swansont

! Moderator Note Which, as you have been told, is insufficient. Our rules require you post the information here. If you can’t or won’t follow the rules, the thread will be closed Didn’t you just deny there were geometric conceits in the previous sentence?

Most people see a conflict between their observation and their understanding of physics, and conclude their understanding is flawed. These folks would look at the explanations and gain understanding. A few others see this conflict, and conclude the laws of physics are wrong. John2020 is not the first, and will not be the last, to take this stance here. But there’s no traction to it. The laws of physics are not wrong. The extra frustration is that this is a fairly trivial case and the misunderstanding is of such a fundamental concept. There’s no effort to gain anything, because of the denial that their understanding is flawed.

The changing speed and gravitational potential would result in a continually changing frequency that would differ from the ground clock before it settled into the orbit where the frequencies are equal.

We have thought about it. Not everyone can watch a given video for various reasons, and they should not be shut out of the discussion. Videos can’t be quickly scanned like written material, so it’s an unreasonable investment of time (especially since videos follow Sturgeon’s law) Videos can’t be easily quoted. And too many people would (and have) posted only to drive traffic to their channel. The evidence really isn’t the issue here. Nobody has tried to argue that there isn’t motion. That you have insisted on things that are contrary to Newton’s laws of motion is the issue. Complaining about not being able to post a video link is a red herring, distracting from your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of physics. IOW: it’s not the evidence, it’s your erroneous conclusions.

Sorry, you didn’t post it before the other equation. I only read the first section, because of the nonsense value. Plus I would’ve skipped the strikethrough text anyway. Clearly this is bollocks. h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2 (or an equivalent equation) is standard fare in any physics textbook that presents kinematics equations. equation 3 https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/kinematic-formulas/a/what-are-the-kinematic-formulas top left of the “big 4” https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations 3rd equation https://www.pasco.com/products/guides/kinematic-equations and so on... Your complaint is entirely fabricated. (you can also notice that nobody is presenting this as an equation for acceleration)

1. No, you did not post this equation 2. vi*t is clearly present in it. So what is missing?

! Moderator Note This is not an acceptable approach. This is a discussion board.

Missing from what? This not an equation for g. It comes from a different equation, rearranged, which you have not shared.(i.e. g is typically not an unknown in kinematics problems) IOW, you are skipping some necessary steps in the discussion.

You would see each recede over a period of time, assuming you weren’t gravitationally bound to either. In phase means the oscillations are at the same point in the cycle; i.e. the time is the same. Two oscillators can run at the same frequency but not have the same phase. In general, no, they would not remain in sync. There is one value of r in a circular orbit where the kinematic and gravitational effects cancel. (and launching would disrupt any synchronization)

This makes zero sense. Contract and expand, while we have a piece of metal expanding and contracting because of a changing magnetic field. Yeah, nothing similar at all, except for the expanding and contracting. We’re not looking at an example in outer space, so this is just another non-sequitur The reaction force to the normal force of the floor on the person is the normal force the person exerts on the floor. The example for this thread is not an issue of a rotating unbalanced system. You claim behavior can’t be explained and that Newton’s laws are being violated. That’s the opposite of established physics. But it’s not, since magnetostriction couples the EM to mechanical motion.

Excitation force is something you made up, so stop it, and this has nothing to do with the centripetal force. You don’t accept the underlying physics as being correct, so this is pointless, is it not? And there’s no eccentric mass. Leave your other threads out of it.

Bollocks. The ring is vibrating, so it is not a rigid mass. Your analysis would mean a person couldn’t jump upward, because there’s a force that comes from inside the person. Which should clearly be the wrong conclusion. You can jump, and this doesn’t violate the laws of motion. (the real ones, not your version of them)

The ring’s vibrations cause the table to vibrate. This is an action-reaction force from Newton’s 3rd law. The table is, as you note, an external component. So: force exerted by the table causes the ring to accelerate (in accordance with Newton’s 1st and 2nd laws) No, when you set k to zero you will not have oscillations.

I’m ignoring it because it’s not isolated. The ring is sitting on the table. This is nonsense. I can’t be sure how much you’re just making up; “excitation force” is not a term I’ve ever heard in a mechanics problem, and also, this is clearly false/misapplied. There are a number of ways a normal force can cause motion. In this case, the table will vibrate in response, and likely have different modes excited than what’s in the ring. You got that wrong, so I doubt this will help. No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not be true. The vibrating table is external. How you can ignore this is truly mind-boggling. “Excitation force” isn’t a thing (in my experience), so no. I can’t show the Narnia force, either. But the force the table exerts would be modeled as the spring, and it would not have k=0. You’ve simplified the example to the point where it’s flat-out wrong. According to John2020’s analysis, you can’t jump up and down on a trampoline. Nobody knows how they work.

You can upload pictures, which are displayed in the thread. You can include a full description of the setup. But you aren’t. You are insisting you have an explanation, which violates Newton’s laws If I (or another mod) close the thread, and/or if you are suspended, it will be because you refused to follow our rules, and that’s all on you, regardless of how much you invoke a persecution complex and blame others. It’s in contact with the table, which means there are external forces. Because this doesn’t apply. Magnetostriction means this is an incredibly bad assumption. The table exerts an external force, so this is moot.

“let the videos been watched by the members“ is a misrepresentation of the rules. Which indicates a comprehension problem. ! Moderator Note No, you will not.

This is a fictional character, right?

A ferrite core with an AC current creates a magnetic field, which will interact with nearby fields from current-carrying wires. Also magnetic materials. I imagine there are wires. There’s also the phenomenon of magnetostriction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostriction Without watching the video I can’t tell if this might be happening. Any noise coming from the core? edit to add: https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/materials/materials-11-01894/article_deploy/materials-11-01894.pdf Magnetostrictive strain is the main source of acoustic noise generated by transformers If it makes sound, it’s vibrating. I don’t know if they watched any videos

! Moderator Note Is there a comprehension problem here? members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos

! Moderator Note Which is against the rules. You must post the material for discussion here. You can’t require anyone to watch a video or click on a link to participate

Five responses from you in that thread. So you’ve nailed it again. And the responses were pretty consistent, as is your misunderstanding of Newton’s laws. My counteroffer: no. What would likely happen is we would get inundated with nonsense for a week, which is unacceptable. The current protocol requires that a thread-starter get to the point and respond to feedback. i.e. we require they not waste anyone’s time. We’re not about to give a crackpot leave to ignore science for a week so they can post their entire manifesto. We don’t owe them a stage and a microphone. There’s no point in letting someone post a whole treatise in multiple parts when it’s based on unsound physics. Our rules let us examine the unsound basis, without the additional complications of the house of cards built on it.

! Moderator Note This isn’t a mainstream theory, so it doesn’t belong here. Is this just idle discussion (Lounge) or do you have a model you are going to defend (speculations)?

You answered a rhetorical question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

There are so many engine mechanics in my line of work.