[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

Consider a glass of water. Nothing is moving up or down

sediment, electrolytes, air bubbles?

[guest39538]

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.

Of course , anything you say.   I think we are friends really, I  like you Mr Chemist.

[guest39538]

To advance science really needs to stop thinking in terms like upwards or downwards.   

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.


iso.jpg (15 kB . 705x428 - viewed 2992 times)

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

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.

[guest39538]

Learn this, when we push a car , both the applied force and the car is moving, i.e to push something. 

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

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 .
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.

[Bored chemist]

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".?

[evan_au]

This thread has degenerated, and is now locked - mod.