NEW STUDY: 'CONSPIRACY THEORISTS' SANE, GOVERNMENT DUPES CRAZY

[RainmanTime]

Since a theory is not a fact, by all rights, the bedrock on which "real" science is based upon is fiction.

It is quite amusing how you like to use half-truths to make wild, and incorrect, statements like this one. Moreover, your penchant for making such statements only serves to illustrate just how poor your knowledge of real science, and how it works, is.

Typically, scientific theories (which differ from your meandering thoughts and beliefs) are actually based on facts, not upon fiction as you suggest. Let's use one of the most classic theories to completely dispel your own fictitious statement: Copernicus offered the theory of heliocentrism as an alternate explanation for the observable fact of retrograde planetary motion. The Ptolemaic view of earth being the center of the universe had to invent the ridiculous concept of epicycles to explain the fact of retrograde planetary motion. So here we see that two competing theories, geocentrism and heliocentrism, were both based upon observable facts. Moreover, the theory of heliocentrism was based on an observable fact that geocentrism had a problem with. That problem resulted in the need for epicycles. So Copernicus' theory was not only based upon the fact of normal, prograde planetary motion, but his theory used the fact of retrograde planetary motion to show there is a much more elegant, simple, and correct model to describe that fact where epicycles were no longer necessary.

Having now totally debunked your ridiculous statement above, let's look at how you tend to process facts...not at all scientifically, as it turns out:

Rainman pointed out that I'm convinced I was taught bad science. But what I find so ironic is that the science I was taught is probably the same science everyone is taught.

The truly ironic aspect of this is that your statement actually serves to illustrate how you think, and how unscientific your process of thought really is. You are much like the geocentrists, who thought there could be only one explanation for the motion of the heavenly bodies. Here and in past discussions, you insist upon only your interpretation of facts. In this case, you insist that the science you (and all of us) were taught was wrong. But much like Copernicus, I can come along and show you at least one (really two) alternate explanations to yours that do not require "conspiracy theory" to be invoked. Here they are:

1) You actually were taught the correct science, but in the intervening years since your schooling, your understanding of that science has failed. In other words, you came to adopt, and believe, your own interpretation of what you were taught.
2) You never actually understood the science as it was taught to you.

Do you see the difference? In your theory, the as-taught science must have been wrong (hence the invocation of conspiracy). In both of my theories, it is your internalization of the as-taught science that was corrupt. Either from the outset (theory 2) or it was corrupted as time went on (theory 1). The theory of mine that I favor is #1, because I do tend to give you some benefit of the doubt that you are not a total and complete moron.

Fortunately, one of the greatest aspects of a truly scientific theory is that it makes predictions that can be tested. Were you to still have retained your homeworks and tests from your high school and university science courses, we could actually verify if my theory #1 or #2 is closer to the facts as how you believe science to work today. If you did well in the tests and the classes, then that evidence tends to favor theory #1. Whereas if you tested poorly, it would favor theory 2.

But you see, you do not even acknowledge these two alternate theories. You insist that the as-taught science had to be wrong (because you would never question yourself). And yet, let me offer another example from our past discussions that I have sufficiently shown you that as-taught science was correct, and that you simply chose to ignore it for your own, wild, interpretation. Do you recall our discussions of gyroscopic precession? I explained to you (and you can verify this through any number of scientific classes and information on the internet) that gyroscopic precession is not the mysterious phenomenon you insist it is, but rather is tacitly explained by the concepts of: 1) the physics of conservation of angular momentum, 2) the mathematics of the vector cross product, and 3) the physics of the inertia of a spinning mass.

There absolutely zero fuzz on this peach. These three theories of gyroscopic precession have been confirmed by test and example (every flying airplane is proof these theories are correct) many times over. Yet rather than accept these alternate theories, that are most certainly based in fact, you insisted upon developing your own pet theory...one which invoked the pseudoscientific equivalent of conspiracy theory: You felt certain that gyroscopic precession could somehow be explained by an anomaly that would lead you to discover something about time travel.

You do your namesake a great disservice by continuing with your pseudoscientific ways and beliefs. But hey, it is quite entertaining to me and others. So have at it!

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Einstein said: ↑

Since a theory is not a fact, by all rights, the bedrock on which "real" science is based upon is fiction.​

It is quite amusing how you like to use half-truths to make wild, and incorrect, statements like this one. Moreover, your penchant for making such statements only serves to illustrate just how poor your knowledge of real science, and how it works, is.

