swansont

Looks OK You can’t “entirely convert” the torque to nut displacement. Nut displacement is from the axial force.

The motion of the bolt exerts both a force and a torque on the nut. It exerts a normal force, because there is a surface in contact. The force has has x and y components. The force in the x direction causes an acceleration. There is no other axial force on the nut. The counter-torque on the nut ensures no rotation, but has no effect on the motion in the x direction.

You did say this. “The force that creates the torque (therefore I called it torque force), equals to the normal force along the x-axis that pushes the nut to the right” They are not equal. One is N sin(pitch angle) while the other is N cos(pitch angle). (they will be equal only if your threads are at 45 degrees) Yes, the normal force component along the x-axis is what gives the linear acceleration. The force that creates the torque comes from the normal force component acting along the y-axis.

No. A force along the x-axis can’t create a torque. The torque will come from the perpendicular component. Yes.

! Moderator Note Off-topic.

...by helping cells absorb glucose. Metformin, for example. “metformin also lowers blood sugar by increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin.” https://diatribe.org/everything-you-always-wanted-know-about-metformin-were-afraid-ask Explain, please.

There are forces and there are torques. There are not “torque forces” The torque on the bolt is the source of the normal force. If we ever get that far, you can solve for the mathematical relationship between the two. But: F=ma Forces determine linear acceleration Torques determine angular acceleration They are separate calculations. Different degrees of freedom. “overcome”? What is exerting this “counter normal force”? There’s bolt in contact with the nut. What else is there? Invisible unicorns? ( reminder that we are applying Newton’s laws here. Not anything you’ve made up)

There’s a normal force. You agreed there’s a component of this force along the axis. How does that not imply acceleration? F=ma If there’s a force, there’s an acceleration. There is no getting around this I also did NOT say there is no torque. The torque is the source of the force. They will be proportional to each other. We don’t need to know the details to qualitatively analyze the problem. It’s not based on a static analysis. I conclude there’s an acceleration. That’s not static.

Excuse me? How can they not affect the motion of the system? If you exert a net force, you get an acceleration. Newton’s first and second laws.

If people understood basic physics, they would know why you shouldn’t romp on the gas when your wheels start spinning in the snow and ice. They would know that boiling water is the same temperature regardless of how vigorously the water is boiling.

! Moderator Note OK, I’m calling a halt to this clusterf***. Kartazion, you can’t ask for two (possibly mutually exclusive) discussions. Only you know what you want to ask, and making us guess is a bad-faith discussion. Telling us you want to discuss two separate things is also a violation of the rules - one topic per thread Stop using jargon you don’t understand, because this is starting to look like trolling. If you want to discuss the topic, you may open a new thread, but you must re-phrase the question to remove the ambiguity, and stop making us guess what you mean

This x-component is responsible for the acceleration of the center of mass. F=ma If you wish to obtain a numerical solution, yes, absolutely. The geometry of the screw will relate the torque to the force. But qualitatively speaking, the reason for the force is irrelevant. What we know is there is a net force exerted on the nut, along the x-axis. We also know the nut exerts a force on the bolt. That’s the reaction force.

The normal force, same as before. (I’m just anticipating you claiming that there is no force along the axis, when the x-component of the normal force clearly is) Do you understand you can express a vector as the sum of its components? The normal force is perpendicular to the surface. Since it’s a FBD, no reaction forces are shown (only forces acting on the nut are depicted in my drawing, or any FBD)

You have to pick one.

Yes. The threads move with respect to the other threads. The diagram will look the same after some time t, except that it will have translated along the x axis (i.e. the rotational axis) The force is normal to the thread surface, meaning there is a component along the axis and a component perpendicular to it (radial)

But this is not speculations, and your OP is ambiguous. Are you asking what would happen if this is the case, or an explanation of what happened, given that this was the case? A LOT of people ask things like “if evolution is true, how do you explain X” where the conditional applies to the result, not the premise. Your OP reads like that. So PLEASE, PLEASE clarify what you are asking.

You specifically said CMB, and hot, dense state. That’s all related to the big bang. Instead of arguing about this, could you address the clarifications I requested? Maybe steering clear of jargon if you don’t know what it means? Using jargon sends a signal that you have a certain level of familiarity with the topic.

By claiming “misconception” you are implying that it’s not in keeping with Newtonian physics. But you fail to show any discrepancy. You only discuss how it’s not consistent with your version of physics. I’m talking about my diagram. But “motion” is ambiguous. Linear motion refers to the center of mass of the object, not the surface. Rotational motion can reference the surface. A massless nut is unphysical. You apply a torque and it would have infinite angular acceleration. Apply a force and it has infinite linear acceleration. It has no momentum. So this shows nothing. It’s also changing the example. Please stop doing that. To apply the laws of motion, there has to be some mass.

If we were formed from Condensed Matter suggests cosmology. The big bang. You stated “The cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.” before I said cosmology. If that’s not what you meant, then what does “we were formed from condensed matter” mean, (who is “we” and what formation do you refer to?) and what evidence do you have that this is true?

! Moderator Note As your stated intent is post-and-run, then we’re already finished.

But you haven’t presented evidence of this. You presented anecdotes, which are not evidence. You have not presented anything to do with evolution, nor any data over a span of time.

I never claimed it did. I was pointing out that you can’t assume that they are, because you’ve made several incorrect assumptions elsewhere. What is meant by “mass along the axis of rotation”? Mass is not a vector. A nut already has no mass on the axis, but that’s where it’s center of mass is located What I’m familiar with is Newtonian physics. The only way I can address your claims is to tell you what will actually happen, in accordance with physics I can’t check your model because there is none. I can’t address your experimental results because there are none. I did not call you a crackpot. I called your “model” (there’s no actual model) crackpot physics. By this I mean that it’s contrary to accepted physics, and like most crackpot claims, there is no evidence to support it. No model, no experiment. Just repeated assertion. I am. Newtonian physics. What I posted is an accurate account. If you disagree, you have to also use Newtonian physics to show it. Not your crackpot physics. When you say “wrong in my approach”, are you saying it’s inconsistent with your physics, or Newtonian physics? Since you haven’t properly formulated your physics, I don’t see how you can hold anybody to this. To be wrong, you have to have given us your version of the laws of motion. You haven’t.

But your thesis is not that men and women are different, it’s that they are are not (or are less different than a few thousand years ago) “female quality” could be taken as chauvinistic, and again, your thesis is that this distinction has gone away, destroyed within 1000 years of adopting agriculture

What would that purport to show? Eliud Kipchoge is the men’s marathon record holder. Height is 5′ 6″, Weight 115 lbs. Is that above or below the average for men? How is this an example of the differences disappearing? IOW, perhaps being short and slight is an advantage in distance running, and marathon runners are not representative examples of the population. That’s OK. I didn’t watch it.

Anecdotes are not evidence, and bodybuilding (plus the possible steroids) is not evolution