as it sits there, it sinks into the soil beneath the well.
2. The steel block is gently lowered in. Since most steel isn't truly stainless, over time, the water oxidizes and dissolves the block. Eventually, you have aqueous iron, which prepares to run through any water taps, giving you discolored water with a funny taste.

Here's a far more common situation. A bit of shell or fossil becomes a boulder over time through a process called cementation. Meanwhile, the mountain where it forms slowly erodes into a slope.  Then after sitting for centuries, wind and rain cause a mud slide, and the boulder starts to roll. Momentum takes it down the hill. Momentum even takes it several extra feet on level ground. If objects in motion truly stayed in motion, shouldn't we see this boulder continue to roll along the rounded surface of the so obviously round Earth?

Newton is wrong about this, and he's wrong about gravity. What else is he wrong about?

Another example of how, while it may be difficult to change the mind of a genius, it is impossible to change the mind of an idiot.

Why are flat earth believers so bad at even basic science?

You're right.

The trouble is, you haven't got it through your thick skulls that you are not geniuses, you're followers of long-dead "geniuses". So no amount of hinting can convince you that maybe, perhaps, possibly these people might not be right. Kinda.

"Basic science."
Like where that say that you can't create limitless energy or limitless motion.
Like where an actual scientist risks his life, and is on film showing that momentum is less than the original kinetic energy.
Like where you can sit for hours and eventually see a pendulum run out of energy. Because in real science, yes something that swings back and forth eventually settles in the center.
Like where you test things that you can test, and figure out that if something is the opposite (e.g. water vs space, in terms of density), then the so-called facts we have about one idea (space) must be wrong.
Like where all of thermodynamics says matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, and instead people distort this to mean that you can (effectively introducing energy constantly into a motion equation) get motion to work forever in space. No, that's not what it means.

Yes, it is impossible to convince you of anything, including the idea that you aren't geniuses. I agree 100% with your assertion. Because I've seen it happen.

If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to explain in depth about why Newton is wrong. But I don't expect you to take me up on that offer.

It's not that I don't understand basic science. It's that children back in the 80s (like me) were still taught real science. I imagine you were lucky if you learned anything more than climate propaganda and Hawking's pronouncements about God or philosophy being dead. I understand actual science, and I learned actual math all through school. Using such math and science, I sorted out fact from fiction (including which science and math didn't match up with previous concepts). You obviously learned what you thought was science, but didn't learn how to think critically.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/why-scientific-fraud-is-suddenly-everywhere.html
The problem with the younger generation is that they literally cannot tell real science when they see it. They can't tell from recent documents. They can't tell when someone 300 years ago is a huckster. They can't tell when a technology doesn't actually work. If an experiment looks flashy, they think the science must be right, and don't understand when they are seeing a magic trick.

Why would government trick us? Dude, you're gullible as hell. This makes you easy to control, which in turn means you'll continue to give your tax money to support space exploration. But yes, it's impossible for me to convince you to save your cash.

Hahhahahahahahha

This one proves my point. Rather than say anything coherent or persuasive, he just laughs or curses me out.

A space flight is a magic trick. Alakazam! The space shuttle  disappeared! It must have gone to space! Oh really. So when planes go past the horizon, did they also go to space?

Mmmm yes
When ignoring the last four or so posts i made does prove your point.


Just like it did when you ignore all the other reasons there are deserts and other people live in deserts, proved islam causes deserts.

Good one

This one proves my point. Rather than say anything coherent or persuasive, he just laughs or curses me out.

A space flight is a magic trick. Alakazam! The space shuttle  disappeared! It must have gone to space! Oh really. So when planes go past the horizon, did they also go to space?

No. The plane no doubt continues flying level with the curvature of the Earth, if the pilot hasn't radioed mayday and is in a sudden nose dive towards the ground.

