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.
Keep at it, and you will find plenty! Or don't. Up to you!
It is what defines the difference.
We're kind of just "talking" in circles here. You call push towards you pull - but that is an arbitrary distinction based on your vantage/perspective and not a real distinction on the force itself (yes, it is its direction - which is a component of that force; but the force itself, push, is the same regardless of the direction it is applied in).
This is demonstrably false.
Provide an example. To a given object, push applied towards yourself (which you call "pull") is (or at least can be, and for our hypothetical - explicitly is) identical to push applied away from yourself (yes, of course - save for the direction - which even you must agree cannot and does not fundamentally change the nature of the force itself).
You can find physicists from that era who share this view, but it may be easier if you go back further.
Again, I have gone back further. I have not found one that says that push is the only force. I assure you I have given a fair shake and looked at many different classical and modern physicists and have not found any that support this.
There is no better source for my perspective than me
We're not just talking about your perspective though. You claim that other scientists share your perspective, I'm unable to find one.
The answer is, you are pushing your hand, which in turn pushes on the superglue, which pushes on the eraser.
But I'm not pushing. I'm pulling. I'm bringing it towards me.
I have not found one that says that push is the only force
Perhaps not in such a gross way. It is more proper to say that forces can only push, and that pull has no mechanism in classical deterministic physics.
I have not found one that says that push is the only force
No one said it was, please read the above for clarification.
In any case, as hearing it from a historical (or modern) physicist will do no good in terms of helping you understand anyway, why don't you discuss my perspective with me instead? I assure you that if you keep earnestly researching, you will find this classical view espoused by many physicists - but since you want to quit looking; i say go ahead. It's just another distraction for you :(
We're not just talking about your perspective though
Of course we are, don't be silly. We are only talking about my perspective, and yours. We're the only ones here...
Yes, it is true that many others (physicists included) share my view. We are still only discussing our perspectives.
I'm bringing it towards me.
Right! A completely arbitrary distinction! In reality there is no difference, save for direction, when the object is pushed in one direction, or pushed in another. The pencil/bottle/severed finger does not know or care what direction that is in relative to us. In physics it experiences the same forces when you move it away from yourself (pushing) or when you move it towards yourself (pulling).
You (and many others) call it pull only out of colloquial habit. If you earnestly go back, read, and answer the questions i have provided you, you will begin to understand. Otherwise you simply don't want to understand, in which case no one can help you :(
Hello! just circling back here. Would love to show you a demonstrative example of why push and pull are fundamentally different, such as when you look at the effects that they have on an object.
When an object is pushed, it will experience a sensation of compression, where the molecules of the object are pushed closer together.
When an object is pulled, it will experience a sensation of tension, where the molecules would be pulled further apart.
Well your answer wasn’t totally clear relative to what I was asking due to my poor wording of the original ask, so I am just making sure we are on the same page.
Are you aware that tension and compression have different relative effects on an object, yes or no?
It gets to be more and more apparent that you are incorrect in this.
And to me it gets more and more apparent that you haven't done thorough research, but who cares? Why let it distract and derail a conversation which has almost nothing to do with that?
That is the real question, which i suspect you already know the answer to :(
Yes, it is a major distinction.
Of course it isn't. Don't be silly. The force has not changed AT ALL. Only the direction is altered. Altering the direction (of two otherwise identical forces) doesn't fundamentally change a force - that would be an insane notion with no support in reality.
Before I begin, are you familiar with compression and tension forces, and how they affect objects?
Yes, but we are only talking about one simple object here. Pushing an object one direction (towards yourself) and pushing an object another direction (away from yourself). You will only get confused again if you try and make it more complicated (with springs/elasticity or other distraction). There is time enough for that once we are done keeping it simple!
Perhaps not in such a gross way. It is more proper to say that forces can only push, and that pull has no mechanism in classical deterministic physics.
I have not found one person, aside from you, that has this stance.
why don't you discuss my perspective with me instead?
Because you said others share your perspective, and I would like to read about it, because you aren't as forthcoming with information.
but since you want to quit looking
I don't want to quit looking. I have done some digging each time we comment, and I have yet to find anyone.
In reality there is no difference, save for direction, when the object is pushed in one direction, or pushed in another
The primary difference is the direction from which the force is applied, that distinguishes push and pull.
I have not found one person, aside from you, that has this stance.
So you keep repeating. There are plenty for you to find, but since you want to give up - i say just do it! Talk to me about my perspective instead.
because you aren't as forthcoming with information.
You must be joking. I answer all your questions, many of them multiple times because you keep repeating them.
I don't want to quit looking
Then don't! The further back you go, the more common the view is. Virtually all those of classical/deterministic physics share it. But it seems it will take you more in depth research than you are willing to commit yourself to. So be it; it hardly matters anyway, especially for our current discussion.
The primary difference is the direction from which the force is applied, that distinguishes push and pull.
Exactly! The direction is arbitrary and has essentially no impact on the force itself. The object feels/experiences/is subjected to the same force (push) no matter which direction that force comes from. The distinction of "push" and "pull" is an arbitrary semantic one, and has no physical significance. The force is always push(ing) regardless of the direction relative to us.
Yes, but we are only talking about one simple object here
Sorry, my wording of the question may have confused you. I’ll ask another way
Before I begin with my example of how direction bears a significant difference in terms of force, are you aware of tension and compression, and the respective effects they have on an object?
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.
I've yet to see a scientist that supports what you're telling me
Then you are not looking hard enough. But it hardly matters. As if when you read it in some book written by a hallowed name you would suddenly understand and/or agree!
Except, for instance, when you superglue your finger to a cup, and pull it towards you. There is no push in this scenario.
I can (repeatedly) lead you to water, but i cannot (and would not) force you to drink it. You can't learn/understand something you don't wan't to :(
I did have a thought that might help you though - assuming you in any way earnestly interested in understanding this perspective. Remove the bottle from the example. Just consider the pencil.
