Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
Hlass

When hanging a flat rectangle on the wall.....

Which way is best?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. ?

    • Horizontal of course. Are you retarded?
      5
    • Vertical for life, bitches
      6
    • Both are good, I just don't care anymore
      8


Recommended Posts

I'm just going to go with that you either don't understand, or you really don't understand.

I'm going with you've talked yourself into a corner with a massless, frictionless, non-existant concept that has no forces of physics acting on it, and you really, really don't want to admit it.

 

It has mass. It has friction. Its flat. The only force working on it is gravity. The only force holding it up is velcro.

 

I'm happy to read anywhere where I said it had no mass, friction, gravity and no force working against anything.

Sure:

 

nice try.

 

but is it possible to hang a theoretical rectangular object not even the breadth of the atoms of which it is not comprised? no. no its not.

"flat" means zero. And thanks, it is a nice try.

In response to a quesiton about the object being at least the breadth of the atom, you responded that no, it had zero breadth.

 

What's the difference between an object that has zero breadth and a non-existant object?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a bunch of nerds, y'all are having a really hard time distinguishing between real life and make believe.

 

 

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a bunch of nerds, y'all are having a really hard time distinguishing between real life and make believe.

For someone who can apparently talk themselves into a woman's pants in ten seconds flat, you are taking a long time talking yourself out of a corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a bunch of nerds, y'all are having a really hard time distinguishing between real life and make believe.

 

 

'

Ahhh

So you are in make believe land where objects can be zero atoms thin!

Now I understand where you are coming from..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this thought experiment where zero thin rectangles that have no mass have gravity apply to them, what gravity? The gravity & friction is just as existant as the rectangle, since it's just a thought experiment. We may as well define them are an implosive force acting on the rectangle, reducing it from a two dimension object to a one dimensional object. After all, it's a thought experiment, it's all imaginary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has mass. It doesn't have depth.

 

Why is this such an impossible idea to comprehend?

 

I'd get it if you just didn't understand, but you seem somehow offended of the thought of an imaginary object having mass.

 

 

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has mass. It doesn't have depth.

 

Why is this such an impossible idea to comprehend?

 

I'd get it if you just didn't understand, but you seem somehow offended of the thought of an imaginary object having mass.

Because the idea of a physics thought experiment is to test the laws of physics without having to create a system in real life.

 

An object with mass an no volume by it's very nature has infinite/undefined density of mass.

 

You are talking about a thought experiment that involves ripping the nature of space and mass apart, simply to save face? Good Grief.

 

In any event, something that is flat can have a thickness. Flatness refers to the a state of being a level surface, not the thickness, regardless of how it might be used colloquially (incidentally, it's not used colloquially to refer to an object without thickness anyway). So really, this entire "tail chasing" act is a pointless charade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about a thought experiment that involves ripping the nature of space and mass apart, simply to save face? Good Grief.

By simplifying things, I'm ripping the nature of space and mass apart? Did you study drama instead of physics by any chance?

 

And it's not to save face, it started out to just save time. It started before everyone went full retard talking about cross breezes, pivot points of parallel objects and pterodactyls.

 

It think its gone rather well.

 

 

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By simplifying things, I'm ripping the nature of space and mass apart? Did you study drama instead of physics by any chance?

 

And it's not to save face, it started out to just save time. It started before everyone went full retard talking about cross breezes, pivot points of parallel objects and pterodactyls.

 

It think its gone rather well.

If by simplify you mean "save time to back up my overly simplistic idea of how this might work".

I'll remind you I'm not the one who started with the "gravity goes down, duuuhhh" tone, while asserting that a velcro adhered object won't have any forces but downward motion acting on them.

 

In any event, this has gone on enough. It's all there in the text, until you retrospectively edit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by simplify you mean "save time to back up my overly simplistic idea of how this might work".

My apologies for thinking that sticking something to a wall with velcro isn't simple.

 

I'd like to formally withdraw my overly simplistic idea of sticking a flat rectangle to a wall.

 

I will also add at this point that I will not be editing anything I have already posted. I will be leaving it as a warning to anyone that dares to think that sticking something to a wall with velcro is a simple exercise.

 

 

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's been pretty fun :)

 

I'm about to post a thread about an equally important topic. Keep your eyes peeled!

 

*EDIT* Topic up, bitches!

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This easily gets my POTM nomination for December :)

Hmmm It's a tough call I think Tanty's new one might give it a run for its money though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if the frame was flat to the wall the force would be equal across the whole thing, as it would be dropping straight down with gravity. If that is the case then there will be no pivot point because the top wont be falling horizontally, but vertically with the rest of the frame, right?

There may be a pivot point if the section of wall where the rectangle is positioned is prone to breezes ie; air-con vents and / or natural breezes.

 

 

It will only have an up/down pivot point if the velcro is horizontal. If the velcro is vertical for the full height of the picture, it will only have sideways pivot points which shouldn't be a problem.

 

No, it will have horizontal pivot points, gravity doesn't change direction.

 

If the strips of velcro run the length of the frame, it will not have any pivot points up or down, but if it has a breeze blowing past it, it will have left and right pivot points. I never said it changes gravity, that reply was to the whole wind/draught thing.

What happens if the breeze blowing comes at the rectangle from above, or below the rectangle ? Also if the breeze is warmer than the ambient temp of the room it will affect the velcro closest to the initial onset of said breeze ...yeah ?

 

 

 

Assuming that the object is flat (as per the OP) but not massless, nor of zero thickness then you are right, and you are wrong.

A flat object with lots of symmetry like this one, will have a balance point that we can assume (because this is a thought experiment) will be in the middle on all axes of the rectangle (I'm assuming we are hanging it level as well). However, it's offset from the wall by the thickness of the velcro.

+11Billionty to this :)

 

For a bunch of nerds, y'all are having a really hard time distinguishing between real life and make believe.

For someone who can apparently talk themselves into a woman's pants in ten seconds flat, you are taking a long time talking yourself out of a corner.

 

I just quoted this ... 'cause I want to :)

 

You are talking about a thought experiment that involves ripping the nature of space and mass apart, simply to save face? Good Grief.

By simplifying things, I'm ripping the nature of space and mass apart? Did you study drama instead of physics by any chance?

 

And it's not to save face, it started out to just save time. It started before everyone went full retard talking about cross breezes, pivot points of parallel objects and pterodactyls.

 

I think it's gone rather well.

 

 

'

 

So do I. Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, here is the graphic from Velcro Australia product brochure that I meant top upload earlier...

 

Posted Image

 

A couple of points....

 

A flat rectangle of zero thickness will have zero mass...therefore there will not me any gravitational forces subjected to the rectangle, and thus you can orientate the velcro any way you want, it isn't going anywhere.

 

Because the velcro is affised to one side of the rectangle, as soon as the rectangle gains thickness, then its centre of gravity is not going to be directly through the centre of the hooks and loops, but instead, offset from wall, and the plane of attachment of the hooks and loops. Therefore, there will also be a lateral force along with the gravitational force, and since the strips will have attaching points at the top to the bottom, the bottom most point will become the pivot point for the weight of the rectangle to fall, and the top of the rectangle will pull away from the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to once again offer a rebuttal to "you people" who for some reason cannot fathom something being zero width, but still having mass:

 

Posted Image

 

 

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to once again offer a rebuttal to "you people" who for some reason cannot fathom something being zero width, but still having mass:

 

Posted Image

 

 

'

Retort

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I disagree ReapermanRS, with his last post, Foods nailed it !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotta admit, Foods flat out embracing his idiocy is his only defense. Just wading into shit creek and screaming "god damn this cool river is refreshing!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×