Ahh, ok, I wondered what it was.
It doesn't seem to make much sense for what you mention but, well, never mind.
I realise it involves thinking. I guess I expected too much from you.
It absolutely does.
The supposed law cannot exist because what it mentions cannot happen.
It does, it can and it does. Your failure to understand it doesn't change that.
To get any object into motion you must apply a force
That's exactly what Newton's first law says.
and that applied force can only happen if you use resistance in order to apply it.
And so is that.
Then you have to overcome resistance to that applied force externally
Yes, that's what the "net external force" part of the law means.
which means keeping a movement you have to apply equal force against unequal resistance to it
Equal force to what? An unequal resistance? That makes no sense.
, meaning you lose any uniform motion.
"Uniform motion" just means "travels at the same speed in the same direction".
"Net force" just means that you add together ALL the forces acting upon something (taking into account the direction of those forces) to come up with a single value and direction to describe it all. For example, if you were to push a book away from yourself across a table, while at the same time somebody else is standing on the other side pushing the book back towards you with
exactly the same force that you're pushing it with, then the "net force" is zero, therefore the book won't move. On the other hand, if the other person isn't as strong as you and is only pushing the book back to you with
exactly half the force that you're pushing it with, then the "net force" would be 50% of the force that you are pushing the book with, and the book will move across the table away from you.
If instead you're dealing with an object that's already moving, then the rule is the same, but now you have to make sure you're taking into account the drag factor - i.e. how much force is being applied to the moving object by the table surface. If it's a nice shiny marble on a nice shiny flat table, then the drag is minimal and the ball will roll easily, but if there's a tablecloth on the table then the marble won't roll as easily, and if it's a piece of thick shag carpet on the table then the marble will struggle to roll very far at all.
That drag factor is also a force.
Now, if we were to use our imagination a little, and pretend it would be possible for a marble to be
perfectly smooth and for the table to be
infinitely long and
perfectly smooth to the extent that the drag factor is eliminated
completely and that in this fantasy scenario there are absolutely no other forces acting upon the marble once it is already rolling, then in that situation the marble would continue rolling forever,
HOWEVER we have to acknowledge that such a scenario is impossible in reality because it's impossible for a table or a marble to be
that smooth that no drag exists at all.
The only way it can work is in fantasy. Sci-fi where you somehow offer a force by using some kind of resistance to get it into motion and then offer zero reactionary force against the object, meaning you're talking about a fantasy space vacuum.
Exactly. As long as we're talking about experiments we can perform here on Earth, there will always be
some "net external force
", whether that is due to the friction at the point of contact between the object and the surface it's moving across, or from wind resistance if we're talking about an object moving through air, or from gravity or atmospheric stacking if we're talking about an object you've thrown upwards into the air, which is exactly why no unpowered object on Earth will ever continue in a straight line at the same speed forever.
Even Mag-Lev trains that completely remove the surface friction will still suffer from air resistance, and therefore would come to a stop eventually if the device that propels it forward were turned off.
That so-called third law is nothing more than a fantasy.
You've just described exactly why it is NOT a fantasy.
There are only two laws attributed to Newton which are correct
Which two?
but those two laws are basically just one law offered as two, so realistically there is only one basic law that offers reality.
No, that's not correct.
You haven't described how it works.
I absolutely have. If you don't understand it and you want me to explain it in simpler terms, feel free to ask.
It's a good story but nonsensical.
Why is it nonsensical? Just because you can't get your head around something doesn't mean it's nonsense.
Of course. It's so magical and that's why people get duped into the wonderful stories of spinning Earths and blazing millions/billions/trillions/quadrillions/gazillions of miles away suns millions of miles in diameter and so on and so on and so on. It gets more nonsensical as it goes on.
There's no magic involved. If it was a supposedly fundamental force that only worked when atmosphere was present and then stopped working when there was no atmosphere,
then it would be magical. Or at the very least it wouldn't be "fundamental", it would be a derivative net force.
There
you go.
There you go.
whilst the moon pulls the water from the oceans.
The moon does apply a force on the oceans, yes, hence the tides that we can observe operating in exactly the way you would expect them to if there were a force being applied to them by the moon.
The moon is much smaller and lighter than the Earth though, therefore the gravitational force acting upon the oceans from the moon is much smaller than the gravitational force acting upon the oceans from the Earth, therefore the net force (gravity of the earth minus the gravity of the moon) holds the oceans to the planet Earth, while the relatively small force of gravity from the moon orbiting the Earth is enough to drag the tides in and out as the position of the moon changes relative to the planet, in a perfect mathematically-predictable way.
It's also exactly how we discovered the planet Neptune. We observed Uranus closely and noticed that there was a weird wobble in its movement that couldn't be explained by the known forces acting upon by the other bodies in the solar system. Using the mathematical formulae that describe gravity, it became obvious that there must be another large object that we'd never detected before, asserting a force upon Uranus at certain points in its orbit, and more than that: they could use those formulae to work out exactly where that object should be. They then focussed their telescopes at the part of the sky that the maths suggested this object should be and BOOM - Neptune - exactly where the maths of gravity said it should be.
It's so contradictory and silly but it is a good old funny story, I will admit that.
There's no contradiction at all, there's just your failure to understand it and unwillingness to learn.
Exactly. Just like we would see regardless of which of us is right about the shape of the planet and the science of why the water falls off the ball.
In one case, not both. We don't live on a spinning globe.
In both cases. The entire point of the question is that we make no conclusion about the shape of the planet or the science of why water falls before we start. Let's pretend we've built two worlds as simulations in a computer.
In the first simulation, the world is a lemon squeezer/flat Earth and science works the way you describe it. Everything about simulation 1 is exactly how
you would program a perfect simulation of
your reality.
In the second simulation, the world is a globe and science works the way I describe it. Everything about simulation 2 is exactly how
I would program a perfect simulation of
my reality.
In both simulations, we perform the same experiment: pouring a jug of water onto a football to see what happens.
In the first simulation (sim- cell Earth), the water falls off the football onto the floor, just like it does in observable reality.
In the second simulation (sim - globe Earth), the water falls off the football onto the floor, just like it does in observable reality.
Therefore the logical conclusion is that "pouring water on a football can not tell us what shape the world is, because the same thing would happen regardless of whether the world was a cell or a globe".