Hold the pencil in your hand and push the pencil forward. Now "pull" it back towards you. Other than the difference in direction (and assuming you were a perfect machine which applied the exact same force to achieve the exact same distance and path moved, forward then reversed), what is the difference to the pencil? YOU see push and pull, but the pencil only sees push.
Then you haven't looked hard enough, and/or far enough back.
We've established I have looked far enough back though, before the 50's/60's was your suggested timeline and I've gone through there, so that's not the issue.
As if you reading about any historical physicist espousing this view (of which there are a great many) would do any good at all.
It would at least be another source where I could read more of the actual principle though, since you aren't providing much in terms of concrete information.
Just a pencil, just a finger. One object - don't complicate it with others, it's just confusing you.
Okay great, we'll keep it simple. Let's say I superglue my finger to the eraser of a pencil, and bring it towards me. What object is being pushed in this scenario?
We've established I have looked far enough back though, before the 50's/60's was your suggested timeline and I've gone through there, so that's not the issue.
Lol. You can find physicists from that era who share this view, but it may be easier if you go back further.
What "we" have established is that you haven't looked hard enough (temporally in breadth, depth, or both)
It would at least be another source where I could read more of the actual principle though, since you aren't providing much in terms of concrete information.
There is no better source for my perspective than me, obviously. We've been over this.
Okay great, we'll keep it simple.
Consider ONE object to move and no "superglue" or other complications for the time being - they are just distracting and confusing you. Then answer the question i asked 3 comments ago now. Start there.
The answer is, you are pushing your hand, which in turn pushes on the superglue, which pushes on the eraser.
But you're also claiming that other scientists and physicists agree with what you're saying, so that's what I'm looking to verify. None that I have found, both modern and classical, seem to agree with what you're sharing.
Just consider the pencil (or the finger, if you insist) - nothing else. And try to answer the question i asked about it.
Again, there is no pencil in this scenario, only the finger superglued to the bottle on the side closest to me. There is no push in this scenario.
Part of your difficulty understanding is coming from overcomplication
I'm attempting to keep it as simple as possible by having an example with the finger and the bottle only.
Can you answer the question of how my finger is pushing the bottle towards me, without adding any other element (such as a pencil) to the scenario?
But you're also claiming that other scientists and physicists agree with what you're saying
That's true, the vast majority of them throughout history do (all those who ascribe to classical deterministic physics).
None that I have found, both modern and classical, seem to agree with what you're sharing.
Then you haven't looked hard enough, and/or far enough back.
As i said, it hardly matters. As if you reading about any historical physicist espousing this view (of which there are a great many) would do any good at all.
Again, there is no pencil in this scenario, only the finger superglued to the bottle on the side closest to me. There is no push in this scenario.
No, that is all too complicated for you. Start simpler. Just a pencil, just a finger. One object - don't complicate it with others, it's just confusing you.
Can you answer the question of how my finger is pushing the bottle towards me, without adding any other element (such as a pencil) to the scenario?
Yes, and i have - but you didn't understand it. Perhaps you could go back and re-read the answers i have given as well as earnestly try to answer the questions i've asked (which you sadly ignored) in order to elucidate (such as the one two comments ago, which i reminded you to answer in the previous comment).
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.
Not with arbitrary convention, no. That's arbitrary - of course! It has no bearing on manifest reality.
You're suggesting that objects are being pushed down due to their weight, which means that they'd be being pushed from above.
That's partially correct; they are being pushed down from above - by the weight of the matter above them (though it isn't quite that simple because they are also surrounded by matter with weight as well) - but the force of their measured weight (what i call effective weight - weight with the buoyant force i.e. as measured on a scale) principally comes from the weight of the object itself, as well as the interplay of that objects weight and the weight of the media it displaces.
Objects are built of pieces. Although their effective weight is largely influenced by their volumetric density (the volume of media those pieces collectively displace), their intrinsic weight comes from the matter they are comprised of. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Again, objects are comprised of pieces. Each one of those pieces has weight. If it is more consistent with your arbitrary convention of "force must always push from behind" and/or helps you to understand, you may think of each piece pushing on each other in the object "pushing from behind" and cumulatively being the force that "pushes the scale from behind", to use your wacky parlance.
The question then is, what is it that's pushing down on an object from above?
Matter [its weight]! (for us on the surface of earth, typically air)
But that is only a small percentage of what pushes on the scale. Primarily it is the object's weight which pushes on the scale.
To understand what i am saying? It's best to learn about my perspective "from the horses mouth" don't you think?
If what you're saying applies to the properties of physical matter, yes. What it is does not change depending on our perspectives.
Not without pushing the cup towards you, no!
Yes, I absolutely can. I have a plastic water bottle on my desk right now. From above, I can grip the bottle at positions 4 and 6 o'clock, and bring the bottle towards me.
If what you're saying applies to the properties of physical matter, yes.
Of course, but more than that it is my perspective. As such you can learn about it best by discussing it with me, even if it applied to nothing in physical reality.
What it is does not change depending on our perspectives.
Agreed. Which is largely why calling the force which causes the cup to move "push" or "pull" shouldn't really bother you, right? A rose by any other name...
I have a plastic water bottle on my desk right now. From above, I can grip the bottle at positions 4 and 6 o'clock, and bring the bottle towards me.
True, or you could super glue the face of the bottle closest to you to your finger and then move the bottle towards you to as you moved your finger closer to you. In that case you are "pushing a rope" if you get my meaning. The billiard balls are still pushing towards you, and the force is transferred to them by the "rope".
There is no handle.
In your second example the cap is the handle, and in my example above the glued finger is the handle. But you need not think of things this way, and it doesn't seem like it is helping you to do so. It is intended as a conceptual aid; things don't need handles in order to push, obviously.
ie, the direction from which the force is generated and how it acts, hence what makes push and pull opposites.
The fact that you are avoiding the example with the pencil shows that you understand
The example with the pencil is a different scenario with different forces applied in different directions.
So if you cut your finger off, would it suddenly NOT be the handle that the pencil is in the example you're avoiding?
