Post by: guest39538 on 03/12/2017 18:42:12
pop.jpg (64.75 kB . 800x533 - viewed 4398 times)On a set of scales in the above situation the plastic sweet corns mass is 0kg. You can measure the mass on a set of scales before you submerge it, and you will measure a different mass when submerged. Quantum buoyancy being new to you but surely you can understand simplicity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2017 18:33:36
and you will measure a different mass when submerged.No you will not.
You will measure a different weight, but the mass is still the same.
Since you do not understand what you are talking about there's no way you could be making sense; and you are not.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/12/2017 14:17:46
You will measure a different weight, but the mass is still the same.Kg is a measure used on a set of scales is not? Mass is the same as weight which is Newtons of force.
The mass is not the same it would measure less kg so stop lying.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2017 17:56:44
Mass is the same as weight
No
Mass is not the same as weight.
Mass is measured in Kg and weight in Newtons (Or Kgf in some cases).
Post by: The Spoon on 05/12/2017 21:36:53
No it is not. This is very basic first grade stuff you learn in science if you can be bothered to listen to other people instead of calling them names in a frankly hypocritical manner given how much you lie.You will measure a different weight, but the mass is still the same.Kg is a measure used on a set of scales is not? Mass is the same as weight which is Newtons of force.
The mass is not the same it would measure less kg so stop lying.
Mass is the amount of matter in an object and a measure of its resistance to acceleration. Mass is the same whatever the gravitational force acting on an object. Weight on the other hand is really a force and is proportional to an objects mass but is dependent on the gravitational force acting on it.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/12/2017 17:41:25
In the observation of the plastic sweetcorn, why does the sweetcorn completely ignore the affects of gravity? Gravity is not acting on the plastic corn in this situation. Quite the opposite is happening, buoyancy is rather vague, can anyone explain on a Quantum level what is happening?
Quote
In physics, buoyancy ( /ˈbɔɪ.ənsi, -əntsi/[1][2] or /ˈbuːjənsi, -jəntsi/;[1][2]) or upthrust, is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object.
Which makes absolutely no sense in regards to the situation. I feel the force exerted as nothing to do with the water.
airanwater.jpg (30.76 kB . 705x428 - viewed 4115 times)Please explain in the above diagram where on Earth you are getting the opposite direction force from?
p.s My sweetcorn does not have a rocket thrust.
p.s Like an electrostatic field can move water , the moon moves the oceans.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2017 20:04:40
ravity is not acting on the plastic corn in this situation.Yes it is.
In your diagram you show that the air is pressing down on the water.
Why isn't it moving down, and pushing the water out of the way?
Do you realise it's because the water is pushing back up?
That is not only the answer to your question "where on Earth you are getting the opposite direction force from?"
but it also explains why the corn doesn't move much. The buoyancy force and the weight act in opposite directions and cancel out.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/12/2017 20:12:21
The buoyancy forceSo what is the buoyancy force on a Quantum level of understanding?
What is the force that can make the plastic sweetcorn underwater defy gravity?
What makes a thermo-cline decrease and increase in ''mass''?
What changes in a system like air when it is heated?
Why do gases and other expand when heated?
What mechanism is the driving force of repulsion when things are heated?
Do fields expand when things are heated pushing things apart?
Why are objects equally attracted and equally repulsed as in the water pushes back?
Why do we say anti-gravity does not exist when anti means the opposite and up is opposite?
Everything is being pulled to the c.o.m , there should be nothing going in the opposite direction or opposing force in the opposite direction, q.f.s is why things push back, so how do I get this all to work!
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2017 20:57:13
So what is the buoyancy force on a Quantum level of understanding?You should probably try to understand it on a classical level first.
Try starting out by learning what weight and mass are, and what the difference is.
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/12/2017 21:39:11
Post by: evan_au on 09/12/2017 21:47:23
- the effects of large things that produce significant gravitational fields are best described by General Relativity (these things are too big to display quantum effects).
- the effects of small things that produce nuclear fields are best described by Quantum Theory (these things are too small to display gravitational effects)
- We don't (yet) have a theory that unites the two domains.
In-between, we have the familiar human-scale world where things don't produce much of a gravitational field, or display much quantum effects, but they are able to respond to external strong gravitational fields (eg the Earth's gravitational field).
So I think that it is pointless to describe the behavior of the float on your fishing line using either General Relativity or Quantum Theory. As BC says, use Classical physics.