Trust you to go back to your next favourite youtube channel, Phuket word, pronounced "fucket word". Believe me, that guy said fucket long ago when he became a flat earther. He couldn't give a flying fuck what nonsense comes out of his mouth.

You ignored my last 3 posts, also, Bulma,
proving your own point.

Almost every post you make, there is a Freudian slip, Bulma! Your subconscious can't seem to help itself!

Oh, and the government hasn't tricked me. The government pays me very very well. So, why would I think the government who I work for, would trick me?

It's interesting how you also have a delusion of grandeur and superiority, that you are smarter than Isaac Newton. Do you have a PHD in physics you've been hiding from all of us?

I'm pretty sure that the earth is a globe, but I want to understand Flat Earth a little more.
Heard that y'all think the government is hiding stuff from us.
My question is: Why would they do that? What's the incentive?

 They don’t want us wandering off the reservation for some reason. Probably something to do with power and control. That’s usually what psychopaths are into.

Not only do you have an extremely contrived situation

It isn't contrived at all.
It is a simple demonstration that you are wrong.
Instead of addressing this, you just appeal to more crap.
Lets say it is sitting on a solid rock, and there is no water around.

Meanwhile, the mountain where it forms slowly erodes into a slope.

i.e. EXTERNAL FORCES ARE ACTING!
i.e. is not supporting your BS.

If objects in motion truly stayed in motion, shouldn't we see this boulder continue to roll along the rounded surface of the so obviously round Earth?

No, because external forces act.

Newton is wrong about this, and he's wrong about gravity.

Yet you cannot show a fault with either.

Again, address the incredibly simple question:
WHERE DOES THE ENERGY GO?

Without the energy going somewhere, the object needs to continue moving.
Until you have an answer, all your objections are irrelavent BS.

Like where that say that you can't create limitless energy or limitless motion.

No, it doesn't.
It says you cannot create limitless energy. But that is not the issue here.
The energy is limited.

Like where an actual scientist risks his life, and is on film showing that momentum is less than the original kinetic energy.

No, they don't.

Like where you can sit for hours and eventually see a pendulum run out of energy.

You mean a pendulum in air, continually having air resistance act to slow it down.
i.e. an external force is acting to stop it.

Like where all of thermodynamics says matter and energy can't be created or destroyed

Yet here you are pretending it can magically be destroyed.

Yes, it is impossible to convince you of anything

No, it is impossible to convince us of pure BS.

If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to explain in depth about why Newton is wrong.

Yet you refuse to.
Instead you just cotninually spout whatever BS you can think of to pretend he must be.
You never address the actual issue.

It's not that I don't understand basic science.

Instead it is that you repeatedly lie about it?
You understand it, and know you are spouting lies?

Again, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY GO???

Here's a far more common situation. A bit of shell or fossil becomes a boulder over time through a process called cementation. Meanwhile, the mountain where it forms slowly erodes into a slope.  Then after sitting for centuries, wind and rain cause a mud slide, and the boulder starts to roll. Momentum takes it down the hill. Momentum even takes it several extra feet on level ground. If objects in motion truly stayed in motion, shouldn't we see this boulder continue to roll along the rounded surface of the so obviously round Earth?

Newton is wrong about this, and he's wrong about gravity. What else is he wrong about?

No, because even if the boulder was improbably perfectly spherical and the ground perfectly smooth, air resistance, friction and rolling resistance are real things.

Things don’t keep moving on earth without applying a force because these effects can only be reduced, not completely eliminated.  You are ignoring real world factors.

In a vacuum there is no air resistance, when an object is not in physical contact with another body there is no friction or rolling resistance.  Such as a rocket moving through space.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 30, 2024, 04:36:34 PM

Here's a far more common situation. A bit of shell or fossil becomes a boulder over time through a process called cementation. Meanwhile, the mountain where it forms slowly erodes into a slope.  Then after sitting for centuries, wind and rain cause a mud slide, and the boulder starts to roll. Momentum takes it down the hill. Momentum even takes it several extra feet on level ground. If objects in motion truly stayed in motion, shouldn't we see this boulder continue to roll along the rounded surface of the so obviously round Earth?

