swansont

! Moderator Note We need some physics in discussions about physics.

! Moderator Note The experiments exist. There are youtube demonstrations of this. You already had a lengthy thread where you made your unsubstantiated claims and ignored feedback, and you were told not to re-introduce the topic.

“Input force”? That not something that goes in a free-body diagram. It doesn’t matter why the screw turns. You already agreed that the normal force is the action force. The latter should not appear as an item in the drawing; you already accounted for it. Newton’s second law tells us that the acceleration of an object is the result of the forces acting on that object. Your “input force” is not a force acting on the nut. The screw pushes on the nut - the normal force. There is friction. There is no other force present.

Yes. But interference is not an inherently EM interaction. Electrons, neutrons, and neutral atoms have all been used to demonstrate interference.

Because you brought it up. A beam of light is an EM wave. No interference necessary.

If you want to test psychokinesis (or any other pseudoscience), I don’t see why interference is required.

Is there only one point of contact? This is a screw and a nut. Go around one turn, and all points are in contact. If you integrate around 360 degrees if rotation, the radial component cancels, leaving only a force along the axis. (alternately, for every force as you have shown, there is one on the other side, such that the radial components cancel) more than help. This is the force that advances the nut. No, this is on you. It’s your drawing. Why is FA not identical to the normal force, if that’s the action? (hint: your drawing is incorrect. FA should not be there)

So it’s irrelevant to the discussion, since we’re interested in the force on the nut But you have the normal force already labeled. And in a different direction than FA.

Not believing in pseudoscience is good experimental practice

How does the motor exert a force on the nut? I’m talking about the actual force. There’s a normal force, and friction, as one might expect of surfaces in contact. There is no category called “brushless motor force”

A reminder that deleting threads on-demand is not our policy. We remove posts that violate the rules. Removal of other posts tends to gum up the discussion. You need to ponder before you post, or do your editing in the time before that option expires.

OK. What is the source of FA? “Action force” isn’t a kind of force.

I doubt anything published. This falls under the umbrella of good experimental technique. Proper grounding and insulation so there is no electromagnetic interference. If you think there’s some other effect, you need to be more specific about the interaction you think is in play.

Irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that more than one religion exists, which is an example of not being able to optimize the system. How will you have a utopia and allow people that hate those of certain religions?

It’s not your drawing, it’s my drawing. The black block pushes on the blue block. There is a force in the +x direction. Where did you get the drawing?

There is friction at the contact, so the blue part will not slide. The net force on the blue block is in the +x direction, equal to F. (analyzing the forces on the blocks would make for a question one might solve in an introductory physics class) This is at least qualitatively what is happening with a screw and a bolt, if we focus on a small part of the thread, in cross-section.

No, that’s not it. The pull at a distance r depends only on the mass inside of r (assuming spherical symmetry) If we compare the sun to a black hole if the same mass, as zap suggested, the gravity at the location of e.g. the earth would be the same, because mass and distance are the same You would have to be inside the sun to notice a difference, because then some of the mass would be outside of r, and mass outside of that sphere does not contribute to the gravitational pull

1. if you do an experiment, you will find that a sponge does displace water 2. Spacetime is a coordinate system, not a substance

Tunnel has been banned as a sockpuppet Delberty, Drakes and Brahms

You can independently test if the photosensors depend on the behavior of the experimenter. (if being near the circuit changes the capacitance and thereby changes the efficiency, for example) You don’t need to do an interference experiment. In fact, you would have to test this independently, if you want a valid experiment. Only then could you test the effect on the interference. Which, as Markus has noted, would be unaffected

“Science” did not decide to deploy these devices. I think you’re overthinking the issue. Utopia is impossible because what people think is utopia will vary across a population. You can’t optimize a system with so many variables, since improving some aspect of society will invariably be at the expense of some other aspect. Just as you’ve pointed out that devices pollute, so despite any advantage such an invention might bring, there’s usually a negative associated with it. It becomes a matter of whether the benefits outweigh the negatives, rather than becoming a utopia.

If you had a spherical shell, the would be no gravity inside the shell. If we are equating gravity with curvature, it only exists on the outside. Spacetime exists everywhere. It’s your coordinate system.

! Moderator Note As these are largely unrelated, please open a new thread if you want people to weigh in on the personal goal question.

Don’t see why that matters. Inert in this context means it doesn’t interact, but interaction requires something to interact with, so saying if left to itself/themselves is kinda pointless. That was the main issue. Magnets exert forces and torques. They will induce currents. They interact, so they are not inert. That’s the other issue. IOW, Charles was doubly wrong. I don’t see the benefit of splitting hairs at this point, seeing as this is not the question before us.

WTF does this have to do with anything? And yet you gave an example of similarities, which is pointless as a rebuttal of my statement, and also does not buttress my statement. It only makes sense to make that observation if you are trying to say that philosophy and science are pretty much the same thing. Unless the point was to just go off-topic. The overlap isn’t the salient part for the point of discussion. So this ends up as a distraction.