Force paradox - a test of reasoning

Quantum Quack:

"And if the cranking of the handle was extremely controlled when moving from one position to the next [ say 1/1000th of an inch ] how what would a graph of the scales reaction show?"

Presuming a certain stability on the part of overcoming the magnetic force, then just one. If we assume that the release of the force that holds it at that strength at that distance, then probably a bit of wobbling, but an eventual state of total and complete equillibrium.

"Firstly the cranking of the winder must provide a force that is greater than the 80 units by an infinitely small amount before the magnet can move upward. However the scales can not measure an infinitely small amount, in fact nothing can measure this amount but logically the amount must be greater than 80 units. This I think we can agree upon."

Yes.

"It is the "break" point that is at issue. As soon as >80 units is applied the object will move yet as soon as it moves the force must reduce to <80 units."

Okay.

"The magnet can not accellerate as it is always in a field of attraction. So as you wind the magnets apart you should observe a slow and steady reduction shown by the scales. But as soon as you stop winding a bounce will become evident. as the > becomes the < or we end up with <0> a point of equalibrium."

Actually, would not the force be lessening so long as you move? That is, that the movement itself will move into lesser force? That is, the force of 80 at 81 will no longer be present?

Magnetic force, like all other forces, decreases in its power to exert force as distrance greatens. So when you move to point 81, you are experiencing less force than at 80.

"So at this break point with the magnet stationary we have a contradiction of forces occuring all within an infinitely small amount of movement. And becasue everything is reduced to the infinite it can be said that this contradiction happens simultaneously.

You can see that no matter how this is approached there will always be a contradiction is language. The greater force has to be applied before the magnet will move yet in an infintely small amount of distance it must also be reduced, effectively happening simultaneously. "

No, it is here that I think you are misconstruing things. Again, because you take into consideration -stability-. If you want to return to equillibrium with the force, you have to slow down so that the other force catches up. Yes. In order to reach a lower point and then -stay- at that lower point, you have to reduce the speed you used to get to that point, otherwise you'd simply exceed that. There is no contradiction here, because you are slowing down again. Two different actions.

It is rather like walking up an escalator. If you want to stay in one place, relative to the overall escalator, one has to move.
 
OK.....I understand your point and will go away now and think on it some more....

Thanks you so much for your interest......[ time for my daily constitutional ] will post again later...
you may have missed my monkey grip diagram, at the bottom of the preceeding page
 
Yes, I did miss it, but I think my point in this reply, which I was writing earlier, covers it. So here it is. My power flickered, hence the wait.

In order to further demonstrate my objections, Quantum Quack, let's go over two scenarios:

Going forward by one.

Going backwards by one.

Let 80 be the start point, 79 back forward by 1, or 81 backward by one.

Going forward:

Now to go forward when pulled back by 80, you have to exceed this speed by 1, or 81. Now, at this speed, you can go forward and completely leave the force forever. But you don't want to do that. What one wants to do is return to stability with the force. So therefore, you must decelerate by 2, which is the same as accelerating by 2 in a backwards direction. Therefore, all together, the force expended is 3 in order to reach 79.

Going backwards:

You begin at 80, like always. Now, one is all ready maintaining a speed at 80, so you basically can let up and only exert, let's say 79 counter force. Now if you do not exert any force, you will eventually accelerate to the source of the attraction. However, what you are trying to do now is to avoid that fate and instead find stability only at 81. Okay, so you must increase your counter force to 81 from 79, which is 2. But to also compensate for the sliping and the momentum you incur from this, you must add at least one more force overall, so as to make 3.

In essence: To go either back or forth and to stop momentum, you must exert equal force to return to stability.

If you did not want to return to stability, you'd simply have to stop expending force to go back, or exert force to go forward.

Or as Newton said: "An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by another force."
 
Last edited:
PJ.
a few problems...
1] Speed is not really relevant to the topic.
2] Movement is only being used to help show the pseudo paradox of an infinitley thin point in a gravitational field. Movement itself is not really the issue how ever the ability to move may be.
3] The infinitely small point of equalibrium is always changing it's location due to ambient interferrences such as gravitation tidal forces [ ie. moon and other stars etc] temperature fluctuations etc etc.

So there-fore a position of absolute equalibrium is impossible to sustain.

As the center of attraction of the magnets fluctuate so too will their degree of equalibrium. Keeping in mind we are talking about an infinitely small point this is understandable.

any way ...still thinking on it..... :)
 
Quantum Quack:

"1] Speed is not really relevant to the topic."

By speed, I meant counter-force exerted to move away from the source of gravitation.

"2] Movement is only being used to help show the pseudo paradox of an infinitley thin point in a gravitational field. Movement itself is not really the issue how ever the ability to move may be."

