Fiction and fact from bubstrs almanac

[Barbecueboy]

Ok bubster......
Let's start here so there aren't any thread hijackings or other excuses.

You know the question....

Straight line directional travel going forward and then backwards......can it be done without a stop ???
I.e ....using a train example on a straight set of tracks moving in reverse.....can it go from the motion of reverse to forward without stopping?

And please, no picking pepper out of fly sht.......you know what I am asking.

[Bubstr]

Ok I'll play your game. Do you have anymore qualifiers? Is the train Steam or Diesel? Did the train use sand to gain traction? What where the tolerances on the track and drive wheels? Are your train wheels driven independently? What where the force sources for the change of direction? Was the train suspended? What was the weight distribution and center of gravity? Are both forces constant until canceled? Is at least one force constantly supplied? Is this train running on standard gauge track, mounted with rail, spike and timber mounting? Are your tracks level at any plane?

Unless you qualify this train to unobtainable specifications, this train has to move at the point of directional change. It moves horizontally or laterally just due to weight transfer. Sorry to burst your bubble. Although, if you removed all forces it could stop. With out removing force you will have a loop instead of straight line as the path of least resistance. If you limit one It will take another, largely due to weight transfer. If you limit both, friction will not allow movement at all. There will be compression and rebound or lateral movement with in track tolerances due to asymmetrical drive forces.

Bad info in, gets bad info out. You could equate this to a sign wave. They all have curves at the top and bottoms if you look close enough.

[Barbecueboy]

Pick any of them you want

Straight forward to straight backwards without coming to a stop of any sort.......no bending as in your earlier light /water example,no pivots,no side motion,no Rockford or chitwood slides or anything like that.

Heck...you don't even have to site the train example.....use a car...a boat....a tortoise ....a skateboard...a speeding bullet.......use whatever you want.

The only qualifier I have is that it needs to be traveling in the exact opposite direction that it began traveling in without any of the above variances .....without stopping to change direction......must never ever STOP to go in the opposite direction.

Throw all of the terms in there you would like........doesn't cloud the fact that it just can't be done as I've described it.

Please , prove me wrong ..........if nothing else , I will learn something new and you will feel much better about your knowledge of physics.

[Bubstr]

If your qualifiers are straight line forward and back with no tolerance for deflection, It would have to stop.

In the real world, those qualifiers with no tolerance is unobtainable. So in your mind, it can happen, in the real world, it can't. That's the difference between Law and Theory.

First fact you forgot is nothing but a hypothetical line is straight when dealing with force and vectors. That is because there is always more than one force affecting the object.

[Barbecueboy]

If your qualifiers are straight line forward and back with no tolerance for deflection, It would have to stop.

In the real world, those qualifiers with no tolerance is unobtainable. So in your mind, it can happen, in the real world, it can't. That's the difference between Law and Theory.

First fact you forgot is nothing but a hypothetical line is straight when dealing with force and vectors. That is because there is always more than one force affecting the object.

Thank goodness......I'm glad you agree!
I understand and agree with everything you say about theory and law.......But you knew where I was going with this the whole time .....my question was hypothetical to begin with.
Clearly you are a very smart man and I do appreciate the intelligent debate.....I actually learned a couple of things in our banter back and forth.

As far as it happening in the real world or not.......never say never....it just hasn't happened YET....on earth......and probably won't in our lifetime.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Ok I'll play your game. Do you have anymore qualifiers? Is the train Steam or Diesel? Did the train use sand to gain traction? What where the tolerances on the track and drive wheels? Are your train wheels driven independently? What where the force sources for the change of direction? Was the train suspended? What was the weight distribution and center of gravity? Are both forces constant until canceled? Is at least one force constantly supplied? Is this train running on standard gauge track, mounted with rail, spike and timber mounting? Are your tracks level at any plane?

Unless you qualify this train to unobtainable specifications, this train has to move at the point of directional change. It moves horizontally or laterally just due to weight transfer. Sorry to burst your bubble. Although, if you removed all forces it could stop. With out removing force you will have a loop instead of straight line as the path of least resistance. If you limit one It will take another, largely due to weight transfer. If you limit both, friction will not allow movement at all. There will be compression and rebound or lateral movement with in track tolerances due to asymmetrical drive forces.

Bad info in, gets bad info out. You could equate this to a sign wave. They all have curves at the top and bottoms if you look close enough.

Have you ever answered a straight yes or no question with a simple yes or no? Not here on good lole 4M yet for sure. Is is that difficult? Yes or No!!!

[Barbecueboy]

Have you ever answered a straight yes or no question with a simple yes or no? Not here on good lole 4M yet for sure. Is is that difficult? Yes or No!!!

It's all good Clayton .......He finally agreed that I was indeed correct even though it took a little prodding and persistence.
I for one am totally impressed that folks like bubster actually visit and participate on 4 m..... He has got some mad skills when it comes to the understanding and application in the science of physics to the real world .
Now what I'm waiting on are all of the apologies from the spaz(spas), d tidrow and other camps on here that kept telling me that I just couldn't admit that I was wrong......well, turns out I wasn't after all now doesn't it?

Anyway, I'll act like I've been here before and won't rub there noses in it, taunt them or do some ridiculous touchdown celebration style of gloating.........letting them stew in there own crow juices is satisfaction enough.

[Bubstr]

Have you ever answered a straight yes or no question with a simple yes or no? Not here on good lole 4M yet for sure. Is is that difficult? Yes or No!!!

