swansont

Do you understand why there are fringes? How does sound enter into this?

What does a “coil-like EM wave” / “em wave similar to the coil“ mean?

Only three pyramids had the pi slope.

You should know that requiring this is not in compliance with the rules. Yes. That’s what you do - write down the general equation and eliminate the terms that are zero in a particular problem. In the other thread I expressly said dropping from rest, making vi = 0. There’s no reason to continue to include it for that problem. There’s no implication that it applies to all cases once you have imposed such restrictions Locked threads also aren’t supposed to be resurrected

I asked “Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?” You have no credibility so “your view” is pretty much impact-free You You have been given serious discussion, which you ignore or reject, and you have not presented logical arguments; your posts are a parade of argument by personal incredulity fallacies. “comply with what you serve (physics)” is what we mean by “general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” in our rule on bad faith arguments. ! Moderator Note As I said before, we’re not discussing this. What he should do is learn Newton’s laws of motion by investigating simple systems

No, I will not examine the complicated system when you will not acknowledge the analysis of the simpler system. This is a version of the Gish gallop, and is a bad faith argument, which we won’t tolerate. Deal with the simple system, or we close the thread.

And you are wrong, “we” have not agreed to this It’s not an isolated system A simpler system has fewer components, not more. Then stop saying Newton’s laws don’t allow the motion you observe. That’s the same as saying the laws of motion are wrong.

Because making the system more complicated will not clear up your misconceptions Now replace “body” with “ring” and you’re one step closer No, “we” did not agree. The vibration is caused by an external magnetic force, and the table is exerting a force.

Don’t injure yourself patting yourself on the back. Rearranging the equation is algebra, so any high-schooler should be able to manage that. I am focused solely on your claim that vi is missing from the equation, when that’s clearly not true. If you’re going to reference an earlier thread, you should post an actual link, rather than give a time/date. You should learn calculus. a = dv/dt Integrate twice, applying boundary conditions, and you get that result (as would many thousands of people who can do the math) That you can’t do it in no way implies that the equation is wrong.

So you keep saying, while repeatedly ignoring my request to reveal where you “learned” this (part of the issue: is the ring an isolated system?) Also ignoring examples you can see, e.g. a person jumping into the air

No, that’s not correct. You do not understand the 3rd law, and therefore misrepresent it. Action and reaction forces act on different bodies, so it’s nonsensical to do this math. It’s like saying energy is conserved, so nothing can move.

Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring? Work and momentum are nit the same thing, and I would be interested to know exactly where you got the “the net work of internal force is zero“ idea? It’s fairly obvious that you should examine the simplest system possible to clear up your misconceptions, but that’s not been your MO. Having three different misconceptions all colliding in an example makes this much more difficult. Plus the attitude that Newton is wrong, not you.

Action and reaction forces are both forces, so it doesn’t matter if it’s one or the other. Objects accelerate because a force acts on them. They don’t care if it’s an action force or a reaction force. The ring exerts a force on the table. The table exerts a force on the ring. As described by the 3rd law. We’ve covered the cause of the vibration. Your claim that internal forces can’t transferred outside is false; you already acknowledged that a person can jump in the air. (and if you now assert that one cannot, there is no point in further discussion)

The (vibrating) table exerts a force on the ring. But you didn’t miss this: Yes Not looking for. Found. You keep acting like the table isn’t there, which is ridiculous.

! Moderator Note Which, as you have been told, is insufficient. Our rules require you post the information here. If you can’t or won’t follow the rules, the thread will be closed Didn’t you just deny there were geometric conceits in the previous sentence?

Most people see a conflict between their observation and their understanding of physics, and conclude their understanding is flawed. These folks would look at the explanations and gain understanding. A few others see this conflict, and conclude the laws of physics are wrong. John2020 is not the first, and will not be the last, to take this stance here. But there’s no traction to it. The laws of physics are not wrong. The extra frustration is that this is a fairly trivial case and the misunderstanding is of such a fundamental concept. There’s no effort to gain anything, because of the denial that their understanding is flawed.

The changing speed and gravitational potential would result in a continually changing frequency that would differ from the ground clock before it settled into the orbit where the frequencies are equal.

We have thought about it. Not everyone can watch a given video for various reasons, and they should not be shut out of the discussion. Videos can’t be quickly scanned like written material, so it’s an unreasonable investment of time (especially since videos follow Sturgeon’s law) Videos can’t be easily quoted. And too many people would (and have) posted only to drive traffic to their channel. The evidence really isn’t the issue here. Nobody has tried to argue that there isn’t motion. That you have insisted on things that are contrary to Newton’s laws of motion is the issue. Complaining about not being able to post a video link is a red herring, distracting from your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of physics. IOW: it’s not the evidence, it’s your erroneous conclusions.

Sorry, you didn’t post it before the other equation. I only read the first section, because of the nonsense value. Plus I would’ve skipped the strikethrough text anyway. Clearly this is bollocks. h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2 (or an equivalent equation) is standard fare in any physics textbook that presents kinematics equations. equation 3 https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/kinematic-formulas/a/what-are-the-kinematic-formulas top left of the “big 4” https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations 3rd equation https://www.pasco.com/products/guides/kinematic-equations and so on... Your complaint is entirely fabricated. (you can also notice that nobody is presenting this as an equation for acceleration)

1. No, you did not post this equation 2. vi*t is clearly present in it. So what is missing?

! Moderator Note This is not an acceptable approach. This is a discussion board.

Missing from what? This not an equation for g. It comes from a different equation, rearranged, which you have not shared.(i.e. g is typically not an unknown in kinematics problems) IOW, you are skipping some necessary steps in the discussion.

You would see each recede over a period of time, assuming you weren’t gravitationally bound to either. In phase means the oscillations are at the same point in the cycle; i.e. the time is the same. Two oscillators can run at the same frequency but not have the same phase. In general, no, they would not remain in sync. There is one value of r in a circular orbit where the kinematic and gravitational effects cancel. (and launching would disrupt any synchronization)

This makes zero sense. Contract and expand, while we have a piece of metal expanding and contracting because of a changing magnetic field. Yeah, nothing similar at all, except for the expanding and contracting. We’re not looking at an example in outer space, so this is just another non-sequitur The reaction force to the normal force of the floor on the person is the normal force the person exerts on the floor. The example for this thread is not an issue of a rotating unbalanced system. You claim behavior can’t be explained and that Newton’s laws are being violated. That’s the opposite of established physics. But it’s not, since magnetostriction couples the EM to mechanical motion.

Excitation force is something you made up, so stop it, and this has nothing to do with the centripetal force. You don’t accept the underlying physics as being correct, so this is pointless, is it not? And there’s no eccentric mass. Leave your other threads out of it.