swansont

Bollocks. The ring is vibrating, so it is not a rigid mass. Your analysis would mean a person couldn’t jump upward, because there’s a force that comes from inside the person. Which should clearly be the wrong conclusion. You can jump, and this doesn’t violate the laws of motion. (the real ones, not your version of them)

The ring’s vibrations cause the table to vibrate. This is an action-reaction force from Newton’s 3rd law. The table is, as you note, an external component. So: force exerted by the table causes the ring to accelerate (in accordance with Newton’s 1st and 2nd laws) No, when you set k to zero you will not have oscillations.

I’m ignoring it because it’s not isolated. The ring is sitting on the table. This is nonsense. I can’t be sure how much you’re just making up; “excitation force” is not a term I’ve ever heard in a mechanics problem, and also, this is clearly false/misapplied. There are a number of ways a normal force can cause motion. In this case, the table will vibrate in response, and likely have different modes excited than what’s in the ring. You got that wrong, so I doubt this will help. No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not be true. The vibrating table is external. How you can ignore this is truly mind-boggling. “Excitation force” isn’t a thing (in my experience), so no. I can’t show the Narnia force, either. But the force the table exerts would be modeled as the spring, and it would not have k=0. You’ve simplified the example to the point where it’s flat-out wrong. According to John2020’s analysis, you can’t jump up and down on a trampoline. Nobody knows how they work.

You can upload pictures, which are displayed in the thread. You can include a full description of the setup. But you aren’t. You are insisting you have an explanation, which violates Newton’s laws If I (or another mod) close the thread, and/or if you are suspended, it will be because you refused to follow our rules, and that’s all on you, regardless of how much you invoke a persecution complex and blame others. It’s in contact with the table, which means there are external forces. Because this doesn’t apply. Magnetostriction means this is an incredibly bad assumption. The table exerts an external force, so this is moot.

“let the videos been watched by the members“ is a misrepresentation of the rules. Which indicates a comprehension problem. ! Moderator Note No, you will not.

This is a fictional character, right?

A ferrite core with an AC current creates a magnetic field, which will interact with nearby fields from current-carrying wires. Also magnetic materials. I imagine there are wires. There’s also the phenomenon of magnetostriction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostriction Without watching the video I can’t tell if this might be happening. Any noise coming from the core? edit to add: https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/materials/materials-11-01894/article_deploy/materials-11-01894.pdf Magnetostrictive strain is the main source of acoustic noise generated by transformers If it makes sound, it’s vibrating. I don’t know if they watched any videos

! Moderator Note Is there a comprehension problem here? members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos

! Moderator Note Which is against the rules. You must post the material for discussion here. You can’t require anyone to watch a video or click on a link to participate

Five responses from you in that thread. So you’ve nailed it again. And the responses were pretty consistent, as is your misunderstanding of Newton’s laws. My counteroffer: no. What would likely happen is we would get inundated with nonsense for a week, which is unacceptable. The current protocol requires that a thread-starter get to the point and respond to feedback. i.e. we require they not waste anyone’s time. We’re not about to give a crackpot leave to ignore science for a week so they can post their entire manifesto. We don’t owe them a stage and a microphone. There’s no point in letting someone post a whole treatise in multiple parts when it’s based on unsound physics. Our rules let us examine the unsound basis, without the additional complications of the house of cards built on it.

! Moderator Note This isn’t a mainstream theory, so it doesn’t belong here. Is this just idle discussion (Lounge) or do you have a model you are going to defend (speculations)?

You answered a rhetorical question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

There are so many engine mechanics in my line of work.

When do they diverge? When there’s relative motion, and/or a difference in location in a gravitational potential. They can be compared by sending signals between the clocks. Space expansion doesn’t happen where you are. It happens between you and some distant point. The oscillator in space will run faster owing to being higher in (or out of) the gravity well, and slower owing to motion. The net effect depends on the details. GPS, for example runs fast because the gravitational effect is bigger. On the ISS they run slower because the kinematic effect is bigger. Synchronization means frequency and phase are the same. Frequency only is syntonization. (i.e. you would not say a clock reading 1200 is synchronized with a clock that read 1043)

The Amazon didn’t emit the CO2. Human action did. “Researchers compared the volume of CO2 sunk into the forest to the volumes released by fires or cutting down trees.”

And yet we’re 12 pages in and it hasn’t been shut down, so yeah, great example of mods wanting to “close the thread as soon as possible” I will note that you’ve expended time and effort to complain, but haven’t addressed any of the points I raised. One might think you’re trying to distract from the shortcomings of your position.

It happens if you stay on the earth, or near the earth. It’s about motion and where you are in a gravity well, not about being in space, or the details of the environment. Special relativity is a direct consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. One might expect the speed to depend on the motion of the source or the target, but for light it’s not. That can’t happen if length and time are absolute.

! Moderator Note The electric and magnetic fields are transverse to the direction of the light’s path. I’m not inclined for you to make another half-assed guess. This doesn’t meet the standard for rigor of speculations. We’re done here

You went from “would they flow?” to “they will flow” Pick one. If it’s the latter, you need to explain why.

Typically, yes, the deBroglie wavelength exceeds the separation.

! Moderator Note No. You aren't complying with the rules about posting the material here (2.7) and our speculations rules say "Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof" You haven't done this, and you are basing your speculation upon other speculation that also has no evidence. If you want to base an idea on antigravity that violates conservation of momentum, provide a model for how this antigravity works. If you can't do that, there is no point in building a model on top of it.

! Moderator Note Speculations ≠ WAG Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You need a model or make testable predictions.

If you anthropomorphize nature and think there is a purpose then you will make understanding of evolution all the more difficult.

I don't think I did miss the point. This is an inherent problem of trying to address problems/questions with colloquial expressions and analogies, with the inevitable failure of rigor at some point along the way. It's a cousin to the expression "All models are wrong. Some are useful." where one party is trying to convey the useful part and another party is focused on the "wrong" part. So when someone offers up an example of parallel lines (or, more specifically, what one might assume are parallel lines, because they meet a criterion for parallel lines) and then you find out that they are not, the conclusion is you are not in a flat geometry. Someone who is not clear on the concept might find that example helpful. Someone who does understand the concept pointing out that the lines are not actually parallel is probably not nearly as helpful. This is reminiscent of when folks show up to ask a question about basic physics, and people jump in with some advanced physics that has no direct bearing on the discussion (e.g. pointing out how GR treats a problem when Newtonian gravity is sufficient to answer the question). Being right and being helpful are not necessarily the same thing.