Then I am a bit confused as to what you are attempting to show and prove? Because I was under the assumption that we are talking about how, if you were to move past a certain point, back and forth, in two dimensions, with one dimension terminatinga at an attractive force, one would be met with more difficulty to go away and reach stability, then go back and reach stability. Am I wrong?

"3] The infinitely small point of equalibrium is always changing it's location due to ambient interferrences such as gravitation tidal forces [ ie. moon and other stars etc] temperature fluctuations etc etc."

Yet therea re such points in space, la grange points for instance, which are gravitationally stable, with few, if any, fluctuations to speak of. Moreover, we are simply speaking here in the ideal.
 
Then I am a bit confused as to what you are attempting to show and prove? Because I was under the assumption that we are talking about how, if you were to move past a certain point, back and forth, in two dimensions, with one dimension terminatinga at an attractive force, one would be met with more difficulty to go away and reach stability, then go back and reach stability. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Not quite,
by using movement we are able to demonstrate what is happening at this infinitely small point, but it is this infinitely small point that is what we are attempting to quantify.

To move in either direction an infinitely small amount shows a contradiction of forces so therefore that infinitely small point is paradoxed, not the movement itself but that infinitely small point. [ thin line ]

just think on that thin line for a moment and imagine what has to happen to achieve absolute equalibrium. Every force in the universe would have to be static or stable and not moving.
 
Quantum Quack:

"just think on that thin line for a moment and imagine what has to happen to achieve absolute equalibrium. Every force in the universe would have to be static or stable and not moving."

I do believe that it is here where your elaboration upon, rather than perhaps the theory itself, has failed in its purposes.

For we have now switched from the ideal, to the real, and yes, we are all forced to concede that the universe is a swarming mass of gravitational attractions, magnetic fields, and various other disturbances, which would make an absolute equillibrium an impossibility, but relative to two things alone - which we could not do absolutely in a real example, but can do partially in one - we can indeed find an equillibrium.

But now I fail to imagine where your initial point is at all? And I still do not understand that "to move in either direction implies a contradiction of forces"?
 
Prince_James said:
Quantum Quack:

"just think on that thin line for a moment and imagine what has to happen to achieve absolute equalibrium. Every force in the universe would have to be static or stable and not moving."

I do believe that it is here where your elaboration upon, rather than perhaps the theory itself, has failed in its purposes.

For we have now switched from the ideal, to the real, and yes, we are all forced to concede that the universe is a swarming mass of gravitational attractions, magnetic fields, and various other disturbances, which would make an absolute equillibrium an impossibility, but relative to two things alone - which we could not do absolutely in a real example, but can do partially in one - we can indeed find an equillibrium.

But now I fail to imagine where your initial point is at all? And I still do not understand that "to move in either direction implies a contradiction of forces"?
Click to expand...

Thanks PJ for you effort in trying to understand what I am proposing.
I didn't think it would be easy but it was worth a try I guess.
I shall now go away and analyse this thread to see where I went wrong and if I find a way to avoid a repeat of this result I shall make a further attempt.
Again , thanks
QQ
 
sorry to be a bit persistant here but:

“ "And how is this de-accelleration achieved?

and then apply this to an infinitely small distance....."
Click to expand...

By exerting a countering force. ”
Click to expand...

At what point in an infinitely small distance does one apply this countering force?
Click to expand...

Quantum Quack:

Ha. Got me there. As both accelerating and deacellerating cannot occur at the same time, and we can assume tha tonly one could occur in an infinitely distance's crossing, then you must by necessity miss your mark. However, if you move back an infinitely a certain space, and exert enough force to accelerate that space's distance to the infinitely small point you initially wanted to reach at the start and then immediatly counteract it as soon as one reaches the appropriate cut off point, one would stop at one's destination.
Click to expand...

We actually got quite close to the issue with this exchange, however we introduced the notion of going backwards one to go forward three for some reason.
 
also de-accelleration would not normally be achieved by applying a countering force but merely reducing the initial force being applied.

80-------79----------78
81-------80---78.6---78
 
2 graphs showing movement from 80 to 77 units of attraction
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%2010.gif>

or

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%2011.gif>
and going from 80 to 79.999999999999999999~ units would show the same form.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack:

"Thanks PJ for you effort in trying to understand what I am proposing.
I didn't think it would be easy but it was worth a try I guess.
I shall now go away and analyse this thread to see where I went wrong and if I find a way to avoid a repeat of this result I shall make a further attempt.
Again , thanks"

Well the problem with all explanations, is that they depend on the ideal, and in that, we can often, without explicitly stating otherwise, take the ideal for what is trying to be presented. For instance, you never really introduced the idea of applying this ideal to a reality which included an infinite amount of (potential) forces, so that it rather felt like we were discussing something totally different than what you postulated.

