Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
Indeed. That's what people with open minds do- they think and reevaluate based on evidence. Perhaps you could open your own mind enough to wonder why you cannot do the impossible scenario with the chain, and ask yourself how that translates to the arm?
Or are you too busy asking me to reevaluate the accepted laws of physics?
My evidence is in EVERY book of foundation level mechanics. I seem to recall having already mentioned that on a number of occasions. Now where is YOUR evidence?
Once more:
"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."
Indeed. That's what people with open minds do- they think and reevaluate based on evidence. Perhaps you could open your own mind enough to wonder why you cannot do the impossible scenario with the chain, and ask yourself how that translates to the arm?
Or are you too busy asking me to reevaluate the accepted laws of physics?
If you're talking about Newton's laws, they are by no means absolutely accepted. They are more descriptors of how things tend to work than absolute laws which pertain to everything. Check out Einstein's theory of relativity.
If you're talking about Newton's laws, they are by no means absolutely accepted. They are more descriptors of how things tend to work than absolute laws which pertain to everything. Check out Einstein's theory of relativity.
Have they ever changed the following scenario?
"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."
Classical mechanics is still widely accepted in practice for good reason. Mechanical engineers don't tend to involve a lot of Einstein- because they don't need to. I'm not aware of anything in Einstein that might allow for the idea of a chain of free joints that supports itself at one end.
My evidence is in EVERY book of foundation level mechanics.
In that case I suggest you start quoting one.
Once more:
"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."
This is not going away. There is not going to be any end to my repeating this point other than you RESPONDING to that point or not replying. I've already told you that I am not going to prove that 1+1=2. The onus is on you to prove that it isn't.
"If you dispute that then get a chain that is attached at two points that are at a distance of the chains length. Then show me that chain dropping to the floor. Alternately, attach a chain at one end only and show me a photo of it being supported horizontally without collapsing."
This is not going away. There is not going to be any end to my repeating this point other than you RESPONDING to that point or not replying. I've already told you that I am not going to prove that 1+1=2. The onus is on you to prove that it isn't
