Weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. The direction for that push force is down when the weight is greater than that of the displaced media, and up when it is lesser.
It's really the normal/standard take, and has been for around 2000 years.
The point is that nothing has changed (except the direction)
That's exactly the point. We're talking about two opposite forces acting in different directions, push vs pull.
The pushing rope/pencil example doesn't apply to when the fingertip is stuck to the side of the glass closest to you, because that's precisely the difference between push and pull.
In the glued finger example, your finger is the handle
The finger is not the handle. It's a part of the body that is exerting the pulling force.
Have you genuinely never heard of the concept of pulling?
We're talking about two opposite forces acting in different directions, push vs pull.
No, we are talking about identical forces! Only the direction relative to you has changed. Our viewing perspective (or that of any other observer) does not change the physics, despite colloquial suggestion to the contrary with distinctions like push and pull.
because that's precisely the difference between push and pull.
Right! Only a distinction of arbitrary relative perspective - not a physical reality in any way. Same forces, just a different direction. Call it anything you wish. A rose by any other name...
The finger is not the handle
That analogy/simile is only to help you conceptualize. The fact that you are avoiding the example with the pencil shows that you understand. So if you cut your finger off, would it suddenly NOT be the handle that the pencil is in the example you're avoiding?
Have you genuinely never heard of the concept of pulling?
Lol. In my view, and that of classical/deterministic physics - there is no pulling. There is only pushing towards and pushing away - pull is an illusion / arbitrary colloquial distinction with no reality in physics. Billiard balls can't pull. There is no mechanism for pulling in traditional physics (or indeed, even in modern physics).
As if when you read it in some book written by a hallowed name you would suddenly understand and/or agree!
It's not that I need a hallowed name, but I need more than just you telling me this, especially since what you're telling me doesn't make sense when applied in real life scenarios.
Remove the bottle from the example. Just consider the pencil.
I'm referring to the scenario when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pencil in this example.
In the example when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pushing taking place.
It's not that I need a hallowed name, but I need more than just you telling me this,
Clearly! But i don't think you should. I'm sharing my perspective - so the best source to learn about it is me "telling you this".
especially since what you're telling me doesn't make sense when applied in real life scenarios.
Of course it does! If it didn't make sense, so many physicists probably wouldn't have had this view for quite so long. When something doesn't make sense, it's best to start by asking questions! Much of your difficulty understanding is coming from your bias. Perhaps discussing a "real life scenario" might help?
I'm referring to the scenario when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pencil in this example.
Part of your difficulty understanding is coming from overcomplication, which is only distracting you. Just consider the pencil (or the finger, if you insist) - nothing else. And try to answer the question i asked about it. That should help you!
In the example when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pushing taking place.
Of course there is, you just call it pull ;) Start with the pencil/finger.
Considering I've gone well before the 50's-60's, I am going back far enough.
In general, the further you go back the more prevalent and prominent the view will be - but as i said, it was a common view of particle physicists from the era you have "gone well before".
Other things CAN pull, such as if I superglue my finger to a cup and pull it towards me.
As i've explained, the sensation (and colloquial distinction) of pull is really push. Analogously, the sensation of "sucking" with a vacuum or straw is likewise an illusion - the external air pressure is in fact doing the pushing which we experience as pulling.
Nothing can move without being pushed in classical deterministic physics.
The topic at hand requires both parties to have a proper understanding of basic physics, including the fact that there are more forces that exist than just pushing. You don't have that, so how can we proceed on the topic at hand?
Can an object be pulled by another object if the leading object itself is not pushed?
Yes. Magnetic force is a great example of this.
(think mechanically for now)
If you want to talk strictly mechanics, as in mechanisms, then a scenario such as a winch pulling in a load would be the load being pulled via a rotational method, no pushing of the leading object.
A very simple version through mechanics (of movement) though can just be you picking up your cup of coffee and bringing it to your lips. You're pulling it inward.
Is there a reason why you skipped my question about understanding the conversation up to now and no longer having any questions about weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter? I'd like to finish our previous discussion (if possible), before moving on to new ones.
The topic at hand requires both parties to have a proper understanding of basic physics
Well i know i do! i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Don't assume that because my views differ from yours that i don't know/understand what yours are (and why)! We were all taught largely the same things through "education", after all.
We are talking about basic physics and are largely speaking (abstractly) about archemides' principle.
Yes. Magnetic force is a great example of this.
