swansont

So the earth recoils, because you’ve bolted the system down. That doesn’t mean the is no mass transfer, it just means the displacement is small because of the mass disparity Much like if you walk eastward, you slow the rotation rate of the earth, but the change is imperceptible

But mass will be displaced. Asserting that it won’t isn’t a substitute for an actual physics analysis. That’s how this works - you have to back things up with physics. Bald assertions mean nothing.

Science already considers a magnetic field to have energy, and a generator does not tap into this energy. A generator converts mechanical work into electricity. You won’t get anything out if you don’t put anything in.

You can’t conclude there is nothing impeding the acceleration without doing a proper physics analysis. Why can’t the system recoil? That would require an external force you haven’t disclosed, and changes the solution to the problem. Ghideon’s rifle example is very on-point

That is an excellent example, with an obvious recoil. It sure seems that you are

Yes, the threads do. Sure. But a nut is more than threads. Yes. I have been saying this repeatedly. Well, I was just considering the nut and bolt, and knowing the nut is constrained as a boundary condition. The details aren’t really important. Nut sure, that’s what it looks like. The rest of the mechanism would move in the opposite direction, assuming it was free to move. The center of mass of the system would remain in the same spot if there is no external net force.

That’s why you have to do the homework. It builds up your knowledge of what concepts to apply. You can have x, y and z apply to multiple objects as well. Why is that an issue? Each object has a position in space and time. Perhaps posting a specific example would help.

To iNow’s point, modifying your view in light of new evidence is a good thing. Perfection is not possible, so you’re left with going with the best option, which science gives you (within its domain of application). You either become informed to the point where you can make your own judgement, or you rely on experts. Or reject informed decisions and go consult your horoscope.

No evidence presented to back this up. What’s the sum of the angles in a triangle? Do parallel lines ever meet? Did the answers to these change when non-Euclidean geometry was developed? That’s not an accurate portrayal of the relevant physics of expansion, but by all means, parade your ignorance like it’s a virtue.

Your argument is flawed because nothing about this scenario is fictitious. if you apply a tourque to the nut it will rotate and translate, and with increasing speed as long as the torque is applied. Further, you would have to account for both translational and angular momentum and energy to get the right answer. Trajectory refers to the CoM motion. It is not helical. Stop making stuff up.

That’s good. I pointed out elsewhere recently that dark matter doesn’t readily dissipate energy, and you need KE to drop below |PE| to become bound. So this answer is that expansion can make KE drop, and structure growth makes PE increase in magnitude. So you can now have a bound system.

If you’re going to argue with the teachers you at least need to provide a credible reference to back up your claim. You have no credibility for your assertions. It’s not a helix trajectory. A charged particle in a magnetic field can exhibit a helix trajectory (but let’s not go there. We have enough misconceptions already) The nut in free space, spinning on its axis would be rotation without translation. The CoM doesn’t go anywhere.

Which is something we point out now and again. If you’re going to make a suggestion, you need to take care not to add undue burden to the staff, who would prefer to spend their time here in discussion rather than moderation duties. IOW, one should avoid being cavalier with someone else’s time. “add subforums” is extra work. Without making a case for why that’s better for staff, it’s a nonstarter.

Insist all you want. It’s wrong. Whatever you’re doing, it’s not physics. Roll a cylinder down an inclined plane. If you don’t account for linear motion (translational KE) you will get the wrong answer. Good luck with convincing the world that energy conservation isn’t a thing Also, “follow a helix trajectory” is inaccurate. The CoM doesn’t do this, which is what a trajectory refers to. The object is rotating and translating. You need to use proper terminology. It’s bad enough you’re making physics up.

As physics analysis, where terms have specific meanings Those are descriptions, not physics analysis. There is a force; I’ve identified it. All you have done is assert the contrary and avoid actual discussion of the force vector components. If there is no net axial force, what is balancing the axial component of the normal force of the bolt on the nut? If something moves along any line or curve, it has a linear speed. If it rotates on or revolves about an axis it has an angular speed. (and if it moves it has momentum. Both linear and angular) You are not in a position to disclose any physics insight. Show this with a free-body diagram and component analysis. Wrong. Nothing valid follows from an incorrect premise, and it’s pointless to discuss anything beyond this, since it will be wrong No linear motion? How does it get to the bottom? How does it rotate without its center of mass moving? If the CoM moves, there is linear motion.

An appreciation of the magnitudes involved, which would come from doing some calculations of the energies of these processes.

Whichever one you want it to. You can choose your own coordinate system. You want that to be the z direction, it can be z. If you want it to be y, it can be y. You can call it the first, second or third dimension. It won’t affect the physics. (coordinate system choice will affect how hard it is to solve a physics problem, though)

Along with the wealth mentioned in the OP. Academia’s really not your path.

Indeed. How does one differentiate being triggered vs being baited? Could this be recast as conservatives are more likely to bait and provoke their opponents in arguments?

I don’t know it’s the intent here, but it’s a tactic that has come up with relativity deniers in the past: after being rebuffed in objections to standard scenarios, keep making the problem more complex

My favorite Robert Park quote: Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right In any event, you’re going to have a spectrum of behaviors in any group. I think most academics want respect of their peers, and don’t care a lot about what the public thinks. There are some who do.

Sometimes it does. Depends on how much friction there is, and how strong the magnet is. Gravity doesn’t “run out”, either. An object sitting on a table doesn’t need a constant supply of energy to stay there. Same with an electric field.

That doesn’t describe most academics I know.What is your evidence that your premise is correct?

They aren’t inert, and the fields possess energy. Photons, for example, have energy, and are not matter. The fields have a constant energy, so they do not “produce” energy. It does not take a source of energy to sustain the field of a permanent magnet, because the energy in the field doesn’t “go” anywhere. Conservation of energy is on pretty solid ground. What modern science resists is nonsense explanations like yours. Science prefers sound theories with experimental verification.

The guide bars prevent this, but in any event, this is baloney. A rotating object can have a linear velocity. In some cases, such as this one, the rotational speed is related to the linear speed.