You are entitled to your own opinions. However wrong they may be. I often envision you with your foot in your mouth, when you make statements such as these.

Typically, scientific theories (which differ from your meandering thoughts and beliefs) are actually based on facts, not upon fiction as you suggest. Let's use one of the most classic theories to completely dispel your own fictitious statement: Copernicus offered the theory of heliocentrism as an alternate explanation for the observable fact of retrograde planetary motion. The Ptolemaic view of earth being the center of the universe had to invent the ridiculous concept of epicycles to explain the fact of retrograde planetary motion. So here we see that two competing theories, geocentrism and heliocentrism, were both based upon observable facts. Moreover, the theory of heliocentrism was based on an observable fact that geocentrism had a problem with. That problem resulted in the need for epicycles. So Copernicus' theory was not only based upon the fact of normal, prograde planetary motion, but his theory used the fact of retrograde planetary motion to show there is a much more elegant, simple, and correct model to describe that fact where epicycles were no longer necessary.

Having now totally debunked your ridiculous statement above, let's look at how you tend to process facts...not at all scientifically, as it turns out:

Now, who is using half-truths? You! It does seem very convenient, that you failed to mention scientific theories that are not based on fact at all. I do believe a black hole would fall into that category. How about string theory. You know, the wild notion that everything is made up of strings. No facts to support that one. There is also wormhole theory too. You know, wormholes that apparently are not made by worms. Just how these wild fictional theories even got scientific recognition at all, is what truly amazes me. So tit for tat. I think these statements satisfactorily un-debunk your debunking.

Rainman pointed out that I'm convinced I was taught bad science. But what I find so ironic is that the science I was taught is probably the same science everyone is taught.​

The truly ironic aspect of this is that your statement actually serves to illustrate how you think, and how unscientific your process of thought really is. You are much like the geocentrists, who thought there could be only one explanation for the motion of the heavenly bodies. Here and in past discussions, you insist upon only your interpretation of facts. In this case, you insist that the science you (and all of us) were taught was wrong. But much like Copernicus, I can come along and show you at least one (really two) alternate explanations to yours that do not require "conspiracy theory" to be invoked. Here they are:

1) You actually were taught the correct science, but in the intervening years since your schooling, your understanding of that science has failed. In other words, you came to adopt, and believe, your own interpretation of what you were taught.
2) You never actually understood the science as it was taught to you.

Do you see the difference? In your theory, the as-taught science must have been wrong (hence the invocation of conspiracy). In both of my theories, it is your internalization of the as-taught science that was corrupt. Either from the outset (theory 2) or it was corrupted as time went on (theory 1). The theory of mine that I favor is #1, because I do tend to give you some benefit of the doubt that you are not a total and complete moron.

You have totally misinterpreted me altogether. And it does appear you have developed some theories about me based on misconceptions you have about me.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. Most of the time conspiracies are fabricated from some mediocre little minor facts that could have a multitude of explanations. And as is the case with all conspiracies, there are never any facts to support the wild claims.

First off I had some very good science instructors. I got to learn science from multiple viewpoints. Often the facts were presented as support for any theory that was taught. But one thing I noticed even back then, was that accepted theories usually had a preferred explanation. It was pointed out that many times a theory could not be verified conclusively. Thus it would remain a theory. What bothered me the most was that the theory was in the foreground, sort of hiding the facts it was based upon, that were in the background.

I'm sure you have heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. So why isn't a group of facts allowed a thousand interpretations? If this were the case, I believe we all would have a better understanding of the reality we exist within. So basically I would prefer to know the facts. Since the facts are the true picture.

And yet, let me offer another example from our past discussions that I have sufficiently shown you that as-taught science was correct, and that you simply chose to ignore it for your own, wild, interpretation. Do you recall our discussions of gyroscopic precession? I explained to you (and you can verify this through any number of scientific classes and information on the internet) that gyroscopic precession is not the mysterious phenomenon you insist it is, but rather is tacitly explained by the concepts of: 1) the physics of conservation of angular momentum, 2) the mathematics of the vector cross product, and 3) the physics of the inertia of a spinning mass.