I would apply the Thermodynamic principle which says that "Over time, things tend to approach the state of lowest energy".
- Water is denser than the float
- So in the Earth's gravitational field, the system is in a lower energy state if the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top
... compared to the condition where the float is on the bottom, and the water is on the top
- So, on the Earth's surface, the state where the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top is much more likely, over time
- In the ISS, where the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational field is cancelled by the ISS orbit, the two states have equal energy, and either state is equally likely.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2017 22:06:16
In modern science:Since he doesn't understand the difference between mass and force, I suspect that trying to do thermodynamics isn't going to go well.
- the effects of large things that produce significant gravitational fields are best described by General Relativity (these things are too big to display quantum effects).
- the effects of small things that produce nuclear fields are best described by Quantum Theory (these things are too small to display gravitational effects)
- We don't (yet) have a theory that unites the two domains.
In-between, we have the familiar human-scale world where things don't produce much of a gravitational field, or display much quantum effects, but they are able to respond to external strong gravitational fields (eg the Earth's gravitational field).
So I think that it is pointless to describe the behavior of the float on your fishing line using either General Relativity or Quantum Theory. As BC says, use Classical physics.
I would apply the Thermodynamic principle which says that "Over time, things tend to approach the state of lowest energy".
- Water is denser than the float
- So in the Earth's gravitational field, the system is in a lower energy state if the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top
... compared to the condition where the float is on the bottom, and the water is on the top
- So, on the Earth's surface, the state where the water is on the bottom, and the float is on the top is much more likely, over time
- In the ISS, where the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational field is cancelled by the ISS orbit, the two states have equal energy, and either state is equally likely.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:04:35
In modern science:Lots of little things make one big thing, a big thing is still little things , all things have fields regardless of the size.
- the effects of large things that produce significant gravitational fields are best described by General Relativity (these things are too big to display quantum effects).
- the effects of small things that produce nuclear fields are best described by Quantum Theory (these things are too small to display gravitational effects)
- We don't (yet) have a theory that unites the two domains.
1+1=2
2 is greater than 1 so everything about 2 should be twice as much as one. I don't see the problem of unification.
A big thing is a little thing at distance.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:05:56
Since he doesn't understand the difference between mass and force, I suspect that trying to do thermodynamics isn't going to go well.Yes I do, what you don't understand is that mass is an ambiguity of weight.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:07:00
- In the ISS, where the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational field is cancelled by the ISS orbit, the two states have equal energy, and either state is equally likely.Please tell me about the ISS, does it have a geostationary orbit where it moves with the earth rather than around the earth?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:08:04
There are things called molecules.Gravity is cold , anti-gravity is hot?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 08:10:32
Do you realise it's because the water is pushing back up?At least get it right, the N-field pushes back, the water is just a difference in observation than the air, the air and water are just fields.
You have really got stop looking at things as things and see them for what they are.
Post by: evan_au on 11/12/2017 09:49:53
Quote from: evan_au
I think that it is pointless to describe the behavior of the float on your fishing line using either General Relativity or Quantum Theory.Just after writing that comment, I received the following as a birthday present from my family - a surprisingly simple introduction to Relativity and Quantum theory, with thick, glossy, baby-proof pages!
[ Invalid Attachment ]
There is a series of these books, written by a physicist...
Quote from: TheBox
Please tell me about the ISS, does it have a geostationary orbit where it moves with the earth rather than around the earth?The ISS orbits about 300-400km above the Earth, completing one orbit about every 90 minutes.
It is much easier/cheaper to get supplies into this Low Earth Orbit (LEO) than it is to reach geostationary orbit (about 36,000 km above the Earth's surface).
But in either case, the acceleration due to gravity is neatly balanced by the orbital velocity, leaving the interior of the ISS in a weightless state.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 13:46:19
geostationary orbithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
What stops the object falling to the ground?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2017 17:03:21
Lots of little things make one big thing, a big thing is still little things , all things have fields regardless of the size.
1+1=2
2 is greater than 1 so everything about 2 should be twice as much as one. I don't see the problem of unification.
A big thing is a little thing at distance.
Much as you might not like it, that's just not right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2017 17:06:15
There is nothing ambiguous about either.Since he doesn't understand the difference between mass and force, I suspect that trying to do thermodynamics isn't going to go well.Yes I do, what you don't understand is that mass is an ambiguity of weight.