But by no means take this as an indictment of the theory, -only- of the presentation.

"We actually got quite close to the issue with this exchange, however we introduced the notion of going backwards one to go forward three for some reason. "

Yes, we were getting close to the issue there. As we were applying this to the infinitely small levels which you say best speak of your theory. This is also what I made the really, really, really badly drawn little diagram.

"also de-accelleration would not normally be achieved by applying a countering force but merely reducing the initial force being applied.

80-------79----------78
81-------80---78.6---78 "

Well actually, this is the problem. When driving along the highway, this is true. One can simply keep off the gas and cruise to a stop. But an enviroment like space - which I assumed would be better to speak of than in highway conditions - one must exert a positive counter force in accordance with Newton's law. For if we take 81 as escape velocity, one has all ready reached a point where gravity has failed to be able to stop one, much like a rocket ship, once it leaves Earth at 36,000 mph, has completely left the Earth's capacity to slow it down, so that it will continue ad infinitum at that speed, if never interrupted again. That is, in such an enviroment, braking is the same as accelerating backwards.

Let me check out this new diagram.
 
Quantum Quack:

Your diagram seems more applicable to the aforementioned "highway" conditions, whereas I was speaking more in "space" conditions. Escape velocity seems more in line with hitting 81.
 
so it can be concluded that to maintain a uniform and constant velocity in a gravitational field vectored away from the source of attraction the force being applied must always be maintained at the same relative increase to the gravitational force present at all locations along that journey.

therefore that applied force must be constantly reducing yet maintain it's higher amount relative to the gravity force present at all times and points. along that distance.
If this is not reduced proportionally the ship or object will undergo continuous accelleration and not have a uniform velocity.
 
For if we take 81 as escape velocity, one has all ready reached a point where gravity has failed to be able to stop one, much like a rocket ship, once it leaves Earth at 36,000 mph, has completely left the Earth's capacity to slow it down, so that it will continue ad infinitum at that speed, if never interrupted again. That is, in such an enviroment, braking is the same as accelerating backwards.
Click to expand...

I dis-agree

in absolute terms I would expect that as the ship travelled away from earth the gravity field that was acting as a counter force would gradually reduce so theoreticaly the ship would be constantly accelerating as it travelled further away from earth. In reality of course we would then have to consider all the other planets and the sun in that scenario.
 
A quote from JamesR which he posted on page 2 of this thread

You seem to be talking about a situation where you ramp up the engines to move the rocket to a greater distance. The force of gravity decreases with distance, so after the initial acceleration the rocket will keep accelerating away at a greater and greater rate unless the engines are continuously throttled back. If you want the rocket to slow to a stop at a greater distance than it was originally at, then you need to throttle the engines back until the force of gravity is larger than the engine force, which gradually slows the rocket to rest.
Click to expand...

The graphs are indicative of what JamesR is describing ---- [ I hope]
 
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagram%2012.gif>

by above I mean greater.

Then if we think of this in infinitely small terms............
 
Quantum Quack:

Whereas I am not a physicist, my understanding of Escape Velocity, as well as this article, seems to concur with my view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

If we could get someone that might have some knowledge of the field to join this conversation, we might have a resolution, so at least we can go back to the theoreticals.

Not to discredit James R., but I am fairly certain that once you reach escape-velocity and passed the Earth, you basically can cut the thrust - which they do, otherwise they'd burn up all their fuel before reaching the moon - and cruise anywhere. In fact, most of the long-range space trips so far, with the space probes and the like, have almost completely used the "sling shot" effect of "riding" the exterior gravity well of a planet and being flung away from it by not being captured by its gravity well towards it.

But yes, if you somehow did not want to do this, but instead wanted to retain stability, as I said, you'd have to apply a counter force, and if you wanted to move forward "going down" the different points of gravitic attraction, you'd have to spend a great deal more energy in the process through the "stop and go" effect, than if you just cruised at your top speed through it.

I still am having a hard idea with how this is paradoxical.
 
Im just a student but this is not exactly rocket science!(Oh yeah it is really :D ). Anyway if you drop below escape velocity you go into orbit, unless you further drop to below orbital velocity - then you tend towards earth. If you take advantage of the slingshot(and its indeed possible to still drop below escape velocity) you still cant break the law of gravity and escape the earth.
 
Last edited:
Imaplanck:

But specifically, once you hit escape velocity and reach the point where that frees you of the gravitational pull of the object, does one have to continue accelerating in order to avoid returning to said planet? I am under the impression that one can essentially cut the thrust and cruise the rest of the distance. Am I correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top