There absolutely zero fuzz on this peach. These three theories of gyroscopic precession have been confirmed by test and example (every flying airplane is proof these theories are correct) many times over. Yet rather than accept these alternate theories, that are most certainly based in fact, you insisted upon developing your own pet theory...one which invoked the pseudoscientific equivalent of conspiracy theory: You felt certain that gyroscopic precession could somehow be explained by an anomaly that would lead you to discover something about time travel.

Yes, that was a very humorous discussion indeed. But this to me is another example of a very narrow minded theoretical interpretation of the observed facts. I was never satisfied with the theoretical explanations because of the precession reversal phenomena. And of course the obvious orthogonal translation of applied torque. Another fresher approach is needed. But none exist.

Torque and force also has been something I was never satisfied with. Mechanically a force can cancel a torque. Yet mathematically the two are described with dimensions that do not cancel. So which do you prefer? The math, or the facts?

 

[RainmanTime]

Torque and force also has been something I was never satisfied with. Mechanically a force can cancel a torque. Yet mathematically the two are described with dimensions that do not cancel. So which do you prefer? The math, or the facts?

Once you learn how to use conservation laws to solve engineering kinematic problems, you will then understand exactly how a torque can be canceled out by the judicious application of a force. And once you understand this, you will then understand that the mathematics actually describe the facts, and most accurately. The evidence to this is that we can land vehicles on Mars with ridiculous accuracy. Have you achieved some feat equivalent to this with your silly interpretations as yet?

Forces represent 3 DOF of translation.
Moments represent another 3 DOFs of rotation.

Kinematics of rigid bodies is completely described as the intersection of these two sets of 3 DOFs. Hence the usefulness of 6DOF equations of motion in physics and engineering. Just because you are not satisfied with it does not mean all of the equations of engineering kinematics are not also facts. Your saying you are not satisfied with it is merely an admission by you that you do not understand the science behind them. Too bad, for you.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Oh, I should tidy this up, too:

I think these statements satisfactorily un-debunk your debunking.

Actually, no it's not quite that easy. You see, you are the one that made a statement that you inferred is globally true:

Since a theory is not a fact, by all rights, the bedrock on which "real" science is based upon is fiction.

As such, all I need to present (which I did) is any specific instance where your global claim is demonstrably false. In fact, this is a very example of how scientific falisifiability works. Your statement above is trying to be theory, even though it does not present a testable prediction. However, all I need to do to falsify your claim is to show one instance where it is not true. By showing there is even 1 theory in science that is actually based on fact, I have summarily debunked your inferred global claim about all (implied) theories not being facts, or being based on fiction.

Since you seem to refuse to understand how falsifiability works, you appear to not even realize that I have just given you an exercise in exactly how it works.

As such, you don't even realize that it is impossible for you to "un-debunk" my debunking. To do so, you have no choice but to retract your falsified claim, and pose a new claim for me to test.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Once you learn how to use conservation laws to solve engineering kinematic problems, you will then understand exactly how a torque can be canceled out by the judicious application of a force. And once you understand this, you will then understand that the mathematics actually describe the facts, and most accurately. The evidence to this is that we can land vehicles on Mars with ridiculous accuracy. Have you achieved some feat equivalent to this with your silly interpretations as yet?

Forces represent 3 DOF of translation.
Moments represent another 3 DOFs of rotation.

Kinematics of rigid bodies is completely described as the intersection of these two sets of 3 DOFs. Hence the usefulness of 6DOF equations of motion in physics and engineering. Just because you are not satisfied with it does not mean all of the equations of engineering kinematics are not also facts. Your saying you are not satisfied with it is merely an admission by you that you do not understand the science behind them. Too bad, for you.

RMT

This looks like a bait and switch tactic. You obviously don't want to discuss the silly science error in the textbooks about torque and force. Could it be that you don't know how to address the error? Or maybe you don't know how to apply math in describing physical observations. Of course there is the conspiracy angle. But that would require more intelligence on your part. And I just don't think you're a conspirator. Too many assumptions for that angle. So the simplest most logical conclusion is that it's just an error in the textbooks.

Let's face the fact, that there is a physical observation, that plainly shows torque and force, are equivalent to each other.

What it appears to me is that you have a song and dance about how science found a way to keep torque and force separate from each other. Sorry, I'll just stick with the facts.

As such, you don't even realize that it is impossible for you to "un-debunk" my debunking. To do so, you have no choice but to retract your falsified claim, and pose a new claim for me to test.