I'm not understanding your question. In the pencil example, the pencil is gripped with the full hand (pinky closest, thumb further). Why would cutting a finger off affect anything?
The pencil is the handle of the cup either way.
n my view, and that of classical/deterministic physics - there is no pulling
Every information on classical/traditional physics I'm finding describes distinct, different forces. Where/who is discussing push as the only force in the universe?
ie, the direction from which the force is generated and how it acts
Not in the example, no. Just the direction from your relative perspective.
The direction of the force, from the perspective of the water bottle, is identical.
The example with the pencil is a different scenario with different forces applied in different directions.
Nope! Same forces, same direction.
The only thing different when the bottle is facing away from you and when it is facing you is just that. Everything else is the same.
Why would cutting a finger off affect anything?
Because then the finger would be (effectively) the handle that the pencil is. When the finger is attached to your hand (and the fingertip superglued to the bottle, remember), it is functionally equivalent (physically/mechanically) to you gripping the end stub of that severed finger (or end of the pencil) and applying force as we've already described. This conceptualization was to disabuse you of the notion that there is some fundamental difference between the pencil and the finger superglued examples. There isn't, and severing the finger (hopefully ONLY in imagination!) makes that clear.
Where/who is discussing push as the only force in the universe?
You are likely not going back far enough. It is the view of most all classical/deterministic physicists. Most particle physicists into the 50's-60's (and likely some beyond that) shared/inherited that view as well. You may want to do some research on things like magnetic monopoles, and other force carrying particles believed to exist. None of them can pull either! Because billiard balls can't pull! I do hope you are at least beginning to understand me ;(
But you should not require any supporting documentation to understand what i am saying to you.
Well, I do require supporting documentation, because what you're saying doesn't make sense in practice.
For example, in the cup example, I can pull a cup towards me without wrapping my hand around the cup (the element of the scenario you described as contributing to "push"). I don't see where the billiard ball view can support how that works.
i don't think it will help with this conversation
It would certainly help your struggle in conveying how this process works!
To understand what i am saying? It's best to learn about my perspective "from the horses mouth" don't you think?
because what you're saying doesn't make sense in practice.
You are free to ask any questions about my perspective (and that of classical deterministic physics) if you wish! What doesn't make sense? In particle (aka "billiard ball") physics, even forces are particles. Particles cannot pull, for the same reasons that billiard balls cannot pull.
I can pull a cup towards me without wrapping my hand around the cup.
Not without pushing the cup towards you, no! You are, of course, free to call that pushing "pulling" due to frame of reference / colloquial familiarity - but it is still just pushing. Perhaps if we walk through your thought process / example, my perspective may make more sense to you.
I don't see where the billiard ball view can support how that works.
Your moving "billiard balls" (in your hand) collide with the cup (or the behind of its handle), pushing it towards you.
It would certainly help your struggle in conveying how this process works!
Perhaps. I think it would just be more distraction. To learn about my perspective and (hopefully) clear up any of your difficulties with it, the best way would be to ask me about it directly!
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).
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:
If I’m not being pushed from behind, then there is no pushing force.
That's nuts. You can't be pushed from above, or in front, or below - or any other direction than behind?
How is weight a pushing force?
How do you think a scale works? What pushes on the spring/detector/scale platform?
Is something pushing me down from above?
Yes, but that isn't the major source of the weight intrinsic to you. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. You are made of matter. There is also matter above you pushing down, as well as matter surrounding you on all sides - also pushing onto you.
Not in classical (deterministic, aka "billiard ball") physics, no. How would a billiard ball pull?
You're using a specific example of a billiard ball scenario. However, physics is more than just one example. There are other forces besides pushing, and you need to have an understanding of that for our conversation to continue on a good path forward. Without a foundational understanding of force, and different properties it can have, we cannot build on it.
Please answer this question:
Is an object being pulled by another experiencing a pushing force?
You're using a specific example of a billiard ball scenario
The billiard ball metaphor/analogy is not a scenario. It is closer to the conception/model of classical deterministic physics. Everything is a billiard ball, including forces.
Like i said, please try to focus on the topic at hand. There is no benefit in discussing this tangent for now - it's just distraction. It is well worth circling back to though.
Is an object being pulled by another experiencing a pushing force?
I'm happy to circle back to this topic once we are finished discussing the first one. Are you saying you have nothing more to say / question regarding weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter and now understand what i'm saying?
Assuming that is the case, then the answer to your question is perhaps best answered socratically/dialectically :
Can an object be pulled by another object if the leading object itself is not pushed? (think mechanically for now)
Hi! Just reposting the comment with some emphasis on where I'm hoping you can respond, if you weren't sure on where this goes:
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:
Added: It's important to the main discussion at hand, that in order for us to continue we must understand that more forces exist in the world that are not defined by pushing. Is there a specific aspect of this concept that you disagree with?
Our previous discussion cannot continue because you lack basic understanding of forces that exist in the universe.
You misunderstand (because you assume). I have that basic understanding that you do (as most all who are educated are required to), and now disagree with it after further study.
I think it's not really serving to limit ourselves
In a conversation, to be productive, it is vital. There are too many tangents. I don't disagree that the conversation is free to go in any direction, i simply feel it is important to finish what is already in our mouths before taking another bite.
In some cases, yes that is correct!
Not in classical physics - because there is no mechanism for such a thing. As i am struggling to convey to you - everything is a billiard ball (including forces). Billiard balls can't pull, they can only push.
So how would you consider me pulling a cup towards me as push?
Correct, you apply a force from behind the cup towards you. You push the cup towards you. You may want to re-read my previous answer to this question given in previous comments. It may seem like an arbitrary convention, but without a mechanism for pull (traditional deterministic physics, aka "billiard ball", has no such mechanism) all is push.
If you can show me any documentation on classical physics that describes pushing being the only force that exists, I'll concede
I don't seek your concession, only understanding. There are many physicists who documented this in the past, but i am simply sharing my views so that you may understand them - not to force (or manipulate/convince) you to agree with them!
that in order for us to continue we must understand that more forces exist in the world that are not defined by pushing.
