Can any of you nerds explain to me why this wouldn't work?
>>12370545Newton's Third Law
>>12370545because a magnet strong enough to pull the car forward would eventually run out. We don't notice magnets on earth losing their power because they are really weak in comparison to what would be needed to move a 2-ton vehicle.Think about the magnetic plate they use at the junkyard to lift crushed cars, it has to be powered with electricity for this reason
>>12370569You wouldn't need a 2 ton vehicle if you removed the engine and lightened the chassis.Besides you can always replace your magnet when it dies out.
>>12370545When a magnet pulls something close to it, its only able to do so because its overcoming the weight of the object. In this example the car would not move unless its so strong that the rod holding it breaks and it pulls the car to it and then they would be touching so no more movement.
>>12370551doesn't apply to magnetic forces
>>12370631to add to this, if the rod was in front of the car and the magnet was strong enough yes it would pull the car to it "for free", but then it would need energy to move the magnet away from it so you don't gain anything.
>>12370631Get a magnet heavier than the car, put it on wheels, attach it to the car with straight titanium rods.Fucking easy.
taking symmetry, which way would the car go?
>>12370645when the magnet pulls on the car, the car won't move anywhere if the magnet is attached. The magnet has to be stationary and not attached for the car to move. Because if it was attached then its either strong enough to pull the car's frame closer or its not. It will pull on it even with these titanium rods holding it in place, but what happens is the car exerts a force back to not move because they are linked together. You can try this yourself with some neodymium magnets a toy hot wheels car if you want, its not that hard to set up the experiment.
>>12370635It does in most cases. There are a few you can come up with where Biot-Savart Law does not at some points in time, but OP's case is not that. The system is closed, there are no external forces acting on it, there's fuck all reason for it to accelerate.
>>12370657>It does in most casesno, it really doesn't. it's like the first example you can give that instantly breaks the 3rd law. moreover, biot-savart only applies to situations where the divergence of current is zero (steady currents). that is a highly specialized case.you fundamentally have to attribute energy and momentum to the fields to recover things like momentum conservation (which in elementary mechanics is tied to the 3rd law).I know this is a stupid bait thread, but this isn't a stupid bait response
>>12370680>no, it really doesn'tI know that it REALLY doesn't and that magnetism is a relativistic phenomenon>it's like the first example you can give that instantly breaks the 3rd lawmore like the only example studied in elementary non-relativistic mechanics that breaks it, because again it's a relativistic phenomenon>biot-savart only applies to situations where the divergence of current is zero (steady currents). that is a highly specialized casewhich is what we have here, permanent magnets have no current sources>you fundamentally have to attribute energy and momentum to the fields to recover things like momentum conservation (which in elementary mechanics is tied to the 3rd law).do you really think somebody who struggles to understand this shit and gets baited in this thread will get all this shit you're saying? You have to take college level EM to start talking about the stress-energy tensor etc. for it not to sound like gobbledygook.
How is it that OP's pic won't work, but this one will work? Aren't they governed by the same basic problems of having an attractive force fixed/attached to your vehicle?
>>12370707>anti-gravity particlefind me one first and then we'll talk about whether it works or not
>>12370696it applies to electric force too, since it has a finite propagation speed, but you'd probably say that's all relativistic phenomenon. ditto with gravity.actually, permanent magnets do have bound currents. any magnetic phenomenon is ultimately due to charge in motion. technically, permanent magnets have zero divergence of free (everything that's not bound) current.
>>12370717it is still an open question whether antiparticles have negative mass. it's thought that they have positive mass, but no one has been able to experimentally verify that yet because it's hard to assemble enough antimatter in one place to observe how it behaves under the feeble influence of gravity. i personally think all mass is positive, but it'd be nice to have experimental verification
>>12370730>since it has a finite propagation speednot in classical mechanics. Geez dude, do you have to overcomplicate everything? Why not use QED to explain this, if we're sooo pedantic. Do you want to solve a ballistic problem with GR as well?>actually, permanent magnets do have bound currentsand you think I don't know that? You sound like a fucking jackass. Bound currents are irrelevant for this problem. Have you ever given a presentation or TAed in your life? You have to know your audience. Nobody gives a fuck that you know all this shit, when it's over everyone's heads and is not directly related to the problem at hand.
>>12370749If antiparticles have positive mass, virtual particles in vaccuum would violate the conservation of mass.
>>12370545Because you're a fuckin retard who doesn't understand the answer when it's presented.
