Science already knows the magic of gravity

Weird.
I wonder how that didn't come up when I searched yesterday.
Regardless, it's bugger all to do with what TC is talking about.
(On the other hand I can see him introducing the terms "nonlinear interaction time scales" and "universal scaling conjecture" into his bullshit at some point in the near future).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well my definition of use is different to that, if I had a 1kg weight on a set of scales and lifted the 1 kg upwards without the object leaving the scales I can lift it to a critical balance of zero on the scales, a normal force of zero.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not a Critical Balance... you CANNOT just recreate the meaning of words/phrases at will... why do you not grasp that concept?

By comparing an object to a 1kg weight on a scale, you are equalizing it against the 1kg weight... in other words, you are "balancing" it. That is not "critical balance".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not balancing it, I am lifting it, the weight is transferred to me. I am critically balancing the critical mass against the force of gravity to remove all surface pressure on the scales of the object,

I have to put in energy.

 

You are balancing the critical mass...?

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

A critical mass is the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. The critical mass of a fissionable material depends upon its nuclear properties (specifically, thenuclear fissioncross-section), its density, its shape, its enrichment, its purity, its temperature, and its surroundings. The concept is important in nuclear weapon design.

Okay... after some additional google-fu, I think I know what the hell our problem is...

You are using the terms "Critically balanced" and "critical mass"... as near as I can tell, these ARE legitimate terms in regards to Carp Rig creation...

http://www.chubfishing.com/cache/files/8732-1308050766/DaveSpringallArticle-TotalCarp.pdf

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gardner-Tackle-Critical-Mass-Rig-Putty-Carp-Fishing-/150620031244
Gardner Tackle Critical Mass Rig Putty Carp Fishing

So... in this instance, they are using "critically balanced" for some unknown term - I cannot find a concrete definition on what they are using it for.
Critical Mass is a BRAND of Rig Putty used in weighting the line.

TC, you have my apologies - as I am not a fisherman, I was not aware of this usage of these words.

That said... in the scientific community, they have VASTLY different meanings for Critical Mass (see above) and "Critically Balanced" is used in Magnetohydrodynamics ONLY.

We weren't just misunderstanding each other... we were talking two different zip codes entirely...

 

No worries , I think we often mean two different things, carp fishing has a science , the science of carp fishing.

Although we have two different meanings, I hope you now see my definition of use.

The problem is I mean both definitions sometimes, because most of my ideas have no actual definition.

I am saying that if I lift a 1 kg mass I can suspend it at an exact equilibrium to zero on a set of scales without the mass leaving the scales, sort of floating above the scales by my own hand.

I have to apply 9.81n of force from my self to lift the object where my body then is at a constant energy loss to the lift equal to 9.81n of force.

 

The energy expended is proportional to the work exerted - http://www.physicsclassroom.com/calcpad/energy

Okay, so now that that all is cleared up... I have no idea where the scales explanation originated from anymore 0_o

 

Helium is indeed affected by gravity. If you went outside the atmosphere and filled a balloon with helium and released it, it would fall just as fast as a sphere of lead. Therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

 

That's pretty clear!

No. Applying a constant force to keep an object stationary requires zero energy.

 

No, the idea of pseudo is to discuss pseudoscientific ideas. A discussion involves two sides. If you just want compliments, go to emergencycompliments.com. If you want to just write up your woo, then write it in a file and save it. If you want to DISCUSS it then post it here - but then it will be DISCUSSED. And if it is woo, that will be pointed out.

Absolutely. However, you are not that poster. You don't understand enough to be right; you barely understand enough to be wrong.

 

Over what distance? 0 meters? Then the energy needed is 0.

 

0_o yea

 

No, you are saying that picking up a heavy object expends no energy from the human body, why do we tire then when heavy lifting and weaken?

 

No. I am saying that holding an object stationary requires no energy. Nothing about the human body. If you replace your body with a table, the table expends no energy holding up the heavy object.

 

He is correct - the energy expended is dependent on the distance traveled (excluding situations where you are unable to move it due to it exceeding your muscular output). The energy required to move an object zero distance is, well, zero.

 

You are not moving the object zero distance you are lifting the object a micro distance.

 

Then the energy expended would correlate to the distance lifted. Without knowing the exact figures (weight, distance moved, etc) it's impossible to tell the exact energy used.

 

The weight starts at 9.81n with a 1kg mass, the distance moved can me measured by using a spring and record the crest movement of the spring or a ruler would work and see how far the pan rises on the ruler to get 0.

 

Or you could use a winding mechanism rather than the hand for preciseness

 

Best advice I can give is to read this:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/momentum.html