exchemist Posted May 30, 2021 Posted May 30, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, swansont said: I’m not confused about this. You do not understand physics. You should not be telling other people anything of this sort; you have no basis for that judgement. “A complete cycle” is irrelevant, as I have explained and you have ignored several times. I’ve given examples. The point that we’ve made that the table and ring are not flat means it’s not strictly a vertical force that they exert on each other. We call the normal forces because that’s a sufficient description if we were talking about a rigid object sliding on the surface, but this is a more complex system. You’re getting ahead of yourself. Since you won’t even acknowledge that there is an explanation for motion at all, getting into why there is rotation is quite worthless at this point. I have not addressed rotation at all. I’m not sure you understand why a person can jump in the air, so (again) what’s the point in discussing something that you have shown you can’t possibly understand at this point? You have to get rid of your misconceptions before this would be possible. And, frankly, if all you’re going to do is repeat the same errors without addressing criticisms, that violates the rules on soapboxing. To me, this has the hallmarks of someone with an idée fixe who is trying to preserve it by deliberate misunderstanding, i.e. arguing in bad faith. I don't see the point in carrying on with this, now. Edited May 30, 2021 by exchemist
John2020 Posted May 30, 2021 Author Posted May 30, 2021 19 minutes ago, exchemist said: To me, this has the hallmarks of someone with an idée fixe who is trying to preserve it by deliberate misunderstanding, i.e. arguing in bad faith. I don't see the point in carrying on with this, now. If the mods are planning to close this thread then, please let me know before I start answering the questions of the members placed some hours ago. @swansont, @Ghideon, @exchemist. I hope the below information will help all of you understand what is wrong with your claims (I would say not yours but established claims, a.k.a misconception in the established physics). So we need an experiment and the maths that describe it. According to my view, what is shared below reveals how the ring's motion is justified on a fundamental level (the main cause behind its motion): a) Please could you identify the cause of vibration on the following Eccentric mass setup. Does it require gravity as the cause (means the source) of vibration or not? Note: Please do not confuse the response of the system with the underlying cause, because this is what you are doing the whole time: Eccentric Mass Dynamic Vibrations (watch from 20 sec up to 50 sec -> without the absorber) b) The (a) is described by the following differential equation and particular solution. Could you please identify where gravity is being involved and whether gravity is the cause of vibration? The above answers to all your recent false claims that I do not understand physics and about the system (ring) will not accelerate if there is no g. This is the essence of the entire discussion. If you are of a different opinion, first you need to address the above questions, otherwise this discussion does not need to be continued. c) Assuming you acknowledge the above, there are additional problems to consider: (b) although models the response of the system properly and in absence of gravity, it cannot justify: i) how the momentum is being transferred from the eccentric mass to the rest of the system, ii) violates Newton's 3rd law. When we ever pass (c) which I doubt then, I will reveal the complete expression of Newton's 3rd law. Just for the record, according to my view Newton's 3rd law, covers 2 out of 3 cases and these are: 1) rectilinear motion, 2) circular motion. The missing one is the curvilinear motion which is the one that may justify (b), meaning vibration of an isolated system (since no gravity is being involved. See (b) equations) by means of internal forces.
exchemist Posted May 30, 2021 Posted May 30, 2021 13 minutes ago, John2020 said: If the mods are planning to close this thread then, please let me know before I start answering the questions of the members placed some hours ago. @swansont, @Ghideon, @exchemist. I hope the below information will help all of you understand what is wrong with your claims (I would say not yours but established claims, a.k.a misconception in the established physics). So we need an experiment and the maths that describe it. According to my view, what is shared below reveals how the ring's motion is justified on a fundamental level (the main cause behind its motion): a) Please could you identify the cause of vibration on the following Eccentric mass setup. Does it require gravity as the cause (means the source) of vibration or not? Note: Please do not confuse the response of the system with the underlying cause, because this is what you are doing the whole time: Eccentric Mass Dynamic Vibrations (watch from 20 sec up to 50 sec -> without the absorber) b) The (a) is described by the following differential equation and particular solution. Could you please identify where gravity is being involved and whether gravity is the cause of vibration? The above answers to all your recent false claims that I do not understand physics and about the system (ring) will not accelerate if there is no g. This is the essence of the entire discussion. If you are of a different opinion, first you need to address the above questions, otherwise this discussion does not need to be continued. c) Assuming you acknowledge the above, there are additional problems to consider: (b) although models the response of the system properly and in absence of gravity, it cannot justify: i) how the momentum is being transferred from the eccentric mass to the rest of the system, ii) violates Newton's 3rd law. When we ever pass (c) which I doubt then, I will reveal the complete expression of Newton's 3rd law. Just for the record, according to my view Newton's 3rd law, covers 2 out of 3 cases and these are: 1) rectilinear motion, 2) circular motion. The missing one is the curvilinear motion which is the one that may justify (b), meaning vibration of an isolated system (since no gravity is being involved. See (b) equations) by means of internal forces. No. I've had with you, pal. You're a timewaster.
swansont Posted May 30, 2021 Posted May 30, 2021 On 5/30/2021 at 5:42 AM, John2020 said: (I would say not yours but established claims, a.k.a misconception in the established physics). The hubris of claiming that established physics is wrong, but you - and pretty much only you - understand the “truth” is quite something. On 5/30/2021 at 5:42 AM, John2020 said: Please could you identify the cause of vibration on the following Eccentric mass setup. ! Moderator Note This is not an eccentric mass scenario. You had a thread on eccentric mass and it was closed. We aren’t discussing it again. Despite your confidence, you don’t actually understand the basics of mechanics. Physics is not wrong. You are. As you are here to preach and not learn, this is closed. Don’t bring up this or related topics again.
Recommended Posts