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.
If you were taught about Christopher Columbus and/or Ferdinand Magellan in school, then you were officially introduced to FLAT EARTH THEORY
Sort of. You were (likely - especially if "educated" in the american school system) introduced to a strawman historical fiction against the idea of a flat earth (first created by the american 19th century fiction author of rip wan winkle).
Neither CC nor FM thought the world was flat, and never in any way sought to prove that it wasn't. That's just nonsense fiction a lot of us were taught as historical fact.
But what is weird about FLAT EARTH, is how EMOTIONAL people get about it.
You get the same (conditioned) reaction from any zealot when you criticize or attack their religious beliefs. It's often a good way to tell the difference between what someone thinks, and what someone believes and/or is required to believe (i.e. their dogmas).
like VACCINES
Another dogma. Any heretic who blasphemes against the holy lord vaccine is a heretic and deserves the stake.
Is that people have 2 very distinct brains,
one brain that is highly logical,
and one brain that is highly ethical.
Interesting idea. I tend to think that logic is a skill that takes time to learn/foster, nurture, and exercise. If you don't, it withers away by atrophy and people are ruled by their emotions by default.
because if we talk about USURY, we are using the ETHICAL part of our brain, and if we talk about INTEREST, we are using the LOGICAL part of our brain.
Ah, but what if interest is merely a form of usury? (in your example, a largely historical one that no longer exists today, minusculely benefiting a banking customer; a bribe so they can continue to gamble with your money... but much more commonly a fee you are charged for borrowing money you had no alternative but to borrow at whatever rates "the market" deems fair)
There are people who believe that white men have walked on the moon,
And there are people who believe that this story is a hoax.
And there are those of us who know that it's a hoax, because we have done adequate research to soundly conclude that ;)
Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and to objective study of any kind. If you believe the moon landings took place, or didn't take place - you have already lost the possibility of objective study and are hopelessly biased.
But why do people get so EMOTIONAL?
To put it simply, the secular religion of scientism. It is a conditioned response to prevent discussion, criticism, and communication/collaboration.
I encourage all who are interested in such topics to join us on c/flatearthresearch to discuss and exchange views on them!
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.
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.
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 ;(
So im curious what is the flat earthers explanation is for climate change?
What would the shape of the world have to do with it? In general, climate (including any change to it) is believed to be almost entirely caused by the sun - regardless of the shape of the world.
It blows my mind people think climate change is fake
Then you don't know much about the ipcc, eh? Even if climate change were legitimate science, the fake shit being constantly bandied about by lying politicians and mass media for personal gains is plenty to lead the average person to conclude that it is fake and gay.
Something is happening, anyone who farms or is connected to nature senses it as well.
Anyone who doubts that weather changes day to day, year to year, decade to decade, century to century etc. is a fool. "Climate change" as we are inundated with by the fear porn propagandists is a horse of a different color.
That's exactly the point.
Agreed.
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).
You're not pushing. You're pulling.
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 do not.
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.
Good advice.
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.
Well, I do require supporting documentation,
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!
In theory, not many.
In practice, there are 3 primary ones :
-
The question is asked disingenuously/disearnestly. Some examples of this are rhetorical questions (possibly part of a gish gallop), or questions that are purely intended to mock/deride/insult etc.
-
The question asked is a non-sequitur and/or distraction from the discussion at hand. This is a tactic essentially analogous to a red herring, though can certainly be unintentional as well.
-
The question asked is an exercise for the earnest student. In this case, although i could simply answer the question - spoonfeeding the answer actually weakens the student and makes them less capable of answering questions on their own in the future (feed a man a fish, and all that). In this case i am happy to supply any and all assistance i can to a student which has tried and failed to answer such questions on their own, but i can only do that once they explain what they have tried / where they have looked first - so that i can, hopefully, point them in the right direction.
Understandable if you are struggling!
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.
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?!?!).
Strange, how they only get boring after I provide sources, and ask you a specific question
Lol. As i said - don't get your panties in a twist. Neither of us have any obligation to continue a conversation - no matter the cause. There is no need to take it so personally!
I sent you a comment on the weight discussion that you never replied to
Just now, yes - i see that you did (though it isn't so much a response in a conversation, as it is a flippant declaration of your abandonment of it). Prior to that you did not, but there was (and is) no reason for anyone to be upset about that. Anytime you don't wish to respond, for whatever reason, is fine by me.
Asking specific questions is an excellent conversational habit (and citing/quoting is too!), however demanding answers like a petulant child and then throwing a tantrum when you don't receive them; isn't. It's best to understand this if you want conversations to be interesting and/or productive.
That's not what I asked you.
Of course it is. You want me to do your homework for you. But that would make you a worse student, so i wont spoonfeed you.
If you are so committed to not learning about the cosmology in the bible / of the biblical authors that you refuse to do any research whatsoever, then you are clearly happy with your current beliefs and choosing not to learn anything that might change them. That is your choice, though i would urge you to reconsider.
I'm open to being proven wrong.
Then prove yourself wrong! I am most happy to help you once you earnestly try and fail - but i can't and won't try for you! It will not take you long to find a list of the passages. Do you just want to be right so badly that you refuse to do even a few minutes of earnest research?
As i said, there are many books on the subject containing the lines in detail. Often these books are named things like "biblical cosmology" and "hebrew cosmology".
You could even search the christianity forum here and find links to such passages.
I will not do your work for you, because that would make you a weaker student - but i am happy to help you in any way i can if you earnestly try to research and fail!
and will eventually just stop replying.
Boring and unproductive conversations should be abandoned!
Like you did when we were discussing weight recently. Don't get your panties in a twist.
The bible doesn't describe the earth as flat.
Of course it does, and of course modern christians don't want that to be the case because it embarrasses them. It doesn't change the fact.
The bible describes a flat world because the people who wrote it viewed the world that way. There are no competent biblical scholars, now or in the past (going back more than a millennia) who don't know that.
At most, it says "4 corners of the earth", which has different translations:
One can (mis)use translation to discard / reinterpret anything they wish in the bible - however it will not indemnify them of their ignorance of what the biblical authors believed about the shape of the world.
The four corners is only one of many passages describing the flat world the biblical authors ascribed to. There are many books available (going back centuries, if not further) about the cosmology described in the bible along with the specific passages which contain that cosmology - if you are interested.
Why are flat earthers pro Israeli?
The same reasons anyone is.
Why are "globe earthers" pro israel? Same question, same answer.
Obviously there are many (likely the majority) who are not pro israel, regardless of what shape they think the world is.
Flat earth is Talmudic.
Because flat earth is biblical. The earth is described as flat in the bible, so it shouldn't surprise you that books of commentary on that bible (the first 5 books anyway) also describe the same.
Anyone who believes in FE a) can't determine objective truth for themselves
Anyone who believes in anything that they could/should/ought know!
If you believe the world is any shape; flat, spherical, or otherwise - you have faith not fact. The vast majority of people cannot determine objective truth for themselves, because they were both never taught to do so and encouraged/conditioned to appeal to authority instead ("i know because teacher told me so"). This is evident in the way most that think the world is spherical answer the question when asked (i.e. "I believe the world is spherical/ a sphere")
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.
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).