Sorry, you have been successfully un-debunked. My claim wasn't a theory. It was a fact. Facts by definition can't be falsified. Nice try though.

But I could pose a new claim for you to test.

I have this theory that you habitually drink alcoholic beverages while posting. I suspect this theory could be true. But I don't really have a means to test the theory. But you volunteered to test out a proposed claim by me. And it would take a degree of honesty on your part to properly report test results of the theory. So I'll have to trust you to let me know if the predictive nature of my theory has been falsified or confirmed.

 

[RainmanTime]

This looks like a bait and switch tactic. You obviously don't want to discuss the silly science error in the textbooks about torque and force. Could it be that you don't know how to address the error? ... So the simplest most logical conclusion is that it's just an error in the textbooks.

And yet I will note that you never stated exactly what you think that error is. Nor did you cite a specific textbook and pages on said textbook where you see your supposed error laid out. So I will give you that chance. No more of Einstein's colorful descriptions of what you think are errors, because those are not facts. They are merely your choice of aspecific words. I want you to cite a specific textbook and page where you think you see an error. That is the only way we will get to the bottom of your issue with moments and forces.

Let's face the fact, that there is a physical observation, that plainly shows torque and force, are equivalent to each other.

Be specific. Stop dancing around the issue. Also, realize that equivalent does not mean equal. A torque is a force applied at some distance from a center of rotation. So unit-wise, you are incorrect to say that a force cancels a torque. From the units it cannot do so (torque = force x length where a force has no length). But while a force cannot cancel a torque in dimensional analysis, in the broader science of kinematics, a force can cancel out the action of a torque...if that force is applied at the proper location. So again, stop dancing around the issue and get to the specifics of what you think is in error. And once again, you better quote a textbook.

What it appears to me is that you have a song and dance about how science found a way to keep torque and force separate from each other. Sorry, I'll just stick with the facts.

And what do you think those facts are? Again, you love being evasive. How about you drop the belief that you are smarter than everyone else who understands science, and spell it out in detail. Facts are not you babbling on in an internet forum.

Sorry, you have been successfully un-debunked. My claim wasn't a theory. It was a fact.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Your statement is clearly not a fact, because I was able to offer a specific example (helocentrism vs. geocentrism) that proved your statement false. I suggest you review the rule of logic and argument, especially with respect to general vs. specific arguments.

But I could pose a new claim for you to test.

I have this theory that you habitually drink alcoholic beverages while posting. I suspect this theory could be true. But I don't really have a means to test the theory. But you volunteered to test out a proposed claim by me. And it would take a degree of honesty on your part to properly report test results of the theory. So I'll have to trust you to let me know if the predictive nature of my theory has been falsified or confirmed.

And your theory is wrong. In fact, my posts to you yesterday were sans alcohol completely. It was not until after my last two posts to you above in the evening that I went out for steak and bourbon with my friends. So actually, I was stone cold sober (and usually am) when I posted the posts above. But like everything you observe, you like to put your own, biased, spin on things. It is evident to everyone else here. Too bad it is not evident to you.

RMT

 

[Gpa]

Now you also pointed out that we all are products of our education. Or victims is the way I view it. So the way I see it is, don't assume your education has educated you beyond those that aren't educated. What good is an education based on fiction? Rainman pointed out that I'm convinced I was taught bad science. But what I find so ironic is that the science I was taught is probably the same science everyone is taught. Do you honestly feel educated, just knowing the basis for your science and math education is based on fiction?

NEW STUDY: 'CONSPIRACY THEORISTS' SANE, GOVERNMENT DUPES CRAZY | Time Travel Institute
Einstein;
You state,

So the way I see it is, don't assume your education has educated you beyond those that aren't educated.

While your statement is a bit ambiguous, I think I understand where you are coming from.