>>12370758i think that can be resolved by distinguishing between gravitational and inertial mass>>12370757cope
>>12370545If I sat in the bed of a truck and tried to push it, would that work? That is what you are showing. If I tied a rope to 5he bumper and tried to reel it in from the cab, same thing
>>12370821future nobel laureate right here
>>12370793>by distinguishing between gravitational and inertial massoh yeah, denying a postulate of GR that has been experimentally verified with extremely high precision is definitely the way to goeither take your meds or try trolling better, it's too obvious
>>12370821not a closed system, there's reactive action since air is being blown backwards.
>>12370832i'm just pointing out that no one has done the experiment. note the healthy amount skepticism.I'm not aware of any theoretical GR arguments against having equal magnitude but opposite signed inertial and gravitational mass. is there one?
>>12370864https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experimenthttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.02907.pdfliterally googled this shit in a couple of minutes
>>12370545Troll physics are the best when the physics described as a troll actually work.>Can any of you nerds explain to me why this worked?
>>12370551You're neglecting Newtonin’s Fallacy.
>>12370864oh and forgot to add this>I'm not aware of any theoretical GR arguments against having equal magnitude but opposite signed inertial and gravitational mass. is there one?It's a POSTULATE you fucking retard. Postulates are not explained in a framework of a theory. Maybe when there is a more general theory like quantum gravity we will gain insight into why that is, but a theory in itself does not explain its own postulates by the fucking definition. Wtf do you mean by "opposite signed"? Mass is a scalar quantity and there's no evidence, experimental or theoretical, of negative mass.
>>12370569Not true. You could always attach a kinetic generator that repowers the magnet using the motion of the car
>>12370837There are no closed systems just obstructions.
>>12370545closed system. if one of the magnets wouldnt be connected with the car and be strong enough to pull the car, it would work .. till it connects and thats it ..
>>12370891But...isn’t the virtual particles dilemma valid enough to suggest negative mass, given that inertial and gravitational mass are one and the same? I’m GRlet so sorry if retarded
>>12370903can you link me to an article that claims to have experimentally discovered a graviton? I'll contact the Nobel committee immediatelybtw gravitons are massless particles. They have to be massless because gravity travels at the speed of light.
>>12370874we're more or less on the same level of understanding if you are googling things for me. here are some other interesting wiki articleshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_massevidently the Eötvös experiment only inidicates the quantities are proportional to each other, which leaves room for opposite but equali like studying the full range of implications for models in physics. even if there are dumb sounding ideas like negative mass, it's good to know why they are dumb and even better to have proof they are dumb. otherwise it's easy to overlook important features of your model. for instance, negative refractive index materials generated a huge amount of controversy when shown to exist, because people thought they were impossible.
>>12370912No? The magnet is on a rod, so it’s not part of the car system, especially if it acts as a spring. Look at maglevs.
>>12370913dude, clearly this guy is a GR brainlet too
>>12370915>The existence of the graviton must be demonstrated before that of the anti-graviton
>>12370913come up with a valid experimentally proven quantum gravity theory and we'll talk. Otherwise talking about GR in the context of QM is not fruitful at all.>>12370918same for you, buddy. I could not give a shit about antimatter and gravity, there's no experimental evidence to suggest that antimatter acts like negative mass or otherwise. We might speculate and developing theories that are way ahead of experiment is a historical routine, but all these talks about "what if" have about the same value as fairy-tales or religion until I see experimental evidence. Things like aether and phlogiston were accepted frameworks at the time before they got BTFOed by experiment.
>>12370925bruhpick up a QFT book. I suggest Schwartz's QFT and the Standard Model
>>12370933why are you so angry?
>>12370940I'm not, kek. This is just how I talk on 4chan. I'm a lonely guy arguing with crackpots on a Laotian seabass-angling forum, what can I say.
>>12370545Magnets are pulling towards each other equally and are both part of the same structure. Draw a free body diagram for fucks sake.
>>12370925>>12370915>>12370903>>12370717>>12370707Gravity can't be quantified, it simply is
>Arguing about quantum mechanics and GR in a bait thread about newton's 3rd law
>>12370545nobody understands how magnets work, scientists have yet to come up with a reasonable, believable explanation for the phenomenon thats why the magnets meme originated
>>12370545The movement of the car comes from the magnets moving closer together - that is a very small distance. For the car to move continuously, they'd have to stay apart, but in that case, the car wouldn't move.