I understand your views. As long as you understand mine as well, we shouldn't have too much trouble discussing further without having identical views (in fact, how boring would that be?!?!).
I should correct you: this is not what my stance is. Please read carefully. There are plenty of different forces that do not push.
Pushing force, however, must always come from behind. That is the very definition of pushing. If we want to have a clear discussion, we should understand that words have meaning, and use them carefully.
I did not mean to mischaracterize your position, apologies for leaving out the qualifier "pushing" (i said "force" instead of "pushing force"). A freudian slip, as it is my view (and that of classical physics) that there is no other type of force.
we should understand that words have meaning, and use them carefully.
Agreed, though earnest mistakes are made (both in speaking and in receiving/interpreting what was said).
Speaking of which, did you understand my previous comment and/or have any response to it?
You push the handle towards you by moving your hand
You're not pushing. You're pulling. How does a billiard ball scenario fit into this description?
Now turn the bottle so the pencil is facing away from you
Then is an entirely different scenario with different directional forces. We're talking about the finger being stuck to the part of the bottle closest to you and the bottle moving towards you.
Potayto, potaughto. The point is that nothing has changed (except the direction) just because you apply the pushing force towards yourself (what you, and many, are calling "pull") as opposed to away in the example i just described ("the pencil handle"/"pushing rope")
Like you said, the words we use to describe reality have no bearing on it.
Then is an entirely different scenario with different directional forces.
Lol. The only thing that has changed is the direction you apply the pushing force.
We're talking about the finger being stuck to the part of the bottle closest to you and the bottle moving towards you.
Which is the same as the pencil example when the pencil is pointed towards you and you grasp it. In the glued finger example, your finger is the handle, if you like / it is conceptually helpful for you to understand.
I'm interested in discussing that which we can both observe, not merely perspective.
In that case you are "pushing a rope" if you get my meaning
I do not.
I understand what pushing a rope is, but I do not understand how it applies to super gluing my finger to a cup and pulling it closer to me. Could you please explain more?
In the case of the "super glued finger analogy" the finger IS the handle. You push the handle towards you by moving your hand, and that force is transferred to the bottle (and the rear of the bottle) by the handle.
Imagine there is a pencil stuck to the bottle, instead of your finger. Now turn the bottle so the pencil is facing away from you. Now you grab the pencil as you would the bottle, with your pinky closest to you and your thumb farthest from you. Now push. The bottle moves away from you (aka, "pushing the rope"). The exact same thing happens when you keep everything the same and rotate the bottle 180deg so the pencil is now facing towards yourself. You push the bottle towards yourself, in the exact same way you pushed it away from yourself a moment ago.
as it is my view (and that of classical physics) that there is no other type of force.
I'm sorry, what? There are many other types of force besides pushing, as taught by classical physics. Where are you getting this information from?
did you understand my previous comment and/or have any response to it?
I did! The only response that I have is that it's still not clear where the pushing force comes from. It must come from behind an object (relative to the direction of motion) based on the very definition of pushing.
By your description, it seems to come from within the object.
Science and the history thereof. In the traditional, deterministic, "billiard ball" conception of physics there is only push - but i don't think this aside is worth focusing on currently. It's only distracting from the actual conversation at the moment. It is well worth circling back to later though!
The only response that I have is that it's still not clear where the pushing force comes from.
It principally comes from the weight of the object. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. When an object weighs more than the media it displaces, this force is directed downwards. It's all pretty simple and straightforward.
As i explained before, if it helps you to conceptualize / rationalize with your arbitrary view that "pushing force must come from behind", then you may imagine the matter at the top of the object "pushing" the matter beneath it (with its own weight) which cumulatively pushes on the matter beneath that etc., until that cumulative weight/force is measured on a scale.
Let me know if you are still having trouble understanding, or need more clarification!
relative to the direction of motion
Strictly speaking, in an object at rest - there is no direction of motion. But there is a direction to the force (as forces are vectors) of weight, and it is down when the weight of the object is greater than that of the media it displaces.
By your description, it seems to come from within the object.
Weight is intrinsic to matter, yes. But like i said, it may help you to imagine an object as an aggregation of "pieces" of matter (atoms or smaller if you like) which all push upon each other to become the cumulative weight measured on a scale.
I am of the view that all forces are "pushing" forces
If this is the case, that's a major issue, because there are many forces that are not pushing forces. I'm not sure how we can progress successfully on this topic if you have such a massive misunderstanding of the very concept of force.
Is an object being pulled by another experiencing a pushing force?
If you like, you may go all "zeno's paradox" on it and imagine the matter itself as infinitely divisible - if it helps you to understand/conceptualize.
It doesn't, because again there stands that there is matter at the top of the pile.
It does this at rest, sitting on a scale where we measure that weight.
And we then take the time to understand where that force comes from.
If this is the case, that's a major issue, because there are many forces that are not pushing forces.
Not in classical (deterministic, aka "billiard ball") physics, no. How would a billiard ball pull?
As i said, this is all just distraction currently - it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Let's finish chewing on what's in our mouths before taking another bite!
It doesn't, because again there stands that there is matter at the top of the pile.
Not that can't be divided by 2. This is the core of zeno's paradox. The limit described would approach the actual weight. It's .99 repeating = 1 by different wording. You would always have another piece of matter with weight to do the "pushing from behind" and be consistent with your conception.
As i said, this was only for your benefit to try and understand/rationalize in a consistent way with your arbitrary convention. We see now that it didn't help. Best let it alone and try another approach if you are earnestly still interested in understanding.
And we then take the time to understand where that force comes from.
I've already done that (in much the same way archimedes undoubtedly did 2+ millennia ago). What we're doing now is trying to help you understand my conclusion that the force of weight is intrinsic and inexorable to all matter. Of course, you are free to disagree - but i think you are beyond the point of earnestly not understanding what i am saying.