It would be better if you learned what was real, rather tan making up stuff that wasn't.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/12/2017 17:17:17
The force imposed on a set of scales by an object is due to the objects mass.There is nothing ambiguous about either.Since he doesn't understand the difference between mass and force, I suspect that trying to do thermodynamics isn't going to go well.Yes I do, what you don't understand is that mass is an ambiguity of weight.
It would be better if you learned what was real, rather tan making up stuff that wasn't.
The objects mass on a set of scales is due to the force.
I miss there being any difference apart from ambiguity .
Post by: evan_au on 11/12/2017 20:54:54
Quote from: TheBox
Geostationary orbit... What stops the object falling to the ground?Inertia.
The force of gravity has to act on an object for some time before the path of the object is significantly bent.
If the object is traveling parallel to the surface with enough initial velocity, the force of gravity will bend the path into a circle (or ellipse) which does not intersect the ground. ie it does not fall to the ground.
It also helps if you are above the Earth's atmosphere, as atmospheric drag eventually causes satellites in LEO to fall to the ground. In the case of the ISS, Russia periodically sends up rockets to give the ISS a boost into a higher orbit.
Isaac Newton came up with a nice analogy - firing a powerful cannon from a high mountain.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2017 17:06:52
The objects mass on a set of scales is due to the force.And, once again, you show that you would be better off studying than pontificating.
The objects mass is still its mass if it is in free fall and not subject to any net force.
The mass is NOT due to a force.
(BTW, learn to use apostrophes while you are at it.)
Post by: The Spoon on 12/12/2017 20:53:45
Post by: evan_au on 12/12/2017 21:19:13
Quote from: TheBox
The force imposed on a set of scales by an object is due to the objects mass.A mass in a gravitational field (eg a mass near the surface of the Earth) is subject to a force, as per Newton's gravity.
- The mass will start to accelerate towards the center of the Earth, if unopposed.
- A mass sitting stationary on scales is not accelerating, so the scales must oppose the acceleration by exerting an upwards force on the mass that equals the downwards force of gravity.
- Less obviously (because we can't see it), gravity also exerts a downwards force on the air. Just as well, or Earth would lose its atmosphere, and we would all immediately die!
- Scales measure weight (a force), not mass. What confuses this is that scales are calibrated to display kilograms force, when situated at the Earth's surface.
- There is no confusion in the Imperial system, because the pound (lb) is defined as a force.
- The downwards force on the scales is due to the weight of the mass minus the mass of the air it displaces. This correction is important for accurate mass measurement.
- For a steel mass in air, the difference is too small to make a difference in supermarket scales or kitchen scales.
However, if the scales were measuring the weight in water instead of air, the mass of displaced water has a significant impact on the weight, and must be taken into account.
- And if you were measuring the weight of a cork in water, you would find that the mass of displaced water is greater than the mass of the cork, so the net force of the cork will be negative (ie upwards)
And that is how buoyancy works - if the mass of an object is less than the mass of the displaced fluid, the object floats.
The ancient Greek scientist Archimedes (around 250 BC) came up with a more general description of this, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/12/2017 22:04:51
Might also help to read up on density before invoking quantum anything. Seems to be the standard technique of the woo monger and those who have no understanding of science to stick 'quantum' into a sentence to try and make it sound sciencey.
Is that the definition of a quantum woo monger?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 13/12/2017 04:39:49
Helium does not have a regiserable mass on 5he scales on earth, it floats up and out of the earth, yet its got mass.
(Relativity)
After 500 years really Galleileo ows the church an apology for stating both metal balls fell at the same rate.
Post by: evan_au on 13/12/2017 11:09:17
Quote from: Petrochemicals
as the (ISS) enters the atmosphere because of slowed velocity due to slight drag, it encounters resistance in the air, and decelerates, hopefully to terminal velocity, before it breaks apart.I'm afraid that terminal velocity in the upper atmosphere is very high, because the air is so thin.
- Then the satellite, travelling at several kilometers per second turns into a fireball.
- Only a heatshield will protect it, and the ISS doesn't have a heatshield.
- Fortunately, the Soyuz return capsule has a heatshield; in case of an emergency, the astronauts get into the Soyuz, undock, and safely reenter Earth's atmosphere, while the ISS burns up in the upper atmosphere.
- Hopefully, no pieces of the ISS hit populated areas. Parts of the earlier Spacelab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacelab) landed in the remote Western Australian desert.