>>12370707>anti gravity particleWell, we don't know if we can get an anti grav particle, and we don't know if we could stablelize it like in this image
>>12370894it would still consume more energy than it generates
>>12370545technically speaking electric cars are already powered by magnets, since electric motors utilize magnets.
>>12371277Yeah you know magnets? Magneto. Fuck off
>>12370545Because the part of the mechanism right of the magnet is being pulled toward the guy in the car as hard as the guy in the car is being pulled toward the magnet, with the result that nothing happens, other than maybe the magnets getting closer to each other by bending the arm.
>>12370545Because it just wouldn't okay
No unbalanced force therefore no acceleration
If the magnets are strong enough, they will attach. And by the looks of it the right one will move towards the left one.If they are not strong enough, nothing happens.
>>12370925Simply epic! How will he ever recover?!
>>12370545The bar on the top prevents you from moving closer
>>12370545try it for yourself.
>>12370545Force pulling you forward equals force pulling you back, so it should even out to no movement?
Why wouldn't this work?
I can't believe you faggots fell for an obvious troll. For fucks sake he even used the troll face.
>>12370545Don't listen to any of these CIA robots, have you ever actually SEEN this not working? Like in real life?No, cause then you wouldn't buy the gas that keeps the psychic vampires' blood flowing. REAL EYES REALIZE REAL LIES
>>12370545if you need it explained then you won't be able to comprehend the explanation therefore there's not point in explaining it to you in the first place.
>>12370569low iq>>12370551high iq
>>12370881woah this is old 2010? also its called football, american retard
what is he hiding in this vid, something about this is deepfaked?https://youtu.be/6KBSCNeMUrk
>>12370585but it runs out in hours due to fossil magnet fuel
Looks like it would cause the vehicle to tip over forward instead of actually moving forward.
>>1237054550%. It either happens or it doesn't
>>12375664It would work for one second as the vehicle and arm approach each other, then they'd stick together and no more movement occurs.
>>12370545the magnetic forces are canceled by normal forces inside the shaft
>>12377273>>12376039>>12370545It does work you retards, there even is a video.You people are so quick to dismiss this kind of stuff, it's embarrassing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxZKLUAzQ7g
>>12376030The leafblower propels him forward, retard.
Okay, but why wouldn't this one work?
>>12377381Because it violates Newton's 3rd law.
>>12376030funny thing is he'd go faster if he turned the blower around and used it like a jet, no sail needed. in his case, he's blowing himself backwards but the force on the sail exceeds the force pushing him back for a net forward force. with the jet all the forces are in the same direction
>>12370545Try it. Does it work? No rationalization required, the phenomena just doesn't exist. Or I can just say the magnets exert the same force on each other in opposite direction, and as they are connected will not cause acceleration. If you want something like this to work use a railgun
I will not let another troll science thread die so young
I really wonders if those fagots personally seen magnets "run out" especially electromagnets.
>>12378861i miss the older days.
>>12378861When applied, this is technically correct, perfect circles can't physically exist haha, especially if you draw one with a graphite pencil π= whatever the material used to draw the circle
>>12370648This is the best answer
>>12378915Don't let the newfags and retards get you down, anon. Times have changed, but we can still have a bit of fun.
>>12370545It does actually work, but the military industrial complex doesn't want you to know this.
>>12370545For the same reason a hook wouldn't work, OP, these are functionally identical. You have basically created one solid, cohesive structure instead of one thing pulling another thing.
>>12379389Yeah but why wouldn't the right side of the equation work as well?
>>12379405No work is done.
>>12375664No because the second it gets closer it will fall off.
>>12379405Because it's not actually pulling anything, it's just connecting it.
At first this seems obviously it can't work, but the more I think about this, the more I think it'll work.I mean the proportions are wrong. You'd need a very deep boat to get lots of water pressure. The shape of the straw is wrong too. You need a large opening at the boat side and small nozzle at the water jet side.
>>12379543the water won't climb higher than it's level. >>12379563impossible.
Why wouldn't this work? Explain it to me without Newton's Third Law.
>>12370821FUCK I JUST GOT MY PHD IN PHYSICS DELETE THIS
>>12370545Stand in a bucket and try lifting yourself up by the handle. It won't work for exactly the same reason.
>>12370545whats your age, son?
>>12370545the magnet on the car pulls with the same force as the magnet in front of it. both are pulling in opposite directions, so no net movement exists
>>12380109That sounds like a shitty pogo stick, use a spring instead of bags of sand.
>>12380399Maybe if you could manage shielding for one direction of a pull, it would be possible with modern materials.