[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IMO, the cost of this

And apparently, not in the opinion of anyone else at all, ever.

So, it's not changing any time soon.
Face it.

We'll see.

[paul cotter]

I am not getting into a pointless argument that goes nowhere. I interject occasionally when I see gross error in a similar way to what Halc has done in your twins thread. The general reader needs to be protected from error.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I am not getting into a pointless argument that goes nowhere. I interject occasionally when I see gross error in a similar way to what Halc has done in your twins thread. The general reader needs to be protected from error.

The best way to protect them from error is by pointing out the error, show the correct answer, and describe the consequences if the error is not addressed properly.

[paul cotter]

All of your errors have been comprehensively rebuffed by many contributors but you refuse to listen and double down on your errors.

[alancalverd]

Which elementary mechanics are you referring to?

I apply a force of 10 N at 1m to a bolt. The torque wrench bends through 0.035 rad and the bolt doesn't move.

Please express this simple observation using your proposed unit of torque.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All of your errors have been comprehensively rebuffed by many contributors but you refuse to listen and double down on your errors.

Your vague statement shows that you don't really understand the problem.

[paul cotter]

Whatever about my understanding there are far more competent posters on this forum and all say you are in error. Also there was nothing vague in what I posted, it was a simple statement of fact.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Which elementary mechanics are you referring to?

I apply a force of 10 N at 1m to a bolt. The torque wrench bends through 0.035 rad and the bolt doesn't move.

Please express this simple observation using your proposed unit of torque.

The head of the wrench doesn't rotate. Thus the net torque is 0.
The rod of the wrench rotates,
the force is 10 N
The radius is 1 m
The rotational angle is 0.035 radian
The arc length caused by the force is 1 * 0.035 = 0.035 m
The torque is force * arc length / rotational angle
= 10 N * 0.035 m / 0.035 radian
= 10 Nm/rad

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Whatever about my understanding there are far more competent posters on this forum and all say you are in error. Also there was nothing vague in what I posted, it was a simple statement of fact.

Your statement is vague because it's not specific. Which posts are you referring to? You don't have to list all of them. Just pick what you think is the best one.

[paul cotter]

The simple fact is that nobody agrees with any of your ideas which are in conflict with established science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The simple fact is that nobody agrees with any of your ideas which are in conflict with established science.

What's currently established science were not established some time in the past. Some of them will not be still established science in the future.
The simple fact that you cannot pick one example of the statements that you claimed to be many shows that you don't fully understand the problems. You seem to have fallen into group thinking or herd mentality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If the bolt doesn't turn, then its net torque is zero. The torque exerted by your torque wrench is canceled out by the torque exerted by the thread.

Quite so. The I disconnect the torque wrench and the bolt magically unscrews itself?

You push a box with a force, but it doesn't accelerate. If you stop pushing, will it accelerate to the opposite direction?
Friction seems to have you confused.
Let's not repeat Aristotle's mistake in describing motion.

Let's learn from Newton instead. He established his laws of motion by first making statements about idealized conditions, where friction is negligible. Likewise, learning about rotational motion should start from the fundamentals. If you start with cases where frictions already predominate the equation, you are like trying to run before you can stand.
Here's an example where friction is negligible, but you have reactional force which cancels out the torque up to some limit.

You can add some weight to the right side of the lever without causing the lever to turn.
Do you have any idea why that's the case?

What will happen if the weight on the right side is increased to 20N?
Let's assume acceleration by gravity is 10 m/s^2 to simplify the numbers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Torque has nothing to do with trajectory. It is simply the product of force x distance. The torque applied to a bolt can be the same whether the bolt rotates or not, depending on how rusty it is.

What happens to the equation
τ= I. α, when α=0?

Torque is defined as rotational counterpart of force.
F= m. a
τ= I. α

Torque as a rotational quantity doesn't stand alone independently from other quantities. You also need to consider its relationship with other rotational quantities, as well as its linear analog to form a complete and consistent framework.
Torque as rotational force is the time derivative of rotational momentum, just like force is the time derivative of momentum.
τ = dL/dt
What do you think is the unit of rotational momentum, which is also called angular momentum?

[paul cotter]

You, Hamdani, have fallen into delusions of grandeur, thinking that you are smarter than the current body of scientific discipline.

[Bored chemist]

Do you have any idea why that's the case?

Of course we do; we aren't idiots.
Why did you ask?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You, Hamdani, have fallen into delusions of grandeur, thinking that you are smarter than the current body of scientific discipline.

You have fallen into a logical fallacy called argument from authority.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you have any idea why that's the case?

Of course we do; we aren't idiots.
Why did you ask?

I'm checking if you really know it.
Can you answer my question?

What will happen if the weight on the right side is increased to 20N?
Let's assume acceleration by gravity is 10 m/s^2 to simplify the numbers.

[Bored chemist]

You, Hamdani, have fallen into delusions of grandeur, thinking that you are smarter than the current body of scientific discipline.

You have fallen into a logical fallacy called argument from authority.

No.
There's nothing wrong with recognising the authority of authorities.

[Bored chemist]

I'm checking if you really know it.

There wasn't any reason to imagine that we don't.

[alancalverd]

Torque as a rotational quantity

It isn't. It is the product of force x distance. It can produce rotation, but is not itself a rotational quantity like angle or angular momentum.

This has nothing to do with "established science". It's just a definition, which would remain valid even if nobody had ever observed anything rotating.