The ISS is designed to be as light as possible - the solar panels are designed to be unfolded in free fall, and are only strong enough to withstand the gentle push moving the ISS into a higher orbit. So the solar panels, with their large area and light construction are likely to break off first.
Quote
Helium does not have a registerable mass on 5he scales on earth, it floats up and out of the earth, yet its got massAccurate mass measurement is best done in a vacuum. In a vacuum, Helium would have a registerable mass.
Another method is to take a helium tank, and weight it when it contains compressed gas, and again when it contains a vacuum.
A less accurate way is to place a weight on kitchen scales (say 100g).
- Then take a "floating" helium balloon, and measure its volume
- sticky-tape the balloon's string to the weight. The weight will now weigh less than 100g. Record the new weight (a).
- puncture the balloon, and lay it on the weight. It will now weigh more than 100g (b)
Take the (negative) weight of the helium = (a) - (b), and add the weight of the air displaced by the balloon (when inflated).
This will give you the mass of the helium in the balloon.
Post by: Colin2B on 13/12/2017 13:04:10
After 500 years really Galleileo ows the church an apology for stating both metal balls fell at the same rate.He owes no apology. Anyone who understands the difference between buoyancy and drag will agree.
PS relativity has nothing to do with it.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 13/12/2017 18:08:16
YepQuote from: Petrochemicalsas the (ISS) enters the atmosphere because of slowed velocity due to slight drag, it encounters resistance in the air, and decelerates, hopefully to terminal velocity, before it breaks apart.I'm afraid that terminal velocity in the upper atmosphere is very high, because the air is so thin.
- Then the satellite, travelling at several kilometers per second turns into a fireball.
- Only a heatshield will protect it, and the ISS doesn't have a heatshield.
- Fortunately, the Soyuz return capsule has a heatshield; in case of an emergency, the astronauts get into the Soyuz, undock, and safely reenter Earth's atmosphere, while the ISS burns up in the upper atmosphere.
- Hopefully, no pieces of the ISS hit populated areas. Parts of the earlier Spacelab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacelab) landed in the remote Western Australian desert.
The ISS is designed to be as light as possible - the solar panels are designed to be unfolded in free fall, and are only strong enough to withstand the gentle push moving the ISS into a higher orbit. So the solar panels, with their large area and light construction are likely to break off first.QuoteHelium does not have a registerable mass on 5he scales on earth, it floats up and out of the earth, yet its got massAccurate mass measurement is best done in a vacuum. In a vacuum, Helium would have a registerable mass.
Another method is to take a helium tank, and weight it when it contains compressed gas, and again when it contains a vacuum.
A less accurate way is to place a weight on kitchen scales (say 100g).
- Then take a "floating" helium balloon, and measure its volume
- sticky-tape the balloon's string to the weight. The weight will now weigh less than 100g. Record the new weight (a).
- puncture the balloon, and lay it on the weight. It will now weigh more than 100g (b)
Take the (negative) weight of the helium = (a) - (b), and add the weight of the air displaced by the balloon (when inflated).
This will give you the mass of the helium in the balloon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2017 20:59:24
Helium does not have a regiserable mass on 5he scales on earth, it floats up and out of the earth, yet its got mass.
Scales (usually) don't read mass- they read force.
You can measure mass in zero gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_crystal_microbalance
Post by: guest39538 on 14/12/2017 11:44:29
- A mass sitting stationary on scales is not accelerating, so the scales must oppose the acceleration by exerting an upwards force on the mass that equals the downwards force of gravity.
I stopped at the quoted part temporarily.
A mass at rest is still under the force of acceleration of g but simply not moving because the scales has solidity. It does not push back it simply has an opposing density.
The mass is caused because of the force. No g equals no mass.
You and science are simply wrong on this information. To push your scales into an hole , I assure you the scales will continue to accelerate.
m1=object
m2=scales
remember the scales are an object also, the spring in the scales compresses until it is dense enough to support the object equally.
v=0.jpg (27.06 kB . 705x428 - viewed 3810 times)Post by: guest39538 on 14/12/2017 12:07:42
constant.jpg (29.4 kB . 705x428 - viewed 3787 times)When an object opposes a force on another object, the Quantum voids of each object try to compress, however the ''walls'' of each Quantum void because they are likewise in polarities repulse this action. When the ''walls'' gain more energy , they expand, but each 0 point remains the same value of energy, the ''walls'' pass right through space and space passes right through the walls, it is only the walls that gain greater r the space remaining united.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2017 20:28:44
It does not push back it simply has an opposing density.Imagine a simple spring balance- just a spring, sat on a stable base like a table and with a pan on top of the spring.
