lost msg: Re: bad-faith argumentation (was *earth* vs. *wing*)

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

One last message, never sent earlier, probably useless now that I'm the
object of anger and disrespect.  More about the bird hovering in the cage,
and the fact that there is no force between bird and cage, even though the
cage REALLY IS just as heavy when the bird is hovering as when it is
resting on the bottom.



On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, John Denker wrote:

> I have also reiterated, and now re-reiterate, that persons of good faith
> should be able to see past the word games and comprehend the point I was
> trying to make.

For some reason there is a continuing and massive communication failure
between us, and I am unable to "see past the word games" and comprehend
your point, and therefor I ask you questions to clarify your points.  If
you then dismiss my QUESTIONS as also being "word games" and therefor
never answer them, then I feel frustration because I don't know what your
chain of reasoning really is.


> Many have done so, pointing out the analogy to the
> elementary physics puzzle regarding a closed container of birds.  What
> happens if the birds, rather than perching, are steadily flying inside the
> container?  Is the weight of the container decreased?

No, the net weight of the container is not decreased.  First of all, do we
agree that the bird launches air downwards, and that this air then
collides with the bottom of the cage?  If not, then I see no way to
proceed.

If we do agree about the moving air, then the situation seems very clear
to me. The bird accelerates a parcel of air downwards, and a force-pair
(call it "A") appears between the wings and that parcel of air, and as a
result the bird is pushed upwards, and the parcel of air is pushed
downwards.  Later, that parcel of air approaches the bottom of the cage
and is decellerated.  When this occurs, a second force-pair arises between
the downwards-moving parcel of air and the bottom of the cage (call it
force-pair "B"), and it pushes down upon the cage-bottom, and it also
pushes upwards upon the approaching air and stops its downward motion.

Here's a very imporant question: is there a direct or indirect force
between the bird and the bottom of the cage?  No.  Instead there are two
separate force pairs (pair-A and pair-B) which are separated in space and
in time, yet the direction and magnitude of those two separate force-pairs
is the same.  It *seems* as if the weight of the bird is pushing down on
the cage bottom, but it is not.  In order for there to be a (direct or
indirect) force-pair "C" between the bird and the bottom of the cage, that
new force-pair "C" must contain two opposite and equal forces : the bird
must push (indirectly) down on the cage-bottom, and as a consequence, the
cage-bottom must push (indirectly) upwards upon the bird.

However, our two force-pairs "A" and "B" explain everything, and therefor
we do not need to postulate a third force-pair "C" which appears between
the bird and the cage bottom.  No such force-pair exists or is needed.
How does the bottom of the cage push upwards upon the bird?  It doesn't.
Instead the bird pushes downwards upon the air, and if the bottom of the
cage did not exist, the downwards-moving parcels of air would continue
going downwards, and the bird would never know it.  They would eventually
be stopped by something, but this has no effect upon the bird.

To reiterate, if there is a force-pair "A" between the bird and the
downwards-moving air, and a second force-pair "B" between the
downwards-moving air and the bottom of the cage, then there is no need for
a third force-pair "C" which pushes upwards on the bird and downwards on
the cage bottom.  To put it bluntly, no force-pair exists between the bird
and the cage-bottom, even a time-delayed indirect force.

John, I still don't really know what your position is on this issue.  Do
you still state that there is a force between the high-flying airplane and
the earth's surface?  If so, then either you are clearly violating
Newton's 3rd law, or you have re-defined the word "force" so that it has
little to do with the "force" described by simple Newtonian Mechanics. If
you have a specialized personal definition for very commmon physics terms
such as "force" and "reaction motor", etc., then communication becomes
flat out impossible, and horrendous misunderstandings are constant and
unavoidable.  I will blame you for intentionally causing the
misunderstanding, and you in turn will blame me for intentionally causing
it.  What's the solution?



((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                             SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                             http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L