If I may offer you a humbling story.
While studying biology, I would sometimes go to the river at the state park and explore and examine the area. I would try to identify all the little creatures I found and try to determine their place, purpose, and value in the ecosystem I was examining, whether shore line, just inland from the shore, just away from the shore. Even in that close proximity, different habitats exist and everything has it's own niche. Armed with a net, scoop, collecting containers, and what I considered "valuable" education, I began collecting things that, I could not ID outright, to take home and look up in my taxonomy book. If that failed I could still take them to the college and have other students or the professor help me.
An old man, fishing upstream from me asked, "What ya got?". Trying to sound "educated" I replied, "Organisms I have yet to identify. I intend to take them to the college to examine them under a stereoscope". "Well, I didn't have time for college school but, let me see em." he replied. He referred to them collectively as "Bugs" but labeled each one with a name, some of which I was familiar with, some I hadn't heard before. He pointed out a purpose to most and pointed out one that he said, "tells you there's a catfish hole so, he wouldn't suggest fishing for bass there cuz there won't be any." I learned more about "real life biology" in half an hour than I would have had I spent a full day in the lab identifying those "bugs".
At the end of the day my education would have helped me point to a specimen and say,
That's an Ephemera vulgata (I would have had to look that up)
Common name: Mayfly
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Ephemeroptera
Family: Ephemeridae
Genus: Ephemera
Species: vulgata
An old man who spent his life on the river would say,
That's a Dun. Or That's a shadfly. Or That's a Mayfly.
Fish love em. Especially bass and trout. Half the 'flys' in my tackle box look like em.
So I agree there are many forms of "being educated".

What good is an education based on fiction? Rainman pointed out that I'm convinced I was taught bad science. But what I find so ironic is that the science I was taught is probably the same science everyone is taught. Do you honestly feel educated, just knowing the basis for your science and math education is based on fiction?

You may be confusing "fiction or bad science" for "advancement" in science.
Most of the undergraduate classes I took about 30 years ago are now obsolete or what they teach in AP science classes in high school. Advanced classes would now be so far out of my league, if I needed to return to school, in many classes I would have to start over. Not just because I forgot so much of what I was taught but that what I was taught has been improved on through new discoveries, techniques, and your favorite, outdated theories that science has learned were incorrect. They were based on the best available evidence at the time but, new information led in a new direction. That's not conspiracy... That's not fiction...That's Progress.

 

[Einstein]

And yet I will note that you never stated exactly what you think that error is. Nor did you cite a specific textbook and pages on said textbook where you see your supposed error laid out. So I will give you that chance. No more of Einstein's colorful descriptions of what you think are errors, because those are not facts. They are merely your choice of aspecific words. I want you to cite a specific textbook and page where you think you see an error. That is the only way we will get to the bottom of your issue with moments and forces.

Let me state what I see is the error:

The physical observation shows an equality is present when a force cancels out an opposing torque. Mathematically you can describe that with the equation "Force = Torque", at least, so says the observation.(God made it that way)

My issue isn't with the observation. It's with the dimensions that we use to describe that observation. Torque has an extra dimension of length associated with it. At least so says this textbook I'm presently referring to. T = F r and probably any other textbook in existence. I believe you would agree that to be true.

You want my textbook info: Elementary Modern Physics Second Edition Sixth Printing 1972, Richard T Weidner, Robert L Sells. Page 8 references the specific info mentioned.

The error I see, is the extra dimension of length associated with Torque. It shouldn't be there. If we leave it there, then this math model we are taught, does not accurately model the universe we currently reside in.

Now, onto my proposed solution. The extra length dimension has to be removed from Torque so that "Torque = Force" can become a true and accurate description of the observation.

But lets do it legally. I told you I had a very excellent calculus teacher. She taught us so many math tricks, that I feel I could probably prove mathematically how to turn peanut butter into gold. ( I really could )

So let's go back to basics. In dealing with torque about an axis, in the real world, we usually have an input torque value, and an output torque value. Let's express that mathematically:

Torque = Force times radius, or T = Fr . So, Force times radius in = Force times radius out, or Fr = Fr
Need to take the length out: F = Fr/r , the dimensions of length cancel out.

Now r/r usually will give a value other than one. So that ratio would have to remain in the equation as a scalar quantity. So Torque = Force times a scalar.

I thought it would be kind of neat to label the scalar as "r". Thus leaving the equation T = Fr in all the textbooks unscathed. But it does make me wonder if long long ago, there was a new teacher teaching his class about torque, who was unfamiliar with the scalar nature of "r", and mistakenly taught his students that "r" represented a radius instead.

PS: What do you want to bet that there will be more comments about the peanut butter statement?

 

[RainmanTime]

The physical observation shows an equality is present when a force cancels out an opposing torque. Mathematically you can describe that with the equation "Force = Torque", at least, so says the observation.