Newton is wrong about this, and he's wrong about gravity. What else is he wrong about?

No, because even if the boulder was improbably perfectly spherical and the ground perfectly smooth, air resistance, friction and rolling resistance are real things.

Things don’t keep moving on earth without applying a force because these effects can only be reduced, not completely eliminated.  You are ignoring real world factors.

In a vacuum there is no air resistance, when an object is not in physical contact with another body there is no friction or rolling resistance.  Such as a rocket moving through space.

Since as gnuarm says, it's pointless changing the minds of certain people, let's let a video do the talking.

This one is pushed.

At 1:12, it encounters a slight upward slope, rolls back, and stops. Wind resistance? Roll resistance? I didn't see any of that.

But, you say, that wasn't a good example. The boulder split, the ground wasn't totally smooth, and it was kinda unsatisfying. You're right, I wanna see more boulder rolling action.



Oops, sorry. That's about you.

Let's try again.



Comes to a stop before it gets to the next hill. Air resistance? Didn't happen. Kept rolling until it got to a large patch of flat area.



Here's a tire, since most of the boulders aren't satisfyinly round, and most of them chip and shrink. It did encounter friction, and slowed some from water too. But mostly, you could see it losing speed over distance, once there was no more slope. Momentum is mostly caused by slope. On a flat level surface, there is only so far an object can go before it stops rolling.

But, if you're still convinced it's "air resistance", I found a video that shows momentum in a vacuum using Newton's Cradle. (Skip to about 3:46)



He times the point they each come to a stop.
With air: 11.94 seconds
Without air: 14.02 seconds

So much for your grand theory that vacuums produce infinite energy. Infinite momentum...


So again, whatever momentum you bring in might last a little longer, but buoyancy is shit in a vacuum. You would have to use tremendous amounts of fuel to push upward, but ummm you sorta tossed away your thrusters.

a video for BB

That was too fast a response to have looked at my newest post or to have watched the latest video.

Check it again.

...Also, I'm not interested in comedians. Over half of them have insulting other people as comedy, and many of the rest are liberal shills.

This is comedy.

You imagine that I watch your video’s, or more than skim read your posts?

No, you are poorly educated with the arrogance of the faith slave, you are all that is wrong with America and the world, I can’t watch, even if I wanted to the LDS thing as it is copyrighted in the UK.

You should watch the video, “how American stupid people, sound more stupid than normal stupid people.” It might give you an idea of how the rest of the world sees the US.

Why should anyine wafch anythin when your opening premise is absurdly wrong.


You believe that if the earth was round, a boukder on the rocky mountain in bc, canada, will roll down, then continue to roll "down" through usa, through central amefica, through south america, to ultimately "fall" off the earth because "down" doesnt mean downtocenter, but instead to you means downtouniversaldown.

Right?
Thats why theround model is ridiculous right?
People in australis if they jump hard enough will fall down( aka up)

Right?

So much for your grand theory that vacuums produce infinite energy. Infinite momentum...

Who ever said that Newton's cradle produces infinite energy, infinite momentum or infinite anything?

Maybe a better understanding of what exactly Newton's cradle is and how it works might help (although I doubt it).
https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/newtons-cradle.htm

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 31, 2024, 03:44:24 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 30, 2024, 04:36:34 PM

Here's a far more common situation. A bit of shell or fossil becomes a boulder over time through a process called cementation. Meanwhile, the mountain where it forms slowly erodes into a slope.  Then after sitting for centuries, wind and rain cause a mud slide, and the boulder starts to roll. Momentum takes it down the hill. Momentum even takes it several extra feet on level ground. If objects in motion truly stayed in motion, shouldn't we see this boulder continue to roll along the rounded surface of the so obviously round Earth?

Newton is wrong about this, and he's wrong about gravity. What else is he wrong about?