You put a rock on the pan and it pushes down.
It moves the pan down a bit and the extent to which the pan moves depends on the weight of the rock.
The important fact to notice is that the spring is compressed a bit.
And that compressed spring really does push back on the rock- whether you like it or not.
So you are, as usual, wrong.
Why not learn some science rather than posting reams of nonsense?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/12/2017 21:02:32
No, the rock, the pan and the spring is under the constant force of gravity and all the force is inwards. When the spring compresses the spring increases in ''density'' and strength . It ''pushes'' back but it does not push back.It does not push back it simply has an opposing density.Imagine a simple spring balance- just a spring, sat on a stable base like a table and with a pan on top of the spring.
You put a rock on the pan and it pushes down.
It moves the pan down a bit and the extent to which the pan moves depends on the weight of the rock.
The important fact to notice is that the spring is compressed a bit.
And that compressed spring really does push back on the rock- whether you like it or not.
So you are, as usual, wrong.
Why not learn some science rather than posting reams of nonsense?
When the pressure is removed from the spring the spring returns to original form where the ''pushing'' back remains although there is no longer any pressure.
It resists rather than pushing back.
P.s You told me my N-field was a load of crap basically, so therefore saying your own laws by Newton are also a load of crap. So therefore if my N-field does not work then neither does your pushing back. So there....
added- Extending on the above I said previously but maybe in another way that the suns N-field pushes back the earths N-file and vice versus to give Q.F.S.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2017 22:12:50
It ''pushes'' back but it does not push back.I think we can stop there.
You have made it clear enough that you don't know what you are on about.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/12/2017 23:28:45
Consider a glass of water. Nothing is moving up or down. Now consider one cubic centimeter of that water, somewhere in the middle of the glass. It isn't moving. We know that 1 cc of water weighs 1 gram, because that's how we define a gram. If it isn't moving it must be because the surrounding water is pushing it up with 1 gram force, otherwise it would descend (because stuff falls if you don't push it upwards).
Now replace that 1 cc of water with 1 cc of air - a bubble, in the same position, but don't tell the surrounding water what we have done. We know 1 cc of air weighs about 1 milligram, so the net upward force on the bubble must be 0.999 gram, so the bubble will rise.
That's how buoyancy works.
Post by: evan_au on 15/12/2017 09:35:50
Quote from: TheBox
because the scales has solidity. It does not push back it simply has an opposing density. ...dense enough...When the spring compresses the spring increases in ''density''What if you blow up a party balloon, and sit that on the scales.
Now balance your apples on the balloon.
The extremely low density of the air in the balloon successfully opposes the much greater density of the apples. The air in the balloon has a much lower density than the metal in the spring, the wood in the table, or the concrete in the floor.
So it really isn't reliant on density. It is primarily due to equal & opposite forces.
And, provided the deflection is small enough, air, metal, wood and concrete all act like springs, just with different ratios of force to compression (different spring constants).
Quote from: TheBox
To push your scales into an hole , I assure you the scales will continue to accelerate.I agree - but your average supermarket does not have a bottomless pit extending to the other side of the Earth (or even to the center of the Earth).
The scales are mounted on a table, which deflects slightly under the weight of the scales + your bag of apples. The table exerts an upward force on the scales which is equal and opposite to the downward force of scales + apples.
The table sits on a concrete slab, which deflects very slightly under the weight of the table + scales + your bag of apples. The concrete exerts an upward force on the table which is equal and opposite to the downward force of table + scales + apples.
One of Newton's laws can be paraphrased as "every force has an equal and opposite force", which you can see mirrored in the case of apples, scales, table and concrete. It just so happens that we can measure the compression of the spring in the scales to determine the force exerted by the apples, and from this, to calculate the mass of the apples (assuming that they are sitting in a gravitational field of 9.8 m/s2).
If the scales fall down a hole, the apples no longer exert a force on the scales, and the scales no longer exert a force on the apples. The apples still have the same mass, but falling scales are useless for measuring it.
Post by: guest4091 on 15/12/2017 17:16:35
A mass at rest is still under the force of acceleration of g but simply not moving because the scales has solidity. It does not push back it simply has an opposing density.You're almost correct.
Density is the ratio of mass to volume.
You need an opposing force.
That comes in the form of em resistance to compressing atoms in the spring example.
