Homework help - Models.

[physica]

If you look I have clearly defined the R vector as friction. it even says below the diagram R=friction

[Relative]

Yet it quite rapidly stopped any downward motion you had. In essence decellerating your mass till your velocity was 0.

 

Remind me how the force of gravity was defined again? Oh right, it was F_g = m * g (mass times the acceleration caused by gravity). How is that any different than the phenomenon I explained above this paragraph?

My velocity becomes zero because the denser surface absorbs the impact quicker than a bag of feathers.

The surface does not have any emitting force.

 

I am unsure in your second part, but I am sure if there was little friction, and an infinite slope, eventually the rolling , sliding object would reach near free fall velocity.

If you look I have clearly defined the R vector as friction. it even says below the diagram R=friction

Im sorry the writing looked a bit small, and yes I can no see why the arrow pointed the opposite way.

[physica]

if you click on it it will blow up to a bigger size, for the benefit of others helping you on this post it on this thread as for some reason I can't. I appologise in advance I've noticed that I make a slight mistake in equation 5 but it is changed in the next line and the result is still correct.

[Fuzzwood]

No, your velocity becomes 0 because you are rapidly decelerated by a counteracting force. And this is why your topics keep getting closed. *sigh*

 

YES IT EXERTS A FORCE, ELSE YOU WOULD KEEP ACCELERATING DOWNWARDS! Is it so hard to grasp that? Perhaps it is, and that would be because you don't understand what a force is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

Edited August 29, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[imatfaal]

physica - can you PM me the diagram as I am sure I can get it embedded in a post - or perhaps relative can post it with a note that it is yours.

 

I am a little concerned that it sounds from the vague description that you have friction acting radially - hopefully I have misinterpreted

[Relative]

No, your velocity becomes 0 because you are rapidly decelerated by a counteracting force. And this is why your topics keep getting closed. *sigh*

 

YES IT EXERTS A FORCE, ELSE YOU WOULD KEEP ACCELERATING DOWNWARDS! Is it so hard to grasp that? Perhaps it is, and that would be because you don't understand what a force is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

''Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction,''

 

 

The force is created by the action of the object impacted the surface, by magnitude and direction, so what magnitude and direction does the surface have then?

 

It is static, but dense.

 

the diagram message

[imatfaal]

...

The force is created by the action of the object impacted the surface, by magnitude and direction, so what magnitude and direction does the surface have then?

...

 

Magnitude - equal to the force pushing it into the surface, Direction - perpendicular to the surface. (N3L pair)

[Relative]

To me you are saying that an object is repelled by the surface?

[Fuzzwood]

Ah now I grasp your issue with the matter, I hope. You think the surface has to be moving somehow in order to exert a force?

 

 

 

To me you are saying that an object is repelled by the surface?

 

 

No, that would be saying that its magnitude would be greater than that of gravity. It is exactly equal to the magnitude of the gravitational force.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[physica]

I have sent the diagram to imarfaal. I hoped relative you take a similar approach to modelling the cylinder

 

[Relative]

 

Magnitude - equal to the force pushing it into the surface, Direction - perpendicular to the surface. (N3L pair)

 

Ah now I grasp your issue with the matter, I hope. You think the surface has to be moving somehow in order to exert a force?

yes

[Relative]

 

yes

it depends what the force is.

 

A magnet can be static yet still can have force.

A new try at an example model .

 

???

 

 

 

[Fuzzwood]

Exactly, your model very roughly describes something known as the Lennard-Jones potential:

 

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Microfluid_Mechanics/Intermolecular_and_Surface_Forces#mediaviewer/File:Lennard_jones_potential_force.png

 

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Microfluid_Mechanics/Intermolecular_and_Surface_Forces for the mathematics stuff behind it.

 

It basically states that there is an optimal range (the potential well) for 2 molecules when the repulsive and attractive forces are equal to eachother.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[Relative]

Exactly, your model very roughly describes something known as the Lennard-Jones potential:

 

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Microfluid_Mechanics/Intermolecular_and_Surface_Forces#mediaviewer/File:Lennard_jones_potential_force.png

 

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Microfluid_Mechanics/Intermolecular_and_Surface_Forces for the mathematics stuff behind it.

 

It basically states that there is an optimal range (the potential well) for 2 molecules when the repulsive and attractive forces are equal to eachother.

Interesting, thank you for the links, are you saying the model there I thought up, is an actual model , or it represents your links?

 

I drew this picture several years ago but without the maths, and when I thought up this picture, it was for perpetual movement in a perfect vacuum, and also an explanation of gravity and planetary orbits.

 

I will read your links properly in the morning , it is late now, thanks.

[Relative]

 

In the above model, is there something missing?

 

 

Ok trying an example new model would this be understandable?

 

 

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Your second "model" makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

[Relative]

Your second "model" makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Hmm ok thx,

 

The circles on the left represent 1 object of two different physical bodies , an outer body Z that is attracted to an inner body X.

 

Newtons third law of opposites attract.

 

The right hand Physical body is of one object Y that is equal to X but opposite of Z.

 

z≠yx

 

D is distance

 

So D is directly proportional to the affects of yzx?

 

 

d=yzx

[Ophiolite]

1. There is no such thing as Newton's third law of opposites attract. Newton;s Third Law of Motion asserts that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is wholly different from what you are saying. You have previously denied Newton's Third Law, declaring multiple times that the ground does not push back when we are standing on it. Have you changed your mind?

 

2. You say Y is equal to X, but opposite to Z. In what way? Is one a Republican, the other a Democrat?

 

3. What are the dimensions of y and x? I do not mean what size are they. I mean are you talking kilograms, or metres, or gm/cc, or.......?