Specifically? Because in any document I can find on force there are many examples listed that are not pushing forces, including frictional force, tension, and spring, not to mention the obvious pulling force
So previously when you said it was "pushing" downward, was that just because you misunderstood that all force is pushing force? Or do you still consider it to be a pushing force?
then you may imagine the matter at the top of the object "pushing" the matter beneath it
Eventually there is matter on top. What is pushing that? Its own weight pushing from within?
in an object at rest - there is no direction of motion
We are not talking about an object at rest, we are talking about matter being "pushed" in a direction (downward)
As i said, at this point it is just more distraction. Let's try to stay focused on the one/current topic for now, and circle back.
So previously when you said it was "pushing" downward, was that just because you misunderstood that all force is pushing force?
I'm not sure i understand the question you are trying to ask. I am of the view that all forces are "pushing" forces, and that is the reason i omitted the word "pushing" from my description of your view that all (pushing) forces do so from behind, and thought the two statements equivalent (from my perspective). That's all - it was merely a rider to the apology so you would understand that there was no intention to deliberately mischaracterize your position.
Or do you still consider it to be a pushing force?
As i said, in my view all forces are pushing forces.
Eventually there is matter on top. What is pushing that? Its own weight pushing from within?
If you like, you may go all "zeno's paradox" on it and imagine the matter itself as infinitely divisible - if it helps you to understand/conceptualize. Most of these musings have only been for your benefit; to accommodate your self imposed arbitrary conventions. The matter above the matter on top of the object also pushes down upon it, if that helps you.
The matter itself has an intrinsic property called weight. That weight is what "pushes" down when the matter is heavier than the media it displaces.
We are not talking about an object at rest,
I am! And if there was some confusion about that, let's start with that example to discuss. Moving the object makes things needlessly more complicated.
we are talking about matter being "pushed" in a direction (downward)
We are talking about matter (which, because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces, is) pushing in a downward direction with its weight. It does this at rest, sitting on a scale where we measure that weight.
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!
Read again my previous comment. I am not giving up. I have been searching. I have not found one.
Read again my previous comment. It is not arbitrary. It is what defines the difference.
This is demonstrably false.
Keep at it, and you will find plenty! Or don't. Up to you!
We're kind of just "talking" in circles here. You call push towards you pull - but that is an arbitrary distinction based on your vantage/perspective and not a real distinction on the force itself (yes, it is its direction - which is a component of that force; but the force itself, push, is the same regardless of the direction it is applied in).
Provide an example. To a given object, push applied towards yourself (which you call "pull") is (or at least can be, and for our hypothetical - explicitly is) identical to push applied away from yourself (yes, of course - save for the direction - which even you must agree cannot and does not fundamentally change the nature of the force itself).
Hello! Just checking to see if you got my last comment?
Again, I have gone back further. I have not found one that says that push is the only force. I assure you I have given a fair shake and looked at many different classical and modern physicists and have not found any that support this.
We're not just talking about your perspective though. You claim that other scientists share your perspective, I'm unable to find one.
But I'm not pushing. I'm pulling. I'm bringing it towards me.
Have you never used the word "pull" in your life?
Perhaps not in such a gross way. It is more proper to say that forces can only push, and that pull has no mechanism in classical deterministic physics.
No one said it was, please read the above for clarification.
In any case, as hearing it from a historical (or modern) physicist will do no good in terms of helping you understand anyway, why don't you discuss my perspective with me instead? I assure you that if you keep earnestly researching, you will find this classical view espoused by many physicists - but since you want to quit looking; i say go ahead. It's just another distraction for you :(
Of course we are, don't be silly. We are only talking about my perspective, and yours. We're the only ones here...
Yes, it is true that many others (physicists included) share my view. We are still only discussing our perspectives.
Right! A completely arbitrary distinction! In reality there is no difference, save for direction, when the object is pushed in one direction, or pushed in another. The pencil/bottle/severed finger does not know or care what direction that is in relative to us. In physics it experiences the same forces when you move it away from yourself (pushing) or when you move it towards yourself (pulling).
You (and many others) call it pull only out of colloquial habit. If you earnestly go back, read, and answer the questions i have provided you, you will begin to understand. Otherwise you simply don't want to understand, in which case no one can help you :(
Hello! just circling back here. Would love to show you a demonstrative example of why push and pull are fundamentally different, such as when you look at the effects that they have on an object.
When an object is pushed, it will experience a sensation of compression, where the molecules of the object are pushed closer together.
When an object is pulled, it will experience a sensation of tension, where the molecules would be pulled further apart.
Does this make sense?
Well your answer wasn’t totally clear relative to what I was asking due to my poor wording of the original ask, so I am just making sure we are on the same page.
Are you aware that tension and compression have different relative effects on an object, yes or no?
I still haven't found any. It gets to be more and more apparent that you are incorrect in this.
Yes, it is a major distinction.
Certainly!
Before I begin, are you familiar with compression and tension forces, and how they affect objects?
And to me it gets more and more apparent that you haven't done thorough research, but who cares? Why let it distract and derail a conversation which has almost nothing to do with that?
That is the real question, which i suspect you already know the answer to :(
Of course it isn't. Don't be silly. The force has not changed AT ALL. Only the direction is altered. Altering the direction (of two otherwise identical forces) doesn't fundamentally change a force - that would be an insane notion with no support in reality.
Yes, but we are only talking about one simple object here. Pushing an object one direction (towards yourself) and pushing an object another direction (away from yourself). You will only get confused again if you try and make it more complicated (with springs/elasticity or other distraction). There is time enough for that once we are done keeping it simple!
I have not found one person, aside from you, that has this stance.
Because you said others share your perspective, and I would like to read about it, because you aren't as forthcoming with information.
I don't want to quit looking. I have done some digging each time we comment, and I have yet to find anyone.
The primary difference is the direction from which the force is applied, that distinguishes push and pull.
So you keep repeating. There are plenty for you to find, but since you want to give up - i say just do it! Talk to me about my perspective instead.
You must be joking. I answer all your questions, many of them multiple times because you keep repeating them.
Then don't! The further back you go, the more common the view is. Virtually all those of classical/deterministic physics share it. But it seems it will take you more in depth research than you are willing to commit yourself to. So be it; it hardly matters anyway, especially for our current discussion.
