I'm sharing my perspective
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?
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.
In general, the further you go back the more prevalent and prominent the view will be
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.
Nothing can move without being pushed in classical deterministic physics.
Except, for instance, when you superglue your finger to a cup, and pull it towards you. There is no push in this scenario.
You are likely not going back far enough
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.
Because billiard balls can't pull! I do hope you are at least beginning to understand 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.
Only the direction relative to you has changed.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
There is no handle.
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!
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?
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:
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?
Strange, how they only get boring after I provide sources, and ask you a specific question. You avoid to answer specific questions.
I sent you a comment on the weight discussion that you never replied to. I'll post the comment again, because it was you who abandoned it after I sent links supporting what I was teaching you.
Don't worry about getting into specifics with him.
/u/jack445566778899 won't address them, and will eventually just stop replying.
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:
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/Types-of-Forces
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.
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?
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.
Science and the history thereof.
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
this force is directed downwards.
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 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.
"force must always push from behind"
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.
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.
What then?
The question then is, what is it that's pushing down on an object from above?
That's nuts. You can't be pushed from above, or in front, or below - or any other direction than behind?
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?
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?