 

4. What do you think you are representing by the expression yzx?

 

5. What the ***** is d? Lower case d, is not the same as upper case D. Apparently you think they are. So, I'll pretend they are in this instance. How can you claim that a distance, whose units are length is equal to the result of multiplying three undefined variables together?

 

Sorry, Relative, but you continue to talk nonsense. I praise your determination, but am at a loss to know how to proceed.

[Relative]

should I add energy somewhere to it and force maybe

 

1. There is no such thing as Newton's third law of opposites attract. Newton;s Third Law of Motion asserts that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is wholly different from what you are saying. You have previously denied Newton's Third Law, declaring multiple times that the ground does not push back when we are standing on it. Have you changed your mind?

 

2. You say Y is equal to X, but opposite to Z. In what way? Is one a Republican, the other a Democrat?

 

3. What are the dimensions of y and x? I do not mean what size are they. I mean are you talking kilograms, or metres, or gm/cc, or.......?

 

4. What do you think you are representing by the expression yzx?

 

5. What the ***** is d? Lower case d, is not the same as upper case D. Apparently you think they are. So, I'll pretend they are in this instance. How can you claim that a distance, whose units are length is equal to the result of multiplying three undefined variables together?

 

Sorry, Relative, but you continue to talk nonsense. I praise your determination, but am at a loss to know how to proceed.

OK I apologise, I am trying not, to let my model homework, look like i am creating theories etc, So putting vague formulas without the correct descriptive content.

 

''1. There is no such thing as Newton's third law of opposites attract. Newton;s Third Law of Motion asserts that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is wholly different from what you are saying. You have previously denied Newton's Third Law, declaring multiple times that the ground does not push back when we are standing on it. Have you changed your mind?''

 

 

I have not changed my mind about the ground pushing back, everything is always falling in my mind.

 

 

''2. You say Y is equal to X, but opposite to Z. In what way? Is one a Republican, the other a Democrat?''

Negative attracts positive? polarities, energies

''3. What are the dimensions of y and x? I do not mean what size are they. I mean are you talking kilograms, or metres, or gm/cc, or.......?''

The volume, the weight, the density, the mass, the strength of energy.

''4. What do you think you are representing by the expression yzx?''

Perpetual motion - an equilibrium of forces that creates movement.

Pushing and pulling at the same time.

And representing y=kx but i needed a third parameter.

''5. What the ***** is d? Lower case d, is not the same as upper case D. Apparently you think they are. So, I'll pretend they are in this instance. How can you claim that a distance, whose units are length is equal to the result of multiplying three undefined variables together?''

And no not multiplying, but the combination of the results of affect of the opposite reactions, equal actions.

Would science accept an object that vibrates with no added external energy, to be perpetual motion?

[Ophiolite]

There is almost nothing in there that is right. If you continue to insist that the ground does not push back then you might as well quit now and take up basket weaving.

 

We use letters to represent variables. Those variables have to have dimensions. They cannot have multiple dimensions.

 

The rest is not even wrong.

 

 

That may seem harsh, but I have no idea how to get through to you. Have you even looked at the course I recommend a few days ago? I doubt it. You don't actually seem to be serious about learning.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Relative]

No batteries etc either

 

There is almost nothing in there that is right. If you continue to insist that the ground does not push back then you might as well quit now and take up basket weaving.

 

We use letters to represent variables. Those variables have to have dimensions. They cannot have multiple dimensions.

 

The rest is not even wrong.

 

 

That may seem harsh, but I have no idea how to get through to you. Have you even looked at the course I recommend a few days ago? I doubt it. You don't actually seem to be serious about learning.

I am seriously learning, I am discussing models, and getting to grips with what a model is.

 

And I should of said , what do you actually mean by dimensions?

 

And I think from my model, I have an idea now, and can build a device that uses and creates its own natural energy and will vibrate , it may even move on a low friction surface like ice.

Does the Earth vibrate?

''We use letters to represent variables. Those variables have to have dimensions. They cannot have multiple dimensions.''

 

Arrr, I think I understand you now, like radius , diameter etc?

[swansont]

 

The right hand Physical body is of one object Y that is equal to X but opposite of Z.

 

 

What do x, y and z represent? What property does each represent?

[physica]

That may seem harsh, but I have no idea how to get through to you. Have you even looked at the course I recommend a few days ago? I doubt it. You don't actually seem to be serious about learning.

I feel the same way. I have given a step by step program on how to create a mathematical model and multiple people including me have given him easy mathematical models to try and produce. As a result he has failed to gasp the most basic mathematical models and not followed a single one though. When it gets too hard instead of sticking with it he attempts a more complex mathematical model. I give up. Relative good luck. I think it's great that you want to learn but in my opinion you need to really buckle down and learn the basics instead of running round in circles chasing momentarily what seems vaguely interesting.

[Relative]

 

What do x, y and z represent? What property does each represent?

If I was using this model for gravity, x=Earth's core, Y=Sun, Z=space dust/matter

 

If I was using this model for perpetual motion, X=positive polarity, Y=positive polarity, Z=negative polarity

 

Like my earlier diagram model.

 

I am 99% logically sure I could make a simple device, that would create energy literally out of fresh air using this model and the concept and idea that goes with it.

Would something with no applied energy, e.g. batteries etc, that continually vibrates be classed has perpetual motion?

[Fuzzwood]

I am 99% logically sure I could make a simple device, that would create energy literally out of fresh air using this model and the concept and idea that goes with it. <-- then your logic is as unsound as your knowledge of physics.