Exactly! The direction is arbitrary and has essentially no impact on the force itself. The object feels/experiences/is subjected to the same force (push) no matter which direction that force comes from. The distinction of "push" and "pull" is an arbitrary semantic one, and has no physical significance. The force is always push(ing) regardless of the direction relative to us.
Sorry, my wording of the question may have confused you. I’ll ask another way
Before I begin with my example of how direction bears a significant difference in terms of force, are you aware of tension and compression, and the respective effects they have on an object?
No, your wasting of my time is just tiresome.
Please see my previous answer to this needlessly repeated "question".
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.
I've yet to see a scientist that supports what you're telling me. Everything I've found has talked in detail about other forces besides pushing.
Except, for instance, when you superglue your finger to a cup, and pull it towards you. There is no push in this scenario.
Then you are not looking hard enough. But it hardly matters. As if when you read it in some book written by a hallowed name you would suddenly understand and/or agree!
I can (repeatedly) lead you to water, but i cannot (and would not) force you to drink it. You can't learn/understand something you don't wan't to :(
I did have a thought that might help you though - assuming you in any way earnestly interested in understanding this perspective. Remove the bottle from the example. Just consider the pencil.
Hold the pencil in your hand and push the pencil forward. Now "pull" it back towards you. Other than the difference in direction (and assuming you were a perfect machine which applied the exact same force to achieve the exact same distance and path moved, forward then reversed), what is the difference to the pencil? YOU see push and pull, but the pencil only sees push.
We've established I have looked far enough back though, before the 50's/60's was your suggested timeline and I've gone through there, so that's not the issue.
It would at least be another source where I could read more of the actual principle though, since you aren't providing much in terms of concrete information.
Okay great, we'll keep it simple. Let's say I superglue my finger to the eraser of a pencil, and bring it towards me. What object is being pushed in this scenario?
Lol. You can find physicists from that era who share this view, but it may be easier if you go back further.
What "we" have established is that you haven't looked hard enough (temporally in breadth, depth, or both)
There is no better source for my perspective than me, obviously. We've been over this.
Consider ONE object to move and no "superglue" or other complications for the time being - they are just distracting and confusing you. Then answer the question i asked 3 comments ago now. Start there.
The answer is, you are pushing your hand, which in turn pushes on the superglue, which pushes on the eraser.
But you're also claiming that other scientists and physicists agree with what you're saying, so that's what I'm looking to verify. None that I have found, both modern and classical, seem to agree with what you're sharing.
Again, there is no pencil in this scenario, only the finger superglued to the bottle on the side closest to me. There is no push in this scenario.
I'm attempting to keep it as simple as possible by having an example with the finger and the bottle only.
Can you answer the question of how my finger is pushing the bottle towards me, without adding any other element (such as a pencil) to the scenario?
That's true, the vast majority of them throughout history do (all those who ascribe to classical deterministic physics).
Then you haven't looked hard enough, and/or far enough back.
As i said, it hardly matters. As if you reading about any historical physicist espousing this view (of which there are a great many) would do any good at all.
No, that is all too complicated for you. Start simpler. Just a pencil, just a finger. One object - don't complicate it with others, it's just confusing you.
Yes, and i have - but you didn't understand it. Perhaps you could go back and re-read the answers i have given as well as earnestly try to answer the questions i've asked (which you sadly ignored) in order to elucidate (such as the one two comments ago, which i reminded you to answer in the previous comment).
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.
It does matter. You're suggesting that objects are being pushed down due to their weight, which means that they'd be being pushed from above.
I'm not speaking on semantics here, but on the nature of force itself.
The question then is, what is it that's pushing down on an object from above?
Not with arbitrary convention, no. That's arbitrary - of course! It has no bearing on manifest reality.
That's partially correct; they are being pushed down from above - by the weight of the matter above them (though it isn't quite that simple because they are also surrounded by matter with weight as well) - but the force of their measured weight (what i call effective weight - weight with the buoyant force i.e. as measured on a scale) principally comes from the weight of the object itself, as well as the interplay of that objects weight and the weight of the media it displaces.
Objects are built of pieces. Although their effective weight is largely influenced by their volumetric density (the volume of media those pieces collectively displace), their intrinsic weight comes from the matter they are comprised of. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Again, objects are comprised of pieces. Each one of those pieces has weight. If it is more consistent with your arbitrary convention of "force must always push from behind" and/or helps you to understand, you may think of each piece pushing on each other in the object "pushing from behind" and cumulatively being the force that "pushes the scale from behind", to use your wacky parlance.
Matter [its weight]! (for us on the surface of earth, typically air)
But that is only a small percentage of what pushes on the scale. Primarily it is the object's weight which pushes on the scale.
If what you're saying applies to the properties of physical matter, yes. What it is does not change depending on our perspectives.
Yes, I absolutely can. I have a plastic water bottle on my desk right now. From above, I can grip the bottle at positions 4 and 6 o'clock, and bring the bottle towards me.
There is no handle.
Of course, but more than that it is my perspective. As such you can learn about it best by discussing it with me, even if it applied to nothing in physical reality.
Agreed. Which is largely why calling the force which causes the cup to move "push" or "pull" shouldn't really bother you, right? A rose by any other name...
True, or you could super glue the face of the bottle closest to you to your finger and then move the bottle towards you to as you moved your finger closer to you. In that case you are "pushing a rope" if you get my meaning. The billiard balls are still pushing towards you, and the force is transferred to them by the "rope".
In your second example the cap is the handle, and in my example above the glued finger is the handle. But you need not think of things this way, and it doesn't seem like it is helping you to do so. It is intended as a conceptual aid; things don't need handles in order to push, obviously.
ie, the direction from which the force is generated and how it acts, hence what makes push and pull opposites.
The example with the pencil is a different scenario with different forces applied in different directions.
I'm not understanding your question. In the pencil example, the pencil is gripped with the full hand (pinky closest, thumb further). Why would cutting a finger off affect anything?
