Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.
Amaranth Rose you will notice all conversations with Paul become stupid and meaningless because he is a professional religious troll he has no interest in science.
You will notice Bill S, Bill G, Redenwaur and anyone with a science understanding beyond 10 years old has problems with him some are just more tolerant than others.
My concern is students may come to this site and since there is no moderation some of his rubbish simply needs to be corrected and at least challenged because that is his intention to mislead and in those instances calling stupid on something that is clearly and obviously stupid is justified.
In the instance above he seeks to mislead children on what force is and how it works and it is deliberate because it really is that simple children get it.
To you Paul I am not offended at all you are a religious troll who is so insecure in your GOD you feel you need to undermine science in any way possible ... real religious people like Rev K are not so insecure that they view science as any sort of risk.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1204:51 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
I suspect we are not going to get any further with this as we seem to have hit one of those situations that bedevil Earth Science threads.
I would, however, like to try to work through some thoughts that are going round in my head, and perhaps get them into some sort of order, just to see if they make sense.
F = ma. (So far, so good)
I have a 10kg block of something rigid that I want to move by pushing it.
I (try to) apply a force to it, but the force is insufficient to move the block. (I’m having a feeble day)
F = 10kg x 0 = 0 (No force in spite of my feeble efforts!)
The force I thought I was applying = 5N
Therefore 5N = 10kg x 0 = 0
Therefore 5N = 0.
Have I missed something here, or does this not make very good sense?
There are a hundred of ways to punch a hole in it you did it the nice mathematical way but hard for kids to really understand whats happening that way ... nice for adults.
You could also connect a rubber band and wind it up, pull on a piece of elastic and a myriad of other ways to disprove it.
A good one would be to attach a force measuring gauge to your brick and pull on it to show the force really is there and said brick still isnt moving :-)
Literally hundreds of way to do it but the trick is to make it understandable to kids when teaching.
This really shouldn't be hard to discuss on science forum it only becomes so because of the troll but I am comfortable now that students can cut thru the rubbish with the contributions everyone has made.
Last edited by Orac; 11/22/1205:42 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Have I missed something here, or does this not make very good sense?
0N = 0N
if the ( 5N force that you are thinking of ) force is not moving then it cant possibly be moving the 10kg mass.
so there is no force there is only stress.
there is 5N stress
force requires motion F=ma
I believe I have had enough of the non-scientific discussions that I can stomach for awhile , especially with dillweeds like orak around ranting and raving about how children are taught things.
why not teach them the correct way first , then later they wont be so confussed.
like orid is.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
It is perhaps easier to understand Paul’s line of reasoning if the Work Function is introduced.
The equation used to express this function is W = F d, where W is the work done, F is the force used and d is the distance over which the work is carried out. Although the Work Function is a good tool to assess the amount of coal that would be needed for a steam locomotive to pull a train of a given weight from London to Manchester, for example; it can produce some odd results if it is inappropriately used to assess how much energy might have been used in a particular situation.
Picture a situation in which a horse is being used to try to move an enormously heavy object. If the attempt is successful the work function can be applied to it, but suppose the horse is unable to move the object. The distance then becomes zero, so F in the second half of the work function equation must be multiplied by 0. The equation becomes W = 0. No work has been done; therefore no energy has been expended, notwithstanding the possibility that the horse might be totally exhausted.
You could also connect a rubber band and wind it up, pull on a piece of elastic and a myriad of other ways to disprove it.
A good one would be to attach a force measuring gauge to your brick and pull on it to show the force really is there and said brick still isnt moving :-)
dillweed , your talking about tension, not force. the children you are teaching will curse the day you were hatched.
Quote:
As tension is the magnitude of a force, it is measured in newtons (or sometimes pounds-force) and is always measured parallel to the string on which it applies. There are two basic possibilities for systems of objects held by strings:[1] Either acceleration is zero and the system is therefore in equilibrium, or there is acceleration and therefore a net force is present.
you understand it now , its clear , but trying to teach a dillweed is impossible , because they already know everything there is to know , just like the sagg bad boy dillweed , oran
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
"Let's look at a diagram of a car. When the car is sitting still, gravity exerts a downward force on the car...But the ground exerts an equal and opposite upward force on the tires, so the car does not move."
"It is commonly said that there are four fundamental forces of nature**: the gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. The normal force is actually a collection of electromagnetic forces. At the atomic level, two objects resist being smashed together because the electrons of one object resist those of the other. Electrons have a negative charge, so two electrons will tend to repel each other when they are near. When many atoms behave this way collectively, the result is the normal force.
This force is always directed perpendicular to the surface that causes it. When a car is on flat ground, the normal force is vertical and will exactly cancel out the gravitational force. This is why a car on level ground will accelerate neither upward nor downward"
** 3, if you count electromagnetic and weak as the electroweak, but it's the electromagnetic facet that's relevant here.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
it can produce some odd results if it is inappropriately used to assess how much energy might have been used in a particular situation.
Picture a situation in which a horse is being used to try to move an enormously heavy object. If the attempt is successful the work function can be applied to it, but suppose the horse is unable to move the object. The distance then becomes zero, so F in the second half of the work function equation must be multiplied by 0. The equation becomes W = 0. No work has been done; therefore no energy has been expended, notwithstanding the possibility that the horse might be totally exhausted.
Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length
there is no force acting through a distance.
no motion = no length no length = no energy
force requires motion
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
I’m leaving this thread because it’s going nowhere I want to be.
As far as the exchange of insults is concerned, I disagree with both Paul and Orac in their assessments of the other. I think Orac must be an intelligent person to do the job he does, and he shows this in his less heated posts.
IMO, Paul presents as very intelligent. It is extremely easy for those who do not have personal experience of dogmatic belief, to fail to realise the absolute urgency of the need to protect it. Some do it by shutting their minds to anything outside, for example, accusing scientists of trying to “explain away” God, and rejecting whatever they say. Others do it by striving to make sense of some sort of concordance between their beliefs and those things that appear to challenge them. This latter is, I believe, the more rational, and may be what Paul is doing. If it is (and I could be wrong – it has happened before) I don’t think it should be equated with stupidity.