No, mathematically, you cannot. And this is another case of where your observation has lead to an incorrect (in this case, incomplete) interpretation. I am not surprised, because you have exhibited this many times. Moreover, from this post, it is clear to me that even if you once understood the physics of kinematics at one time, you have now forgotten it and are practicing it incorrectly.

Of course, as I have seen in the past, nothing I ever say changes your mind, because as Darby points out, you like to argue just to argue, and do not even care if you are correct. So, I have a different way to handle your errors this time. You will see, fairly soon, I hope, how I shall deal with this, and hopefully get you some academic help which you clearly need.

In the meantime...

You want my textbook info: Elementary Modern Physics Second Edition Sixth Printing 1972, Richard T Weidner, Robert L Sells. Page 8 references the specific info mentioned.

Once again, you have not cited SPECIFICALLY what in this book you think is in error. However, as luck would have it, the library at the university I teach at (Cal Poly, Pomona) does have this title in its collection. Probably not the 1972 printing, but it is still called the Second Edition. I will attempt to find out what it is you are referring to, if I can. Page numbers could be different in a later printing. But until then, enjoy my alternate means to help educate you. You wil know it when it happens.

RMT

 

[HavanaSamurai]

God made it that way? No - God made force and torque two completely separate things.

How the hell does 'force = torque?' First of all, 'r' isn't a 'radius,' as you describe, it's a position vector from the object's c.g. to the point where the force is applied. Torque is force applied at a distance. When you apply a force away from the c.g. of an object, that object will rotate. If the textbook to which you're referring (not 'presently referring to' - dangling participles are the hallmark of an uncouth mind, and since the English language is not a $2/hr whore, please try to abstain from raping it) says otherwise, then it is WRONG.

Torque and force have never been the same, never can be the same, never will be the same. Please find the following set of hands-on examples that will demonstrate this fact repeatedly:
Physics Workshop

If $49.99 is a bit steep for you, a purely theoretical explanation may be had for the more reasonable price of $1.99:
Physics for Dummies by Steve Holzner | Barnes & Noble

Your proposed mathematical 'solution' is what is known in the circles of the educated as trivial, akin to making 1 equal to 2 or coming up with 0 = 0 in a proof. Triviality does not in any way imply correctness: I can prove 0 = 0 all day long, but unfortunately there can be no new knowledge gleaned form it. And 'torque in = torque out?' Yeah, maybe in a frictionless system where there are no such things as friction, damping, or resistance; if you live in that world, I have some real estate for sale that may interest you.

But please, dazzle me: show me one example - just one, no math required - of force and torque being the same. Then maybe I'll listen to you. Until then, you're not Einstein - you're Doc Brown.

You had a wonderful calculus teacher that taught you to turn peanut butter into gold? Pity she didn't teach you to turn bullshit into facts.

 

[Einstein]

How the hell does 'force = torque?

Experimental observation shows so. But you would actually have to be willing to look. And then there is the physical structure itself. The torque radius is orthogonal to force.

Do an experiment. A fulcrum and lever would be the simplest way to go. Possibly a balance scale. You could then actually verify for yourself that equal weights on the pans balance each other. Do to the nature of the construction of the scale, (ie a beam on a pivot) the weights actually fall under the definition of a torque.

Then take your weight and verify its weight on a scale that doesn't use a lever in its construction. Possibly a digital scale. If it doesn't become apparent after doing these simple experiments that torque = force, then this might indicate an impairment in your cognitive functions. Possibly from lack of use.

But hang on. Here is an interesting article for you to read on the Lever.


Lever - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the article I found a specific quote which does back up my suspicion about the scalar nature of "r".

This relationship shows that the mechanical advantage can be computed from ratio of the distances from the fulcrum to where the input and output forces are applied to the lever.

The ratio of distances, is a scalar quantity. The dimensions of length cancel out.