When you stop putting qualifiers in your questions, I'll top putting qualifiers in my answers. Answers need clarifying when the questions aren't.

[Bubstr]

It's all good Clayton .......He finally agreed that I was indeed correct even though it took a little prodding and persistence.
I for one am totally impressed that folks like bubster actually visit and participate on 4 m..... He has got some mad skills when it comes to the understanding and application in the science of physics to the real world .
Now what I'm waiting on are all of the apologies from the spaz(spas), d tidrow and other camps on here that kept telling me that I just couldn't admit that I was wrong......well, turns out I wasn't after all now doesn't it?

Anyway, I'll act like I've been here before and won't rub there noses in it, taunt them or do some ridiculous touchdown celebration style of gloating.........letting them stew in there own crow juices is satisfaction enough.

You may want to add level to straight to your qualifiers or you could be proven wrong, even in your mind.

[Clayton_Wetter]

When you stop putting qualifiers in your questions, I'll top putting qualifiers in my answers. Answers need clarifying when the questions aren't.

NO!........

[Clayton_Wetter]

Yes!!!........

[Clayton_Wetter]

See how easy it actually it?

[Barbecueboy]

You may want to add level to straight to your qualifiers or you could be proven wrong, even in your mind.

Hypothetical questions don't only exist in MY mind,they just exist.........but I appreciate you pointing out the flick of pepper in the tiny pile of fly sht of my proven point.

I will be a little mor thorough if there is a next time.

[Bubstr]

Hypothetical questions don't only exist in MY mind,they just exist.........but I appreciate you pointing out the flick of pepper in the tiny pile of fly sht of my proven point.

I will be a little mor thorough if there is a next time.

Ahhh, but your point wasn't proven. Your theory was passable. There is a difference. You can't prove your theory, because you can not maintain your qualifying parameters.

[Barbecueboy]

Ahhh, but your point wasn't proven. Your theory was passable. There is a difference. You can't prove your theory, because you can not maintain your qualifying parameters.

Oh contrare mon frere.......you said your self that the motion would stop.

And you are the final word in these things aren't you???? It MUST be true.

There are other examples available ( that are not hypothetical) wherein my example of straight ( level) forward can move to straight ( level) backwards on earth using the maintainable parameters......not too many, but there are a few out there.

None of which can be done without stopping between change of motion.
Your a smart man.....you will find them.

[t.nie]

"Stop" is measured by time. An object travelling in one direction at 100 mph could decelerate then accelerate in exactly the opposite direction with no measurable time you could call "stop" with the right amount of energy/force applied in opposing directions.

Use an electric motor and change the polarity. It doesn't stop, it decelerates then instantly accelerates in the opposite direction, there is no measurable time period you could define as "stopped."

To effectively debate this, you need to define the period of time at which the object in question must not be moving in either direction to qualify as "stopped." If you break that down into small enough increments of time, than any object moving at any speed can be defined as "stopped" during each of those minute, miniscule increments of time. Even if it would not be "stopped" in layman's terms.

[Barbecueboy]

This is great......

What would you call that miniscule period between deceleration and acceleration in opposite direction when the object is doing neither?

Just asking.

[t.nie]

This is great.......

Read my post. I said with the right amount of energy/force applied, the period between deceleration/acceleration in the opposite direction could be non-existent. Objects can change direction, even reverse directions, without stopping, provided the right amount of force is applied. I would venture to say if an atom could survive the blast, and was travelling directly north into the detonation of a nuclear weapon at say, 1 mile per hour, the force of the blast would instantly reverse the atoms direction and propel it southward with no "stop" at all.

There are a lot of ways an object can instantly change/reverse direction without stopping, dependent on the size of the object and the force applied.

[Bubstr]

Oh contrare mon frere.......you said your self that the motion would stop.

And you are the final word in these things aren't you???? It MUST be true.

There are other examples available ( that are not hypothetical) wherein my example of straight ( level) forward can move to straight ( level) backwards on earth using the maintainable parameters......not too many, but there are a few out there.

None of which can be done without stopping between change of motion.
Your a smart man.....you will find them.

Ok show me these few examples. If they have mass, they transfer weight in a direction change, creating movement in the real world. Only in your mind, can these forces be removed.

Even your train on tight tracks will cause those tracks to compress ties and bed a couple inches as it travels and more when transferring weight due to force directional change. You can reinforce those tracks and it will only decrease deflection, not eliminate it. You can't even get a light ray not to move laterally or horizontally when getting reflected.

My agreement was, "In your mind it can happen, it can't happen in the real world. If you wish to prove your theory, prove it. Until then, it is a theory only.

[Barbecueboy]

Ok show me these few examples. If they have mass, they transfer weight in a direction change, creating movement in the real world. Only in your mind, can these forces be removed.

Even your train on tight tracks will cause those tracks to compress ties and bed a couple inches as it travels and more when transferring weight due to force directional change. You can reinforce those tracks and it will only decrease deflection, not eliminate it. You can't even get a light ray not to move laterally or horizontally when getting reflected.

My agreement was, "In your mind it can happen, it can't happen in the real world. If you wish to prove your theory, prove it. Until then, it is a theory only.

It will come to you.....I'm sure you will remember.....even 50 yrs later....lmao

A field full of wannabe scientists being stumped by a stupid redneck with a degree.....this is great!!!!!