Windevoid

Makes sense. Oh, okay. So it's being warmed by the sun., but why doesn't the air lose all of its heat to the vacuum of space at night? Newton's Law of Cooling, right?

If space is so cold, why is the Earth so warm?

I think I am right, though. Where does the friction factor into that?

Unless, of course, the original was checked and parts were obviously wrong. "Can you just write newtons third law as you understand it in your next post, please so we are all on the same page. " I just said what I think if means a couple of posts, and a few hours, ago.

I hope the documentary, school, and college versions weren't different than the original.

I have studied them.

Every energy/momentum/force is supposed to create an equal and opposite energy/momentum/force when a collision occurs.

The energy is secondary and is supposed to follow along with the momentum conservation and balance of forces explanation that Swansont gave, right? "Also, you will not get momentum conservation if you have external forces applying." Does that mean I'm right?

Newton's third law of motion to me means a balance of energy (Swansont mentioned momentum). Foot hitting pavement or arm hitting a couch or bed frame makes the secondary object really warm, but walking or running for 30 entire minutes is only supposed to be about 140 calories.

Also triangles hitting each other (non-symmetric orientation ,and they may have rubber on the opposite side. Mine was only done with a computer simulation in high school. Also, you have to track the heat during these collisions, and have different shapes, sizes, and masses.

Have there been experiments for these claims in the given situations, or are we just guessing?

Interesting, but I think that Newton might be wrong on more normal scales, too.

I think it was a planet when I was in high school.

Is Newton's third law of motion wrong? Could the other ones be? Perhaps the original energy doesn't disappear when something impacts something else. Perhaps extra energy is gained and then dissipated as heat. This would be when the two objects that hit each other are different shapes or maybe different sizes or maybe when they are of different springiness/hardness. I thought this one up or realized it about a month or two ago, but forgot, so I am posting it now. Examples of scenarios: two magnets/electromagnets Foot hitting pavement or arm hitting a couch or bed frame makes the secondary object really warm, but walking or running for 30 entire minutes is only supposed to be about 140 calories. Anything hitting a wall.

If that really is Saturn or Venus in the western sky, I think it's 20 to 45 degrees off of the ecliptic. I mean, the sun sets more or less vertically. The only planet off of the ecliptic is supposed to be Pluto, but Pluto is not visible with the naked eye (I don't think it is).

Maybe a picture or a few would help.

Maybe a picture or a few would help. Reading my college textbook led to the same problems, still.

I tried watching YouTube lectures on electricity, but they still didn't make sense.

Even if it somehow is true, I feel like I am the only person that sees that the normal theory seems contradictory with itself. I tried watching YouTube lectures on electricity, but they still didn't make sense.

I still think I am right some way or other. It just doesn't seem to fit together in the normal physics.

We've basically had the same tech for 20 years or longer, just smaller. And why don't they understand my claims? They make perfect sense to me. Especially electrons in electricity. A piece of plastic or a balloon can stick to or repel something easily for a minute or so, but a battery that can power a lightbulb for a day and a half doesn't attract or repel anything? How does this make sense?

What about radioactive variability? It shouldn't always get the right answer anymore than being able to predict which side a coin will land on.

It's the exact same process, just with different elements than carbon.

I would have, but Swansont closed my thread. That's the same carbon dating process that some people question.

Exactly as the title says. I mean, I asked 3 claims for the middle ages: 1. How can you date castles and city walls scientifically (some question carbon dating). 2. Same dating problem, but for manuscripts. 3. Do those manuscripts or era data have multiple sources? 4. Anatoly Fomenko can just put medieval cultures on top of each other. 5. Evidence of unique culture? 6. Do they have arrowheads, helmets, and swords from the era, dateable?