 

[HavanaSamurai]

Yeah... no. The torque radius is NOT orthogonal to force. Torque is a cross-product of distance and force. Since you like Wikipedia (though I can't imagine why), here it is in plain, fancy font: Torque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ​

The distance and force are only orthogonal at the point of maximum torque, as indicated by the second equation (T = rFsin(theta), which is at a maximum when theta = 90 deg.).​

Your fulcrum and lever experiment setup is flawed. Equal weights will only balance one another out when they are equidistant from the fulcrum; that should be obvious to you, since it's the very first graphic on your Wikipedia 'reference.' If you put two dissimilar weights equidistant from the fulcrum, your balance tips. You also fail to acknowledge the fact that the distance r is a vector, not a scalar. It is NEVER 'just a scalar,' but only reduces to something that appears as a scalar when you're dealing with one-dimensional motion.​

As for the scale, I propose to you the following modification: YOU go do it. Get a big scale, like a triple-beam balance scale. Weigh your object. Weigh it on a digital scale. Record the results. Now, modify the beam scale by changing the length of the beam; re-weigh your object on the beam scale, and then re-weigh it on the digital scale. They will NOT be identical to one another anymore.​

Cute Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, Wiki's open-source nature leaves its credibility suspect, since anyone can modify it to settle bets. Please let me know when your h-index increases above zero, indicating that you have gained understanding of this fact. As for your quote, you misunderstand the simple definition of mechanical advantage, which is the amplification of a force through the use of a tool. It's strange that you didn't pick up on that - Wikipedia also has a great article on mechanical advantage. It was a simple definition relationship governed by the laws of the English language; your misunderstanding must indicate an impairment in your cognitive functions. Possibly from lack of use.​

Learning English as a Foreign Language For Dummies by Gavin Dudeney | Barnes & Noble​

 

[Einstein]

Yeah... no. The torque radius is NOT orthogonal to force. Torque is a cross-product of distance and force. Since you like Wikipedia (though I can't imagine why), here it is in plain, fancy font: Torque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ​

The distance and force are only orthogonal at the point of maximum torque, as indicated by the second equation (T = rFsin(theta), which is at a maximum when theta = 90 deg.).​

Your fulcrum and lever experiment setup is flawed. Equal weights will only balance one another out when they are equidistant from the fulcrum; that should be obvious to you, since it's the very first graphic on your Wikipedia 'reference.' If you put two dissimilar weights equidistant from the fulcrum, your balance tips. You also fail to acknowledge the fact that the distance r is a vector, not a scalar. It is NEVER 'just a scalar,' but only reduces to something that appears as a scalar when you're dealing with one-dimensional motion.​

As for the scale, I propose to you the following modification: YOU go do it. Get a big scale, like a triple-beam balance scale. Weigh your object. Weigh it on a digital scale. Record the results. Now, modify the beam scale by changing the length of the beam; re-weigh your object on the beam scale, and then re-weigh it on the digital scale. They will NOT be identical to one another anymore.​

Cute Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, Wiki's open-source nature leaves its credibility suspect, since anyone can modify it to settle bets. Please let me know when your h-index increases above zero, indicating that you have gained understanding of this fact. As for your quote, you misunderstand the simple definition of mechanical advantage, which is the amplification of a force through the use of a tool. It's strange that you didn't pick up on that - Wikipedia also has a great article on mechanical advantage. It was a simple definition relationship governed by the laws of the English language; your misunderstanding must indicate an impairment in your cognitive functions. Possibly from lack of use.​

Learning English as a Foreign Language For Dummies by Gavin Dudeney | Barnes & Noble​

It's apparent you don't comprehend very well. I did make an attempt to show you. I'll have to bow out of this discussion with you. I don't really care for the derogatory tone your post is taking. Perhaps you can try your attack style on Rainman. It's very similar to his. You two would make a perfect match for each other.

 

[HavanaSamurai]

LOL what style is that - arguing from the standpoint of truth? Of using your own 'math' against you? Are you running out of peanut butter to convert to gold through your calculus?

I think you should quit whatever job you may or may not possess - or perhaps slap on your cleanest Klingon outfit and wash off your moobs before crawling out of your parents' storm cellar - and get a job at Planned Parenthood as the spokesmodel for birth control. You could turn women into lesbians, one glance at a time.

Doc Brown, I'm going to have Rainman tip me off every single time you open your mouth to spew your garbage. I really wish we could meet in person, so I could fling a pail of my post-Mexican-buffet, protein-laden shit at you so that this argument could finally descend to a level you would understand

 

[RainmanTime]

I don't really care for the derogatory tone your post is taking. Perhaps you can try your attack style on Rainman. It's very similar to his. You two would make a perfect match for each other.

In point of fact, you have been arguing (and losing) with one of my top student graduates. Willie is finishing up his most recent internship at NASA and is on to grad school fairly soon. Willie is one of those students that I have told you about who I point to this site every so often so they can witness just how weak some "scientific" arguments can be. Oh yes, Willie has seen some of your "work" in the past Einstein.