This correction should be acceptable.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 18:30:26
That comes in the form of em resistance to compressing atoms in the spring example.Which comes in the form of Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) and the very fact that likewise polarities ''push'' back. The harder you push the harder it ''pushes'' back unless it can be pushed.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 18:34:18
The scales are mounted on a table, which deflects slightly under the weight of the scales + your bag of apples. The table exerts an upward force on the scales which is equal and opposite to the downward force of scales + apples.This is where your logic fails. The table is not exerting an upwards force. The molecules of the table are being pressured by force and the likewise polarities of the molecules of the table are stopping the table compressing.
You are not looking deep enough .
Squeeze a balloon between two hands creating pressure, the air is not pushing back, the likewise polarities of the air are creating an opposing force.
Particles displacing is not the same thing as the individual atom/molecule solidity.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 18:43:07
Consider a glass of water. Nothing is moving up or downsediment, electrolytes, air bubbles?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 18:47:05
Of course , anything you say. I think we are friends really, I like you Mr Chemist.It ''pushes'' back but it does not push back.I think we can stop there.
You have made it clear enough that you don't know what you are on about.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 19:01:49
In this diagram there is nothing in the Universe but two atoms. Consider the laws to 'see' that there is no upwards force, there is only likewise polarities that act like a spring..
The force of ''pushing back'' is isotropic., direction is just abstract loose thinking.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2017 19:10:27
The table is not exerting an upwards force.Yes it is.
A squashed spring pushes back.
The rock on a spring balance has a squashed spring under it pushing the rock back up.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 19:14:05
No, a squashed spring returns to form, the spring compressed by the rock offers compression resistance . As the spring squashes the field density increases and therefore the repulsive likewise polarities gain magnitude.The table is not exerting an upwards force.Yes it is.
A squashed spring pushes back.
The rock on a spring balance has a squashed spring under it pushing the rock back up.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/12/2017 19:24:58
If we were to put the hand break on the car, the car then has inertia greater than the applied force. The car is not pushing back it is offering resistance.
Now if we was to stop the applied force when the hand break was on the car, do you still think the car pushes back?
Obviously not but it still offers inertia and resistance to change of form.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2017 00:55:20
the spring compressed by the rock offers compression resistance .Please show how you distinguish that from a force.
If we were to put the hand break on the car, the car then has inertia greater than the applied force.Nope
The car is not pushing back it is offering resistance.Nope
Now if we was to stop the applied force when the hand break was on the car, do you still think the car pushes back?A question based on two false premises has no meaningful answer.
Obviously not but it still offers inertia and resistance to change of form.This is not "obvious"; it's not even clear if it's true because you have failed to define the terms you used.
Why not stop, and learn some science?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/12/2017 10:05:08
It is simple my friend, just consider that ''pushing back'' is different to pushing back. The spring is ''pushing back'' where a car rolling down a hill we are pushing back .the spring compressed by the rock offers compression resistance .Please show how you distinguish that from a force.If we were to put the hand break on the car, the car then has inertia greater than the applied force.NopeThe car is not pushing back it is offering resistance.NopeNow if we was to stop the applied force when the hand break was on the car, do you still think the car pushes back?A question based on two false premises has no meaningful answer.Obviously not but it still offers inertia and resistance to change of form.This is not "obvious"; it's not even clear if it's true because you have failed to define the terms you used.
Why not stop, and learn some science?
There is only a slight difference , one can push with a force than can move the object being pushed continuously , where the other can only push to support and keep form, position not changing.
So understand the spring in the scales is ''pushing back' 'to keep form rather than pushing back to change the object on the scales velocity.
Learning science gave me a new vision of things, I no longer look at objects as objects, I can 'see' the matrix of what makes things and visualise things as just energies. Everything looks the same but in different shapes and sizes, quite amazing.
To stop and look without using ones eyes is the key to enlightenment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2017 11:44:47
There is only a slight difference , one can push with a force than can move the object being pushed continuously , where the other can only push to support and keep form, position not changing.
That "difference" is illusory.
Imagine I want to push a car along the road. I can put my hands against the car, push it and get it to move.
I could also get a (strong) spring, put the end of the spring against the car and push the other end of the spring.
The push from the compressed spring would make the car move, and as long as I kept walking pushing the back of the sprig, the front of the spring would keep pushing the car.
Why not just accept that you aren't superior to the whole of the scientific community and that you have not, therefore, discoverd some "great truth".?
Post by: evan_au on 20/12/2017 03:29:22