I asked you nicely to start by thinking mechanically. But you couldn't help yourself, could you?
then a scenario such as a winch pulling in a load would be the load being pulled via a rotational method, no pushing of the leading object.
So no push is used to drive the winch? And push in a circle is no longer push?
You're pulling it inward
It appears that way, and - like many things in physics - as long as you are consistent there is nothing that prevents you from describing things this way - mathematically or otherwise. In that way, it is a bit like a convention - although in this case the convention has support beyond the purely arbitrary.
Some like to describe the earth as constantly accelerating upwards rather than objects accelerating downwards - for instance. Or the earth being the center of the universe. As long as you are consistent, your equations all still work.
In my view (and that of classical physics) there is only push, and pull is an illusion. A good example is in sucking with a straw. Intuitively we experience "pulling" the liquid to our mouths, but in reality we are watching the pressure of the air push the liquid up the straw. This can be confirmed by utilizing a low pressure (aka vacuum) chamber. All is push.
As i said, this is all tangential (at best) to our original discussion.
Our previous discussion cannot continue because you lack basic understanding of forces that exist in the universe.
I asked you nicely to start by thinking mechanically.
Yes, and I gave you mechanical answers as well. I think it's not really serving to limit ourselves, since we're talking about the nature of force in general.
So no push is used to drive the winch?
In some cases, yes that is correct!
All is push.
So how would you consider me pulling a cup towards me as push?
If you can show me any documentation on classical physics that describes pushing being the only force that exists, I'll concede. I've already sent a number of links that say otherwise:
As i am struggling to convey to you - everything is a billiard ball (including forces). Billiard balls can't pull, they can only push.
Understandable if you are struggling!
So, it would be very helpful if you were to share a piece of literature that will share this in detail. Where can I read more about this? I would love to gain a greater understanding of this topic but the works I've been finding share alternate ideas.
I don't seek your concession, only understanding.
Great! Could you please share a specific resource that can help me understand better?
This is not a sensical response. Perhaps you misread my previous comment?
I would love to gain a greater understanding of this topic but the works I've been finding share alternate ideas.
Look earlier! Physics has been around for a long time. I am conveying the view of traditional/classical deterministic physics, often called the "billiard ball" view of the universe.
But you should not require any supporting documentation to understand what i am saying to you. When you don't understand, ask questions!
Could you please share a specific resource that can help me understand better?
I could, but i don't think it will help with this conversation (it will just be further tangent). It seems your problem is not primarily one of lacking understanding on this point, but wanting to disagree with/deny that understanding.
As i said before, just go ahead and disagree! If we agreed on everything, the conversation would be hopelessly boring, and a complete waste of time. Accept that in my view, there is only push - and move on with (or abandon, if you wish) the conversation.
Weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. The direction for that push force is down when the weight is greater than that of the displaced media, and up when it is lesser.
It's really the normal/standard take, and has been for around 2000 years.
Well, a pushing force comes from behind, does it not?
Not necessarily. Why do you think pushing always comes from behind?
Right but what is causing that weight to push townward?
The fact that the weight is greater than the weight it displaces. Otherwise it doesn't!
That's exactly the point. We're talking about two opposite forces acting in different directions, push vs pull.
The pushing rope/pencil example doesn't apply to when the fingertip is stuck to the side of the glass closest to you, because that's precisely the difference between push and pull.
The finger is not the handle. It's a part of the body that is exerting the pulling force.
Have you genuinely never heard of the concept of pulling?
Agreed.
No, we are talking about identical forces! Only the direction relative to you has changed. Our viewing perspective (or that of any other observer) does not change the physics, despite colloquial suggestion to the contrary with distinctions like push and pull.
Right! Only a distinction of arbitrary relative perspective - not a physical reality in any way. Same forces, just a different direction. Call it anything you wish. A rose by any other name...
That analogy/simile is only to help you conceptualize. The fact that you are avoiding the example with the pencil shows that you understand. So if you cut your finger off, would it suddenly NOT be the handle that the pencil is in the example you're avoiding?
Lol. In my view, and that of classical/deterministic physics - there is no pulling. There is only pushing towards and pushing away - pull is an illusion / arbitrary colloquial distinction with no reality in physics. Billiard balls can't pull. There is no mechanism for pulling in traditional physics (or indeed, even in modern physics).
It's not that I need a hallowed name, but I need more than just you telling me this, especially since what you're telling me doesn't make sense when applied in real life scenarios.
I'm referring to the scenario when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pencil in this example.
In the example when you superglue your finger to the bottle, there is no pushing taking place.