The reason I invited Willie to respond is because you refuse to accept the cogent arguments about engineering that I put forth. I like how Willie used your own Wikipedia strategy against you. But the bottom line is exactly as I have said many times over, Einstein. Your observations are incomplete, in most cases, and have lead you to incorrect conclusions (you always love to cal them facts, but observations that lead to incomplete or incorrect conclusions are certainly not facts).

You refuse to accept that you are wrong here about forces and torques just like you refused to accept you were wrong about gyroscopic precession. Perhaps the fact that you love to wallow in your ignorance, and can never be corrected, is part of the reason you never quite make those "grand discoveries" that will lead you to be the "Einstein" of time travel. Here is a clue for you: If you insist that your observations, incorrectly interpreted, are "facts" that deny veridical science, I can guarantee you are never going to make that "grand discovery".

And since you love Wikipedia so much, I will leave you with yet another reference thereto which shows (again) how wrong you are. You see, with respect to Newton's Second Law, Torque is analogous to Force (but not equal to Force) in that a torque is the response to an angular acceleration of some body with a specific moment of inertia .

Rotation around a fixed axis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just too bad, Einstein, that your ego cannot allow you to ever be wrong. You could have learned a lot more in life if it had. And oh, BTW, the science you were taught is NOT wrong..you have just chosen to mangle it with your flawed interpretations.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Here is another reference within which I am sure your giant intellect can find something wrong, Einstein:

http://www2.cose.isu.edu/~hackmart/torque.pdf

Because clearly all you need are your (flawed) observations. Sadly, your calculus teacher would be quite disappointed with you.
RMT

 

[Einstein]

Rainman

I understand HavanaSamurai is one of your sock puppets. That much is blatantly obvious. It became apparent when his spatial comprehension ability appeared to be completely gone. Just like yours. Lets face it. A man's writing style is just like a signature.

Don't involve me in your personal attacks against me. In fact you should excuse yourself from this forum altogether. It's very unbecoming of a grown man such as yourself to behave the way you do.

 

[Gpa]

Einstein;
Don't be bitter. You know you had that coming. You remain obstinate even in the face of undeniable truth. I am no expert on this discussion but I have torqued enough bolts in my time to know the distance of the applied force from the center matters very much in the torque applied. (I think I said that right) What I do know is, you are not going to get 110 foot-pounds of torque on a main bearing bolt with a 1/4 inch drive 12 inch long torque wrench. A 1/2 inch drive 24 inch'er with a 2 foot cheater bar on the end of that will do nicely. I think that's why the 'r' is in the equation.
Rainman Time;
You certainly proved Einstein will argue, regardless of the strength of his argument, with anyone and everyone. I don't know why I keep letting myself be drawn into it. His arguments have that effect on me I guess.

 

[Einstein]

Gpa

You are entitled to your opinion. But I don't believe you are the type of man that would belittle or slander someone just because you don't understand what they are talking about. I did note that no one made an attempt to understand either. And you can see from my posts, that I did make an attempt in explaining my position with some very convincing descriptions. But if no one can follow along, then why even attempt to participate in a debate over their head?

That little "r" has always been a matter of concern for me. I tried to come up with an entertaining scenario to explain how the meaning of "r" could have become misinterpreted over time. Of course there is the conspiracy angle too. It's like a smoking gun. I've made reference before to the observation that all concepts of Force have been removed from the motion equations. So what is being hidden? Well if someone were to go through all the motion equations and reinsert Force into the equations. Then maybe it would become apparent. So that's what I'm doing in my spare time. Just for entertainment of course.

There also is the fact that torque has the same dimensions as work. Yet no work is being done when torque is measured. Just part of the silly science we are taught in school.

 

[RainmanTime]

I understand HavanaSamurai is one of your sock puppets. That much is blatantly obvious.

There is no sock puppet here. I don't do such things. There have been a great many of my students who have lurked here throughout the years. Several of them know you, but you don't know them. Willie was the very first one I ever approached and asked him to sign up and school you. If you want more, I can bring in more students (some graduated for several years now) and they can also chime in on all of your various misinterpretations of physics.

But that might damage that ego of yours, although as strong as it appears to be, I am not sure how.
RMT