swansont

This is like an inverted glass submerged in water. If the region started out full of water, you could transfer air in and it would displace water

! Moderator Note "Read the attachment" is not compliant with rule 2.7. However, I did read it and it falls well short of the level of rigor we require (which you acknowledge when you admit you don't have a theory) A better approach might be to learn the physics by asking questions, in order to propose an actual model.

! Moderator Note No, I don't think this will work. We want one topic per thread, and people are free to open a topic if they wish to discuss shortcomings/gaps/limitations of any particularly theory, so you are free to peruse the boards and see if such topics exist, or open new ones if you have something to contribute. Introducing multiple discussion topics tends to lead to confusing discussions. If anyone is proposing an alternative model of the universe, they may discuss it in speculations.

! Moderator Note Post it here, and don’t advertise your site

AlexandrKushnirtshuk has been suspended for advertising his speculations threads in other threads, and soapboxing (posting while failing to post coherent evidence) Suspended again because violated his parole about ten seconds after getting off suspension.

I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned. (that’s a direct quote from my earlier post) If you really need this phrased as a question: are shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned? (But I’m shocked you can’t get from one to the other. Are you being obtuse?)

Is there something about my statement you don’t understand? I didn’t ask you about physical objects. I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned.

You made a claim about things being real, not whether they are physical objects, so this is not really a response to what I asked you. Because this is irrelevant, I would say.

Apply to the prior discussion of shadows and holes. Are they objectively real, or reasoned? A lot of this points to the need to carefully define terms and context. Discussion of what is “real” is meaningless without clarifying if you mean real vs illusion, or real vs imagined.

It puts the treatment on equal footing. I don’t understand this reasoning. c is a proportionality constant; this situation is present throughout physics. Constants can be large or small. If you double the time, you double ct. That variation is the important thing. It’s not a tiny factor. If t doesn’t change, the dependent variable doesn’t change.

! Moderator Note Not a whole lot of discussion of the OP, and multiple hits on what we consider arguing in bad faith. Closed, and don’t bring either the geology or the physics of this tangent up again. This is a science discussion site, not Rants-R-Us

! Moderator Note You’ve been told before that this posting style is contrary to the rules (2.7) “Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. “

It’s true that if you did an “aborted jump” and ended on your toes the scale reading would go down, the description is not consistent with saying the force never exceeds the static value - it should be larger than that during the earlier time that the CoM is rising.

You wrote what was in your post. I quoted it and I moved it; I did not edit it. You were notified because it was a hijack of the discussion.

This makes sense to you. The absence of light - literally no photons - is a physical object. The dirt in a hole is a physical object, and not having that dirt is also a physical object. Defining everything as a physical object makes it simple, I guess. Gravity is an interaction, not an object. Same with magnetism.

That’s circular reasoning. it’s physical because I can measure it, and I can measure it because it’s physical. I can measure a shadow or a hole. Are these physical objects? It’s a simple, independent criterion. Because concepts are not physical objects.

Yes, I can give you a photon. Just one would be difficult for technical reasons, not philosophical ones. Length and time can be measured. Neither is a physical object.

Can you hand me a volume of space? Geometry is not a physical thing, and when we say spacetime has a geometry, it’s saying there’s a particular coordinate system that is best suited to describe it. e.g. the shortest distance between two points is a straight line or a specific curve.

It doesn’t, if the scale works by measuring the normal force.

Unless you define that to be up. It’s a label and it’s arbitrary. (with the caveat that one needs to label in a consistent fashion)

But these are not physical things unto themselves.

I’m giving a scenario which maximizes the CoM motion, to show how your explanation can’t be correct. The momentum is taken up by the earth, not the scale (to first order). The scale does compress, and more than if you were just standing on it - that part is correct. But if it compresses more, the reading has to go up.

So if you’re 60 kg, and the scale is 1 kg, you’re saying the scale mechanism is moving 60x faster than you are. Does that seem reasonable? You bend your knees and then we start the exercise: you straighten up, moving ~1m, in 2 seconds. How can the scale compress at 30 m/s for 2 seconds?

There is no F=ma exception for flesh or bone

! Moderator Note This not your thread. Split from https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120896-a-mass-can-be-be-lifted-with-force-less-than-its-weight/