No, because even if the boulder was improbably perfectly spherical and the ground perfectly smooth, air resistance, friction and rolling resistance are real things.

Things don’t keep moving on earth without applying a force because these effects can only be reduced, not completely eliminated.  You are ignoring real world factors.

In a vacuum there is no air resistance, when an object is not in physical contact with another body there is no friction or rolling resistance.  Such as a rocket moving through space.

Since as gnuarm says, it's pointless changing the minds of certain people, let's let a video do the talking.

This one is pushed.

At 1:12, it encounters a slight upward slope, rolls back, and stops. Wind resistance? Roll resistance? I didn't see any of that.

But, you say, that wasn't a good example. The boulder split, the ground wasn't totally smooth, and it was kinda unsatisfying. You're right, I wanna see more boulder rolling action.



Oops, sorry. That's about you.

Let's try again.



Comes to a stop before it gets to the next hill. Air resistance? Didn't happen. Kept rolling until it got to a large patch of flat area.



Here's a tire, since most of the boulders aren't satisfyinly round, and most of them chip and shrink. It did encounter friction, and slowed some from water too. But mostly, you could see it losing speed over distance, once there was no more slope. Momentum is mostly caused by slope. On a flat level surface, there is only so far an object can go before it stops rolling.

But, if you're still convinced it's "air resistance", I found a video that shows momentum in a vacuum using Newton's Cradle. (Skip to about 3:46)



He times the point they each come to a stop.
With air: 11.94 seconds
Without air: 14.02 seconds

So much for your grand theory that vacuums produce infinite energy. Infinite momentum...


So again, whatever momentum you bring in might last a little longer, but buoyancy is shit in a vacuum. You would have to use tremendous amounts of fuel to push upward, but ummm you sorta tossed away your thrusters.

I'll happily watch any action lab video you post, any day of the week. Action lab is no friend of flat earth as your video shows.

Your latest action lab video proves the existence of gravity to not be made up or magical, but real.

That's why the Newton's cradle experiment showed the balls coming to a stop at 14 seconds in the vacuum as opposed to 11 seconds in air. Slightly longer when you take away air, but what force causes the balls to stop in the vacuum, Bulma?

GRAVITY.

Did you subconsciously choose that Action Lab video, knowing it would again make your conscious mind look like a fool? I think so!

Keep watching Action Lab videos, Bulma! The more the merrier!

Since as gnuarm says, it's pointless changing the minds of certain people, let's let a video do the talking.

This one is pushed.

At 1:12, it encounters a slight upward slope, rolls back, and stops. Wind resistance? Roll resistance? I didn't see any of that.

But, you say, that wasn't a good example. The boulder split, the ground wasn't totally smooth, and it was kinda unsatisfying. You're right, I wanna see more boulder rolling action.



Oops, sorry. That's about you.

Let's try again.



Comes to a stop before it gets to the next hill. Air resistance? Didn't happen. Kept rolling until it got to a large patch of flat area.



Here's a tire, since most of the boulders aren't satisfyinly round, and most of them chip and shrink. It did encounter friction, and slowed some from water too. But mostly, you could see it losing speed over distance, once there was no more slope. Momentum is mostly caused by slope. On a flat level surface, there is only so far an object can go before it stops rolling.

But, if you're still convinced it's "air resistance", I found a video that shows momentum in a vacuum using Newton's Cradle. (Skip to about 3:46)



He times the point they each come to a stop.
With air: 11.94 seconds
Without air: 14.02 seconds

So much for your grand theory that vacuums produce infinite energy. Infinite momentum...


So again, whatever momentum you bring in might last a little longer, but buoyancy is shit in a vacuum. You would have to use tremendous amounts of fuel to push upward, but ummm you sorta tossed away your thrusters.

You do a great job of “debunking” the things you’ve made up yourself.  I believe there’s a word for that.