Clearly! But i don't think you should. I'm sharing my perspective - so the best source to learn about it is me "telling you this".
Of course it does! If it didn't make sense, so many physicists probably wouldn't have had this view for quite so long. When something doesn't make sense, it's best to start by asking questions! Much of your difficulty understanding is coming from your bias. Perhaps discussing a "real life scenario" might help?
Part of your difficulty understanding is coming from overcomplication, which is only distracting you. Just consider the pencil (or the finger, if you insist) - nothing else. And try to answer the question i asked about it. That should help you!
Of course there is, you just call it pull ;) Start with the pencil/finger.
Considering I've gone well before the 50's-60's, I am going back far enough.
I haven't found one that holds the view you've shared with me.
I know billiard balls can't pull. Other things CAN pull, such as if I superglue my finger to a cup and pull it towards me.
In general, the further you go back the more prevalent and prominent the view will be - but as i said, it was a common view of particle physicists from the era you have "gone well before".
As i've explained, the sensation (and colloquial distinction) of pull is really push. Analogously, the sensation of "sucking" with a vacuum or straw is likewise an illusion - the external air pressure is in fact doing the pushing which we experience as pulling.
Nothing can move without being pushed in classical deterministic physics.
The topic at hand requires both parties to have a proper understanding of basic physics, including the fact that there are more forces that exist than just pushing. You don't have that, so how can we proceed on the topic at hand?
Yes. Magnetic force is a great example of this.
If you want to talk strictly mechanics, as in mechanisms, then a scenario such as a winch pulling in a load would be the load being pulled via a rotational method, no pushing of the leading object.
A very simple version through mechanics (of movement) though can just be you picking up your cup of coffee and bringing it to your lips. You're pulling it inward.
Is there a reason why you skipped my question about understanding the conversation up to now and no longer having any questions about weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter? I'd like to finish our previous discussion (if possible), before moving on to new ones.
Well i know i do! i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Don't assume that because my views differ from yours that i don't know/understand what yours are (and why)! We were all taught largely the same things through "education", after all.
We are talking about basic physics and are largely speaking (abstractly) about archemides' principle.
I asked you nicely to start by thinking mechanically. But you couldn't help yourself, could you?
So no push is used to drive the winch? And push in a circle is no longer push?
It appears that way, and - like many things in physics - as long as you are consistent there is nothing that prevents you from describing things this way - mathematically or otherwise. In that way, it is a bit like a convention - although in this case the convention has support beyond the purely arbitrary.
Some like to describe the earth as constantly accelerating upwards rather than objects accelerating downwards - for instance. Or the earth being the center of the universe. As long as you are consistent, your equations all still work.
In my view (and that of classical physics) there is only push, and pull is an illusion. A good example is in sucking with a straw. Intuitively we experience "pulling" the liquid to our mouths, but in reality we are watching the pressure of the air push the liquid up the straw. This can be confirmed by utilizing a low pressure (aka vacuum) chamber. All is push.
As i said, this is all tangential (at best) to our original discussion.
Our previous discussion cannot continue because you lack basic understanding of forces that exist in the universe.
Yes, and I gave you mechanical answers as well. I think it's not really serving to limit ourselves, since we're talking about the nature of force in general.
In some cases, yes that is correct!
So how would you consider me pulling a cup towards me as push?
If you can show me any documentation on classical physics that describes pushing being the only force that exists, I'll concede. I've already sent a number of links that say otherwise:
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/Types-of-Forces
https://www.britannica.com/science/force-physics
https://byjus.com/physics/force/#types-of-force
Understandable if you are struggling!
So, it would be very helpful if you were to share a piece of literature that will share this in detail. Where can I read more about this? I would love to gain a greater understanding of this topic but the works I've been finding share alternate ideas.
Great! Could you please share a specific resource that can help me understand better?
This is not a sensical response. Perhaps you misread my previous comment?
Look earlier! Physics has been around for a long time. I am conveying the view of traditional/classical deterministic physics, often called the "billiard ball" view of the universe.
But you should not require any supporting documentation to understand what i am saying to you. When you don't understand, ask questions!
I could, but i don't think it will help with this conversation (it will just be further tangent). It seems your problem is not primarily one of lacking understanding on this point, but wanting to disagree with/deny that understanding.
As i said before, just go ahead and disagree! If we agreed on everything, the conversation would be hopelessly boring, and a complete waste of time. Accept that in my view, there is only push - and move on with (or abandon, if you wish) the conversation.