The pencil is the handle of the cup either way.
Every information on classical/traditional physics I'm finding describes distinct, different forces. Where/who is discussing push as the only force in the universe?
Not in the example, no. Just the direction from your relative perspective.
The direction of the force, from the perspective of the water bottle, is identical.
Nope! Same forces, same direction.
The only thing different when the bottle is facing away from you and when it is facing you is just that. Everything else is the same.
Because then the finger would be (effectively) the handle that the pencil is. When the finger is attached to your hand (and the fingertip superglued to the bottle, remember), it is functionally equivalent (physically/mechanically) to you gripping the end stub of that severed finger (or end of the pencil) and applying force as we've already described. This conceptualization was to disabuse you of the notion that there is some fundamental difference between the pencil and the finger superglued examples. There isn't, and severing the finger (hopefully ONLY in imagination!) makes that clear.
You are likely not going back far enough. It is the view of most all classical/deterministic physicists. Most particle physicists into the 50's-60's (and likely some beyond that) shared/inherited that view as well. You may want to do some research on things like magnetic monopoles, and other force carrying particles believed to exist. None of them can pull either! Because billiard balls can't pull! I do hope you are at least beginning to understand me ;(
Well, I do require supporting documentation, because what you're saying doesn't make sense in practice.
For example, in the cup example, I can pull a cup towards me without wrapping my hand around the cup (the element of the scenario you described as contributing to "push"). I don't see where the billiard ball view can support how that works.
It would certainly help your struggle in conveying how this process works!
To understand what i am saying? It's best to learn about my perspective "from the horses mouth" don't you think?
You are free to ask any questions about my perspective (and that of classical deterministic physics) if you wish! What doesn't make sense? In particle (aka "billiard ball") physics, even forces are particles. Particles cannot pull, for the same reasons that billiard balls cannot pull.
Not without pushing the cup towards you, no! You are, of course, free to call that pushing "pulling" due to frame of reference / colloquial familiarity - but it is still just pushing. Perhaps if we walk through your thought process / example, my perspective may make more sense to you.
Your moving "billiard balls" (in your hand) collide with the cup (or the behind of its handle), pushing it towards you.
Perhaps. I think it would just be more distraction. To learn about my perspective and (hopefully) clear up any of your difficulties with it, the best way would be to ask me about it directly!
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).
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
If I’m not being pushed from behind, then there is no pushing force.
How is weight a pushing force? Is something pushing me down from above?
That's nuts. You can't be pushed from above, or in front, or below - or any other direction than behind?
How do you think a scale works? What pushes on the spring/detector/scale platform?
Yes, but that isn't the major source of the weight intrinsic to you. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. You are made of matter. There is also matter above you pushing down, as well as matter surrounding you on all sides - also pushing onto you.
Is there any instance where pushing doesn’t come from behind?
Yes, obviously. Is that a serious question?
You're using a specific example of a billiard ball scenario. However, physics is more than just one example. There are other forces besides pushing, and you need to have an understanding of that for our conversation to continue on a good path forward. Without a foundational understanding of force, and different properties it can have, we cannot build on it.
Please answer this question:
Is an object being pulled by another experiencing a pushing force?
The billiard ball metaphor/analogy is not a scenario. It is closer to the conception/model of classical deterministic physics. Everything is a billiard ball, including forces.
Like i said, please try to focus on the topic at hand. There is no benefit in discussing this tangent for now - it's just distraction. It is well worth circling back to though.
I'm happy to circle back to this topic once we are finished discussing the first one. Are you saying you have nothing more to say / question regarding weight being an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter and now understand what i'm saying?
Assuming that is the case, then the answer to your question is perhaps best answered socratically/dialectically :
Can an object be pulled by another object if the leading object itself is not pushed? (think mechanically for now)
Hi! Just reposting the comment with some emphasis on where I'm hoping you can respond, if you weren't sure on where this goes:
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
Added: It's important to the main discussion at hand, that in order for us to continue we must understand that more forces exist in the world that are not defined by pushing. Is there a specific aspect of this concept that you disagree with?
You misunderstand (because you assume). I have that basic understanding that you do (as most all who are educated are required to), and now disagree with it after further study.
In a conversation, to be productive, it is vital. There are too many tangents. I don't disagree that the conversation is free to go in any direction, i simply feel it is important to finish what is already in our mouths before taking another bite.
Not in classical physics - because there is no mechanism for such a thing. As i am struggling to convey to you - everything is a billiard ball (including forces). Billiard balls can't pull, they can only push.
Correct, you apply a force from behind the cup towards you. You push the cup towards you. You may want to re-read my previous answer to this question given in previous comments. It may seem like an arbitrary convention, but without a mechanism for pull (traditional deterministic physics, aka "billiard ball", has no such mechanism) all is push.
I don't seek your concession, only understanding. There are many physicists who documented this in the past, but i am simply sharing my views so that you may understand them - not to force (or manipulate/convince) you to agree with them!
I understand your views. As long as you understand mine as well, we shouldn't have too much trouble discussing further without having identical views (in fact, how boring would that be?!?!).
I should correct you: this is not what my stance is. Please read carefully. There are plenty of different forces that do not push.
Pushing force, however, must always come from behind. That is the very definition of pushing. If we want to have a clear discussion, we should understand that words have meaning, and use them carefully.
I did not mean to mischaracterize your position, apologies for leaving out the qualifier "pushing" (i said "force" instead of "pushing force"). A freudian slip, as it is my view (and that of classical physics) that there is no other type of force.
Agreed, though earnest mistakes are made (both in speaking and in receiving/interpreting what was said).
Speaking of which, did you understand my previous comment and/or have any response to it?
You're not pushing. You're pulling. How does a billiard ball scenario fit into this description?
Then is an entirely different scenario with different directional forces. We're talking about the finger being stuck to the part of the bottle closest to you and the bottle moving towards you.