If there’s air, there’s air resistance, it doesn’t matter that you can’t see it.  Rolling resistance is a real thing too, and more energy is lost with every bump you hit on uneven ground.

As for Newton’s cradle.  Congratulations, you’ve just shown that air resistance makes a difference.  But there is also a bit of energy lost every time the balls hit each other, and energy is lost where the threads/wires pivot in the frame due to friction.  This is even explained in the video.

You can feel the effect of all these factors just from how hard you have to pedal when riding a bike and how far you can freewheel when you stop pedaling-
-It’s harder on round ground than smooth road because all the bumps you hit take some energy away.
-It’s harder wearing a massive coat rather than skimpy clothing because of air resistance.
-It’s harder if you have shit bearings because of friction.
-it’s harder if you don’t inflate your tires enough because of increased rolling resistance.

All these factors are resisting the  work you put in and your forward momentum.

Vacuums don’t “produce” momentum, they just don’t resist it.  No one is talking about infinite energy or infinite momentum except you.

You’re right about changing people’s minds though.  I know there’s nothing I can say that will stop you thinking that you know better than everyone else in the world.

At 1:12, it encounters a slight upward slope, rolls back, and stops. Wind resistance? Roll resistance? I didn't see any of that.

Because you are wilfully ignorant.
Rolling restiance can include a few different things, but basically anything which takes energy away while it is rolling.
Such as digging into the ground, pushing other things out of the way, and breaking the rock apart.
In doing this it creates shockwaves in the air (known as sound).

Notice that this relies upon interactions.

On a flat level surface, there is only so far an object can go before it stops rolling.

i.e. on a surface with a significant amount of friction and rolling resistance, there is only so far it can go before it stops.

But, if you're still convinced it's "air resistance"

It is not just air resistance.
Other things take away energy as well, such as collisions as explained above.

So much for your grand theory that vacuums produce infinite energy. Infinite momentum..

That is not our grand theory, that is your grand strawman.

Again, what you need to do is tell us where the energy is going?
That is the key question for you.

For the bolder, it is interacting with the ground and air, sending energy through there.
For Newton's cradle, it is colliding with other balls, which converts some of the kinetic energy into thermal energy, as well as sound energy when it can (i.e. in air).
But for an object travelling in a perfect vacuum with nothing around, where does the energy go?

You need to tell us where the energy goes, or you are claiming that energy can magically just disappear, i.e. be destoryed, i.e. directly contradicting the law of conservation of energy.

Slightly longer when you take away air, but what force causes the balls to stop in the vacuum, Bulma?

GRAVITY.

Actually, it's friction that causes the balls to stop, not gravity. 

But it's impossible to have an ideal Newton's cradle, because one force will always conspire to slow things to a stop: friction. Friction robs the system of energy, slowly bringing the balls to a standstill.

Though a small amount of friction comes from air resistance, the main source is from within the balls themselves. So what you see in a Newton's cradle aren't really elastic collisions but rather inelastic collisions, in which the kinetic energy after the collision is less than the kinetic energy beforehand. This happens because the balls themselves are not perfectly elastic -- they can't escape the effect of friction.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 31, 2024, 02:05:54 PM

Slightly longer when you take away air, but what force causes the balls to stop in the vacuum, Bulma?

GRAVITY.

Actually, it's friction that causes the balls to stop, not gravity. 

Quote from: https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/newtons-cradle.htm#pt6

But it's impossible to have an ideal Newton's cradle, because one force will always conspire to slow things to a stop: friction. Friction robs the system of energy, slowly bringing the balls to a standstill.

Though a small amount of friction comes from air resistance, the main source is from within the balls themselves. So what you see in a Newton's cradle aren't really elastic collisions but rather inelastic collisions, in which the kinetic energy after the collision is less than the kinetic energy beforehand. This happens because the balls themselves are not perfectly elastic -- they can't escape the effect of friction.

