Windevoid

Because of the greenhouse gases present and its stimulation which are bounded by earth's gravitational pull.

Because of the greenhouse gases present and its stimulation which are bounded by earth's gravitational pull.

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.

Momentum always comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. It never simply appears or disappears. However, if you are studying the collision of two objects and don't control everything else, there are places that momentum can enter or leave the collision other than the two objects in question.

If you take whatever else is having an effect on the system into account, momentum will be conserved.

Where does the friction factor into that?

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

Unless, of course, the original was checked and parts were obviously wrong.

No, It rather suggests that you don't understand what you are talking about.

It's a bit like saying

"I heard on the radio this morning that there are 1.5 dollars to the pound.

Does that mean I can sell 150 Zimbabwe dollars for £100?"

The answer is no: you are talking about different things. The US dollar exchange rate doesn't apply to the Zim dollar.

 

Now, as you have been asked before:

"Can you just write newtons third law as you understand it in your next post, please so we are all on the same page. "

"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.

 

Then you will appreciate the sheer elegance of what Newton said and the way he phrased his three laws.

 

None are redundant or wasteful, all three are necessary and together they can be used to build up the laws of classical mechanics.

 

Many have offered modernisations of the wording over the years, pretty well every such attempt has actually missed something in the 'upgrade'.

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

I usually like questioning things, but when it's done from willful ignorance and misunderstanding, refusing to actually study mainstream explanations before pronouncing them WRONG, it becomes clear that this is NOT a healthy curiosity. Refutation works best when you have at least reasonable knowledge and more to go on than feelings.

 

In this case, I think a call to a leg manufacturer is in order. There's nothing to stand on.

I have studied them.

Can you just write newtons third law as you understand it in your next post, please so we are all on the same page.

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

OK I will ask the question again.

 

studiot, on 06 Sept 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

 

I asked what you understand is states. Or if you will, "state Newton's third Law".

 

Then we can examine your proposition that it involves energy, which I don't agree with.

I don't think the man ever mentioned energy in any of his three laws.

The energy is secondary and is supposed to follow along with the momentum conservation and balance of forces explanation that Swansont gave, right?

It seems well tested.

 

You have to take everything into account carefully. Real collisions are not perfectly elastic so you get some loss of kinetic energy, but we still have momentum conservation which is essentially what the third law is telling us here.

 

Also, you will not get momentum conservation if you have external forces applying. You need to keep track of everything carefully.

"Also, you will not get momentum conservation if you have external forces applying."

Does that mean I'm right?

What do you understand Newton's third Law to state?

 

Is it a law of motion or statics or both?

 

How does this lead on to a discussion of energy?

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.

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.

Also triangles hitting each other (non-symmetric orientation ,and they may have rubber on the opposite side.

There are plenty of simple experiments that back up Newtonian physics. I remember in high school using an air track to study collisions.

Mine was only done with a computer simulation in high school.

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?

Newton's laws are not wrong, but there are scenarios for which they are not valid.

 

If there are fields about, such as the electromagnetic field, then that can carry away energy and momentum. Thus as far as the two bodies are concerned we get a violation of the third law. Also one has to be much more careful in quantum mechanics, where you should apply Ehrenfest's theorem.

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

Pluto is also not a planet...

 

Regardless of that, are you able to show how it's off from where it "should" be? And if so, how far off it really is? Is it possible that it's just from your vantage point?

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.

 

A bit of advice for Windevoid on behalf of Bomani D'Mite Armah:

 

 

But in all seriousness, Bignose is absolutely right. There's so many ways to learn new things. There's picking up a book, asking questions (sans trolling) on forums like this, auditing classes at a local college/university, attend lectures and conferences for various career fields, and once again, because it's the most important one, read a book. There's a wealth of knowledge out there to be had if you actually try to look.

 

 

First of all, science is the only field that will continue to learn new things, endlessly. How can I make such a statement? Because other than religion, all other fields rely on finding from scientific discoveries.

 

Also, to say that we have had the same technology for 20 years is the same as saying that for the majority of my life nothing new has been discovered. Do you know that in order for someone to obtain their PhD, they have to have original research? Do you really think that with all the doctors (not necessarily just dental or medical) in the world that none of them have made a breakthrough in 20 years? You're forgetting stem cells, discovery of a planet that has two suns, functional robotic limbs... What about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? That was built in 1998, only 15 years ago.

 

If you need to see new tech that's coming out all the time, check out the technology section of cnn.com. There's new articles on there all the time pointing out new discoveries.

Reading my college textbook led to the same problems, still.

Then why does it make predictions that are contrary to what is known?

 

Windevoid, I can think that when I drop a lead weight that it will float up all I want. But I cannot deny that here on earth, it falls down. Every time. I can't base any further ideas on 'lead falls up' once it falls down. And there is no point in trying to insist that I am right that lead falls up.

 

Again, why don't you take some of this energy you are putting into stubbornness and learn about what the current theory says? What do you think is in there that is going to scare you so much? What is stopping you? I just don't understand this reluctance to learn about what our current theory says. At the barest minimum, if you truly believe your idea is so much better, you still need to learn the current theory so you can demonstrate exactly where it is wrong.

Then why does it make predictions that are contrary to what is known?

 

Windevoid, I can think that when I drop a lead weight that it will float up all I want. But I cannot deny that here on earth, it falls down. Every time. I can't base any further ideas on 'lead falls up' once it falls down. And there is no point in trying to insist that I am right that lead falls up.

 

Again, why don't you take some of this energy you are putting into stubbornness and learn about what the current theory says? What do you think is in there that is going to scare you so much? What is stopping you? I just don't understand this reluctance to learn about what our current theory says. At the barest minimum, if you truly believe your idea is so much better, you still need to learn the current theory so you can demonstrate exactly where it is wrong.

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?

 

And there's a reason why the issue people have with carbon as a dating marker for organic material is not an issue with methods intended to date inorganic material.

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.

 

Radiometric dating is a general name for a whole bunch of techniques.

 

Carbon dating is one such technique, and the question is usually "how can you use carbon dating to date ROCKS? Duh!"

 

To which the answer is invariably "You can't. That's why we don't."

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

You did ask question 1 specifically and received a specific answer, to which you did not respond.

 

Why should you now expect responses to the others?

 

 

Edit:

In response to sayonara cheerful optimism here is my answer again.

 

 

I would have, but Swansont closed my thread.

I'd suggest letting the sleeping dog lie, and just asking those 5 questions as the scientific queries that they are.

 

In terms of dating, carbon dating is only really good for dead organic stuff that once integrated atmospheric carbon. There are however other methods of radiometric dating.

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?