Potayto, potaughto. The point is that nothing has changed (except the direction) just because you apply the pushing force towards yourself (what you, and many, are calling "pull") as opposed to away in the example i just described ("the pencil handle"/"pushing rope")
Like you said, the words we use to describe reality have no bearing on it.
Lol. The only thing that has changed is the direction you apply the pushing force.
Which is the same as the pencil example when the pencil is pointed towards you and you grasp it. In the glued finger example, your finger is the handle, if you like / it is conceptually helpful for you to understand.
Not relative to the direction one is facing, but relative to the direction of the force, all pushing force is from behind. Do you understand?
Not really, but i don't think it matters in any case. It's just an arbitrary semantic distinction you are applying for unknown reasons.
Words like "behind" are always in regards to the direction an object is facing and/or the point of view of the observer.
Let's say i agree to your arbitrary semantic convention, at least for the purposes of this discussion. What then?
You seem to have misunderstood my question
Or you misunderstood my answer!
Perhaps try rephrasing it or describing the way in which your question was misunderstood?
I have not seen such instance. When does this happen?
Any time you (or an object) are not pushed from behind... Surely you jest
I'm interested in discussing that which we can both observe, not merely perspective.
I do not.
I understand what pushing a rope is, but I do not understand how it applies to super gluing my finger to a cup and pulling it closer to me. Could you please explain more?
In the case of the "super glued finger analogy" the finger IS the handle. You push the handle towards you by moving your hand, and that force is transferred to the bottle (and the rear of the bottle) by the handle.
Imagine there is a pencil stuck to the bottle, instead of your finger. Now turn the bottle so the pencil is facing away from you. Now you grab the pencil as you would the bottle, with your pinky closest to you and your thumb farthest from you. Now push. The bottle moves away from you (aka, "pushing the rope"). The exact same thing happens when you keep everything the same and rotate the bottle 180deg so the pencil is now facing towards yourself. You push the bottle towards yourself, in the exact same way you pushed it away from yourself a moment ago.
I'm sorry, what? There are many other types of force besides pushing, as taught by classical physics. Where are you getting this information from?
I did! The only response that I have is that it's still not clear where the pushing force comes from. It must come from behind an object (relative to the direction of motion) based on the very definition of pushing.
By your description, it seems to come from within the object.
Science and the history thereof. In the traditional, deterministic, "billiard ball" conception of physics there is only push - but i don't think this aside is worth focusing on currently. It's only distracting from the actual conversation at the moment. It is well worth circling back to later though!
It principally comes from the weight of the object. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. When an object weighs more than the media it displaces, this force is directed downwards. It's all pretty simple and straightforward.
As i explained before, if it helps you to conceptualize / rationalize with your arbitrary view that "pushing force must come from behind", then you may imagine the matter at the top of the object "pushing" the matter beneath it (with its own weight) which cumulatively pushes on the matter beneath that etc., until that cumulative weight/force is measured on a scale.
Let me know if you are still having trouble understanding, or need more clarification!
Strictly speaking, in an object at rest - there is no direction of motion. But there is a direction to the force (as forces are vectors) of weight, and it is down when the weight of the object is greater than that of the media it displaces.
Weight is intrinsic to matter, yes. But like i said, it may help you to imagine an object as an aggregation of "pieces" of matter (atoms or smaller if you like) which all push upon each other to become the cumulative weight measured on a scale.
If this is the case, that's a major issue, because there are many forces that are not pushing forces. I'm not sure how we can progress successfully on this topic if you have such a massive misunderstanding of the very concept of force.
Is an object being pulled by another experiencing a pushing force?
It doesn't, because again there stands that there is matter at the top of the pile.
And we then take the time to understand where that force comes from.
Not in classical (deterministic, aka "billiard ball") physics, no. How would a billiard ball pull?
As i said, this is all just distraction currently - it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Let's finish chewing on what's in our mouths before taking another bite!
Not that can't be divided by 2. This is the core of zeno's paradox. The limit described would approach the actual weight. It's .99 repeating = 1 by different wording. You would always have another piece of matter with weight to do the "pushing from behind" and be consistent with your conception.
As i said, this was only for your benefit to try and understand/rationalize in a consistent way with your arbitrary convention. We see now that it didn't help. Best let it alone and try another approach if you are earnestly still interested in understanding.
I've already done that (in much the same way archimedes undoubtedly did 2+ millennia ago). What we're doing now is trying to help you understand my conclusion that the force of weight is intrinsic and inexorable to all matter. Of course, you are free to disagree - but i think you are beyond the point of earnestly not understanding what i am saying.
Specifically? Because in any document I can find on force there are many examples listed that are not pushing forces, including frictional force, tension, and spring, not to mention the obvious pulling force
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/Types-of-Forces
So previously when you said it was "pushing" downward, was that just because you misunderstood that all force is pushing force? Or do you still consider it to be a pushing force?
Eventually there is matter on top. What is pushing that? Its own weight pushing from within?
We are not talking about an object at rest, we are talking about matter being "pushed" in a direction (downward)
As i said, at this point it is just more distraction. Let's try to stay focused on the one/current topic for now, and circle back.
I'm not sure i understand the question you are trying to ask. I am of the view that all forces are "pushing" forces, and that is the reason i omitted the word "pushing" from my description of your view that all (pushing) forces do so from behind, and thought the two statements equivalent (from my perspective). That's all - it was merely a rider to the apology so you would understand that there was no intention to deliberately mischaracterize your position.
As i said, in my view all forces are pushing forces.
If you like, you may go all "zeno's paradox" on it and imagine the matter itself as infinitely divisible - if it helps you to understand/conceptualize. Most of these musings have only been for your benefit; to accommodate your self imposed arbitrary conventions. The matter above the matter on top of the object also pushes down upon it, if that helps you.
The matter itself has an intrinsic property called weight. That weight is what "pushes" down when the matter is heavier than the media it displaces.
I am! And if there was some confusion about that, let's start with that example to discuss. Moving the object makes things needlessly more complicated.
We are talking about matter (which, because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces, is) pushing in a downward direction with its weight. It does this at rest, sitting on a scale where we measure that weight.