If you take away gravity, and put the experiment in the ISS or in a space craft midway between the Earth and moon, when you pull the ball back, it would stay back because there is no gravity to make it swing back.

Bulma thinks everything moves towards the ground because of density and buoyancy. In a vacuum, there is no air, thus no density and no buoyancy, yet something still makes the ball swing down. Gravity.

Yes, I know the experiment is a demonstration of transference of energy and conservation of energy, but done in a vacuum, it is an experiment which also proves gravity.

Really, Bulma must think all objects become weightless, once in a vacuum.......I suppose when science is anything you say it is........

Yes, I know the experiment is a demonstration of transference of energy and conservation of energy, but done in a vacuum, it is an experiment which also proves gravity.

That's fine.  I'm just saying that gravity is what makes a pendulum go, not what makes it stop.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on June 01, 2024, 02:29:38 AM

Yes, I know the experiment is a demonstration of transference of energy and conservation of energy, but done in a vacuum, it is an experiment which also proves gravity.

That's fine. I'm just saying that gravity is what makes a pendulum go, not what makes it stop.

How?

Quote from: markjo on June 01, 2024, 07:28:25 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on June 01, 2024, 02:29:38 AM

Yes, I know the experiment is a demonstration of transference of energy and conservation of energy, but done in a vacuum, it is an experiment which also proves gravity.

That's fine. I'm just saying that gravity is what makes a pendulum go, not what makes it stop.

How?

By making the pendulum speed up on the way down and slow down on the way up.  The basic concept of a pendulum is not that difficult, but it does get a little more complicated when you introduce multiple pendulums in the form of a Newton's cradle.

how do pendulums work?

things fall
and when they're tied to a tether and let go at an angle, they swing back and forth

hurray
the predictablerateoffall explains why pendulums pendulate.

youtube's been telling me terrence howard has gone crazy
this guy sums up the clips

shoutout to sceppy and sando at 10:00

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 02, 2024, 05:49:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 01, 2024, 07:28:25 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on June 01, 2024, 02:29:38 AM

Yes, I know the experiment is a demonstration of transference of energy and conservation of energy, but done in a vacuum, it is an experiment which also proves gravity.

That's fine. I'm just saying that gravity is what makes a pendulum go, not what makes it stop.

How?

By making the pendulum speed up on the way down and slow down on the way up.  The basic concept of a pendulum is not that difficult, but it does get a little more complicated when you introduce multiple pendulums in the form of a Newton's cradle.

Why not? A pendulum is basically like a swing. When a swing swings back and forth, you ought to know that if you believe in gravity (again, I don't), nearest to the ground while closest to its original center. As it slows down, it moves back to that spot.

Gravity shouldn't make these things go, it should make them stop. But I'll humor you and say that this plus momentum ought to be enough to make sense of motion in your philosophy, Horatio, so long as you also understand that objects do in fact settle to a stop.

Quote from: markjo on June 02, 2024, 11:34:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 02, 2024, 05:49:44 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 01, 2024, 07:28:25 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on June 01, 2024, 02:29:38 AM

Yes, I know the experiment is a demonstration of transference of energy and conservation of energy, but done in a vacuum, it is an experiment which also proves gravity.

That's fine. I'm just saying that gravity is what makes a pendulum go, not what makes it stop.

How?

By making the pendulum speed up on the way down and slow down on the way up.  The basic concept of a pendulum is not that difficult, but it does get a little more complicated when you introduce multiple pendulums in the form of a Newton's cradle.

Why not? A pendulum is basically like a swing. When a swing swings back and forth, you ought to know that if you believe in gravity (again, I don't), nearest to the ground while closest to its original center. As it slows down, it moves back to that spot.

Gravity shouldn't make these things go, it should make them stop. But I'll humor you and say that this plus momentum ought to be enough to make sense of motion in your philosophy, Horatio, so long as you also understand that objects do in fact settle to a stop.

Gravity makes them go and stop.

The moon orbits.
It continuously falls.