traveler

I want to test you to see how fast you can lift 10 lbs 10 feet. You give it everything you have and complete the task in 1 second. If I add weight, can you lift that greater weight 10 feet in 1 second as before? (disregard "getting tired").

So you weren't trying before? Did you not give it your all before? We are measuring you at a specific velocity.

I thought I made my point already. If you are on a bench press, and you consistently lift the bar 1 foot in 1 second, how do you increase the work?

everything!

Wait, I thought everything was relative? Which is it?? How do you, "hit harder?" I know how to "hit faster", but not "harder." I tried to hit harder at the same velocity, but in order for the work to increase the resistance (load) (opposing force) had to increase, which means the net force decreased, and the acceleration decreased, so it took me longer to go from 0-1.

So since the total volume of the atoms is less than the total volume of the sphere, what is it that causes the pressure to increase, the volume of the atoms increasing and the number of atoms remaining the same; the volume of the atoms staying the same and the number of atoms increasing; or atoms divide and grow??

Of course it's at its maximum mass, the planet is now once again where it came from, when going in reverse. Keep going in reverse for eternity.

So I take it the volume of the atoms is less than the volume of the sphere? Is that correct? So if the sun has a specific mass, and it is losing mass as it transfers energy to other bodies, that means the acceleration of the Earth due to gravity should be getting weaker, because the sun is losing mass, and the Earth is not 100% efficient to that loss, correct? What if the "sun" were the youngest "planet" of our local system, which is all part of a larger system, the galaxy, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system, which is part of a larger system.....

The volume of the sphere remains unchanged. Is the volume of atoms equal to the volume of the sphere?

If the pressure rises, something is trying to expand. Does the total overall volume of all the atoms in the sphere remain constant? Can you hurt your hand punching air? You mean the mass (matter) is there, right? But is the total volume of all the atoms at any moment in time equal to the total volume of all the atoms a duration later?

How do you suggest I shake up a coke without adding energy to the system?

Perfect thermal insulator. The walls are the resistance. Change temperature? You mean add or subtract energy from the sphere? The sphere is 100% efficient. What would change, the number of atoms, or the volume of atoms, or both?

So all the atoms in the enclosed sphere are increasing in volume, or are they remaining relatively the same volume and more of them are being added, or possibly constantly dividing and growing, like life? Pressure is created by resistance. The only way pressure can change in a fixed volume sphere is if you change the energy in the sphere, no?

If you could "instantly" enclose the sun in a larger enclosed sphere, would pressure build?

Whoops, I read it wrong.

I'd say the second theory has a slight advantage mathematically. The second theory agrees with 20 experiments, and the first theory only agrees with 10. Granted, the first is still 100% (10/10), but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

There would be serious questions to be asked if it was proven that all planets are getting further away from the sun, ie, what was the planet's past (where did it come from)? Just sayin'

Space. Distance. Other molecules.

Yes, you make incorrect statements, so I can't trust your knowledge of physics. D H has made nothing but correct statements, but he has yet to respond to how he would make the equation of my theory. Big difference there. You can shout as loud as you want to, and call me troll all you like, you are wrong! So what, we are measuring the rate of change of velocity. What is the objects velocity towards the center of the Earth??? So what, we are measuring acceleration, which is the rate of change of VELOCITY! I'm not the one having a problem understanding and describing reality accurately, you are. Did I say anything about the different forces that act on different bodies that result in a NET FORCE? I am talking about the rate of change of velocity (acceleration) of an object. What are you talking about, a full cart that moves 0 feet, regardless of the duration observed? There is a huge difference between the statement "there is no force" and the statement "the forces cancel each other out". NET FORCE. I am talking about gravity being proportional to the difference in mass, and inversely proportional to the distance. NET FORCE causes acceleration. The objects velocity is ZERO. Do you know what velocity is? Evidently not. Wrong again. We are talking about an objects distance from the center of the Earth at one moment, compared to the objects distance from the center of the Earth at another moment, which means a duration has elapsed (elapsed time), because objects don't have "instant" motion, it takes time for change to occur!!!. Perspective has nothing to do with it. If I tell you I am x amount of distance from the center of the Earth, and 10 minutes later I am still the exact same distance from the center of the Earth, my VELOCITY towards the center of the Earth is 0 m/s , it has NOTHING to do with perspective, it has everything to do with a measurement of motion (or lack thereof). Do you want to talk about rotation, or the distance of the radius?? I can talk about rotational velocity as well. I also understand EXACTLY what torque is, so go for it. Scream it louder! We are talking about acceleration, not force. I am not asking you how much force you apply to the Earth, and how much it applies back. I am asking you your velocity, and your acceleration towards the center of the Earth! You provided erroneous information. No, you are, and I've shown why. Absolutely incorrect! Acceleration is the rate of change of VELOCITY. Again, do you know what velocity is? The reality of the situation is that when I'm standing on Earth my velocity towards the center of the Earth is ZERO, and will remain zero as long as my distance to the center of the Earth remains the same! I'm not ignoring anything, you are. You are ignoring the velocity. Say it louder. You are ignoring the velocity. You are ignoring what I am telling you about velocity, and the rate of change of the velocity (acceleration). Louder!!!

You're turning purple. The bold is where you make your mistake. That is an incorrect statement.

DH has not answered my questions yet. He never responded to me. We are measuring the distance and time of an object. An object that is not getting closer to the center of the Earth (that is what you are measuring, correct?) has a distance of zero, regardless of the elapsed time measured. The object's velocity is ZERO m/s. If I wait 10 minutes and recheck the distance, and the distance is unchanged, the acceleration is ZERO m/s^2. My acceleration due to gravity while I'm standing on the Earth is not, in any way, shape, or form 9.8 m/s^2 like you say it is.

What are you measuring when you measure the velocity of the object, and which object's velocity are you measuring? Like I said, the velocity is zero, acceleration is zero, and is NOT 9.8 m/s^2.

Great post. That is exactly my thoughts also. There is a slight difference, though. That infinitesimally small difference is also a mistake of infinite magnitude.

Mooeypoo, You talked alot about acceleration, but you never mentioned velocity. How could that be? How can you talk about the acceleration of an object without talking about the velocity of the object??? ACCELERATION IS THE RATE OF CHANGE OF VELOCITY! Zero velocity+ zero change in velocity=zero acceleration.

Yup, I guess it's done, but that has nothing to do with the reality of it all that the acceleration due to gravity is proportional to the net force and inversely proportional to the distance apart. Additionally, as the distance decreases the acceleration increases! BTW, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but when I'm standing on a scale my acceleration is not 9.8m/s^2, it's 0 m/s^2. My velocity is zero m/s towards the center of the Earth, and it will remain 0 m/s, which means my acceleration is also 0 m/s^2. So standing on a scale has zero acceleration, so don't call it acceleration, because it's not! You say the velocity is increasing at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2??? Prove it! Isn't it funny how a formula that has no units () can produce the exact accelerations of two different objects at any specific distance away, and the difference in times of those two different mass objects to the precision of 10^-30 seconds? Amazing.