Connecting the opposites... What could that mean?

[Marblehead]

 

On the same page so far?

No.  We are not even reading the same book.

[Marblehead]

 Ok equal forces occurring... But the greater mass effecting more diversion of the lesser mass from a trajectory. Next step?

Actually, the forces are equal only if the mass of the two objects is equal.  That is why Jupiter sucks in most of the comets and asteroids that are headed toward our inner solar system.  Jupiter's mass if far greater. 

[Marblehead]

 

Still with me?

Well, you damn sure lost me because I have never seen a stone push.  If one is already at its lowest possible position it never moves unless a force is applied to it.  (The moving stones of Death Valley are a result of the force of the wind.)

[Marblehead]

Sure ...  but now by adding the tiniest of forces  .

And off she goes.  Distance and direction will be determined by the forces of water currents and the wind.  If there are no water currents or wind she will slowly come to a full stop and just sit there.

[Brian]

The Middle Ages would like it's "science" back...

[Wu Ming Jen]

Moving a thousand pounds  with four ounces. This implies the factor of a living thing that is able to move under its own natural power in any direction at will.

 

Control of movement means that if we choose to move in any direction we can stop that force at any moment without continuing in the same direction.

 

Physical applications someone pushes with full intent of meeting resistance if the resistance is removed newtons laws apply. If someone pushes meets emptiness be on guard change angle, distance or timing. this is an intelligent force.

[Marblehead]

The Middle Ages would like it's "science" back...

No!  It's mine now.

[Marblehead]

... this is an intelligent force.

And they are very rare.

[Nungali]

We'll be throwing things next but it may have to wait until tomorrow (the Florida v Florida State game is winding down and then it's bedtime...)

 

 

In that game ... did teams run in opposite directions ..... or just all over the place chaotically ?     

[Nungali]

And if the engine has been removed it ain't goin' nowhere.

 

[Nungali]

And off she goes.  Distance and direction will be determined by the forces of water currents and the wind.  If there are no water currents or wind she will slowly come to a full stop and just sit there.

 

Yes, but I was answering a specific question with that comment.   But aside from that, yes, the tiniest of forces, like the boy pushing the boat with the twig will make the boat move, but even without wind or current, the friction of the air and water will bring the boat to a standstill.

 

Why ?  Because the air and water are 'pushing' against the  movement or inertia of the boat. Just like Brian's rock 'pushes'

 

So maybe if one cant feel a stone pushing back ... one can feel water pushing back , its just that its bonds are looser and you can push 'through' it  .  A good way to feel this is to do one's kicking training in  thigh deep water. 

[Nungali]

The Middle Ages would like it's "science" back...

 

 

 

 

I recommend this   ( Ch 1 is really good ) ;

 

https://archive.org/details/originsofmoderns007291mbp

 

Seriously guys ... have a read of Ch 1 ... its easy, you just press the button and the pages turn    

 

... if I shoot an arrow why does it  .....    ( no dont answer , but is interesting to read how and why  people used to answer such questions .  )

[Nungali]

No!  It's mine now.

 

 

Grasp swallow by tail ... not medieval 'science'. 

[Brian]

 

Grasp swallow by tail ... not medieval 'science'.

Is that an African swallow???

[Brian]

 

In that game ... did teams run in opposite directions ..... or just all over the place chaotically ?

Millions of forces in play, all beautifully demonstrating their equal & opposite nature. They can do nothing else.

[Marblehead]

Grasp swallow by tail ... not medieval 'science'. 

But I don't want a swallow. 

[Marblehead]

Millions of forces in play, all beautifully demonstrating their equal & opposite nature. They can do nothing else.

Have you ever tried running in opposite directions at the same time?

[AussieTrees]

Have you ever tried running in opposite directions at the same time?

Thanks Marblhead

 

Chop the trees down then chop them up.

[Stosh]

Nungali, Your answers in post 72 , dont hold water, Ill just refute, the last one now , but could do so for the others as well..... you said to move the weight one only had to add the tiniest of forces, Its an incorrect answer because Ive already specified that the forces are neutral,, AND your answer defies the rest of your argument ! Since that tiniest of forces must be unopposed to move the weight. If, as you guys are contending ,some new opposing force appears when one asserts a force, then You could NOT move the weight , you said you could with the " tiniest of forces" .Check-mate ,Nungali.

[Stosh]

Wu, is requiring but denying intelligent control to muster force to effect change , since no intelligenge is being ascribed by you imagineers, to provide the resistant force ,,Check mate ,to Wu as well, unless he switched sides.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Brian, your second installment is just a re assertion of your incorrect scenarios, of spontaneous force generation violating conservation of mass and energy,, while its not a check mate, its not a legit argument to just re assert your premise. You can try again when you feel you can counter with some rationale. Or you could just give up ,since there aint no way to argue away the conservation issue, energy dispersion by friction, E=mc2 , all of chemistry, all of particle physics, etc etc etc.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Brian]

 

Have you ever tried running in opposite directions at the same time?

Your baseless dogmatism is impressive, Mh, but not in a way which garners respect, I'm afraid. Willful ignorance is typically a hallmark of the religious fundamentalist. You shred any credibility you might have as a self-proclaimed rational materialist by rejecting that which is not only rational but easily verifiable. If, instead, you said, Maybe I don't understand this," perhaps you might learn something about the objectivist world you claim to be all that is. To the contrary, however, you find yourself having to reject more and more of the rational objectivism you claim to espouse because it doesn't comport with your uninformed opinion. You do yourself a great disservice, my friend, and I hope you will reconsider your position.

[Brian]

 

Brian, your second installment is just a re assertion of your incorrect scenarios, of spontaneous force generation violating conservation of mass and energy,, while its not a check mate, its not a legit argument to just re assert your premise. You can try again when you feel you can counter with some rationale. Or you could just give up ,since there aint no way to argue away the conservation issue, energy dispersion by friction, E=mc2 , all of chemistry, all of particle physics, etc etc etc.

Point out one single thing in my explanations which you can refute with fact, theory, evidence, experimentation, logic or ANYTHING other than "nuh-uh" -- or simply say "maybe I don't understand" -- and I'll be glad to resume explaining to you how the physical world works. Until then, I'll consider you a lost cause and a waste of my energy.

[Marblehead]

Your baseless dogmatism is impressive, Mh, but not in a way which garners respect, I'm afraid.

I am not seeking respect.  I am sharing my understanding of the world as perceived by my senses.

 

I don't use instruments to show that something is happening when it is not or when it has no practical application to life as my senses and brain detect it.

[Brian]

Good luck with your home-grown religion.