So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions. There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

It is written that in the last days, knowledge will increase, but it doesn't mention anything about wisdom. You can see that very clearly in the world system, that for all of mans hubris regarding his accomplishments, the character of man has not changed one iota. The evil that is done in this world is symptomatic of a disease that has no modern cure, which is called sin, and all who sin are slaves to sin. This is why Jesus came into the world, to free men from slavery to sin and death. Investigating 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature is never going to reveal that to you. There is no knowledge that you can gain from studying the natural world which is going to solve the problem of sin; it is only Jesus Christ who has solved this problem.

Yes, you're correct, the bible is not a science book; it is a salvation book. God inspires men to do great things in science; just ask Newton. Yet there are two questions science cannot answer; why am I here, and what happens after I die? No experiment will give you any revelation on these matters. They are the most important questions, and Jesus did answer them. He said we are here because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, and there will be a judgment after we die that determines where we end up. That is why, if Satan came to your door and gave you a deed to all of the nations of the world and all of their wealth (hundreds of trillions at the least), in exchange for your soul, you would have made an unprofitable deal. Everything in this world is perishing and will pass away, but those who do the will of God will abide forever.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^shinyblurry:
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, Huygens, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' to 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, Huygens, Laplace, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' to 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, Huygens, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'God, Gaps, Neil deGrasse Tyson, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' to 'Newton, Ptolemy, Galileo, science, creation, universe, bible, heaven, atheist' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'one minute physics, hollow earth, gravity, heat, newton, 1mp' to 'one minute physics, hollow earth, gravity, heat, newton, 1mp, vsauce' - edited by lucky760

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

^ Will a poem do?

The standard model of particles, founded 50 years ago,
By abdus salam, steve weinberg and sheldon glashow.

They theorised three new forces, through which we used to find.
That gravity isn't the only all pervading influence of its kind.

The strong force exchanges gluons, of nuclear design.
Forgive the sense of humour, science needs a focused mind.

Before that comes the weak force, which must be overcome,
To fuse elements together and create a heavier one.

E-M forces follow; with yet a greater range,
"Quantum electrodynamics" uses photons to exchange.

Gravity we discovered first, Newton lead the way.
Applying it to the planets to map the celestial ballet.

From the smallest to the largest, we arrive at the present day.
The "Theory of Almost Everything"; so close yet so far away.

(Needs a bit of work!)

Yes I found a reasonably clear explanation, and added it as a postscript to my earlier comment after you'd quoted it, but before I got the e-mail notification.
>> ^messenger:

[...]
If momentum = velocity mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.
A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.

The cradle is better than the track because it allows for larger weights, where the track would require a denser material or hollow particles; but the track is easier for measuring incoming and outgoing force because on a steady grade, it’s simply a measure of distance, which is easy to capture roughly, even without a camera.

If momentum = velocity*mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.

A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.>> ^oritteropo:

Thanks <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.
There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.
>> ^messenger:
That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

Thanks

I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.

There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.

p.s. Didn't find that one, but did find a good explanation of the one vs two ball collision issue in Newton's cradle:



Based on that, I wonder if a slowmo of the ball in the original video might've shown that it bounced slightly before coming to rest?
>> ^messenger:

That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

This thread has gotten me very curious to try all these things out for myself.

As far as equally weighted particles go, what you describe is not what we observe. We always see the same number of particles leave as came in, no matter their total momentum. A single particle going 1m/s ejects one particle also going 1m/s (I'm talking in ideal terms). A single particle going 2m/s doesn't release two particles going 1m/s, just one going 2m/s. The same particle going 100m/s likewise doesn't release 100 particles going 1m/s, nor 50 going 2m/s nor any other combination. As the force passes through the stationary particles, there's nothing to say what the mass or velocity of the striking particle was, just what the product of those two things was.

As for different sized particles, not having seen this done, if a solid (I mean a single piece, or welded together) 2kg particle came in at 1m/s, I predict a single 1kg particle would be ejected at 2m/s. My reason is the same as above: that when one ball strikes, the only information transmitted through the stationary particles is the total amount of force, not the velocity or mass of the striking object. Thus, the force transmitted through the stationary particles would be identical whether a 1kg ball struck at 2m/s or a 2kg ball struck at 1m/s. All this force is transmitted into the last ball which leaves with the same amount of force in the form of velocity as a factor of its mass, whatever that may be.

I think fusing the two balls together would fundamentally change their behaviour. I think when two loose balls hit together, the first one hits the stationary ones, bounces back towards the second ball which then stops, sending a second shock wave through the stationary particles, thus sending two signals very close together, and releasing two particles out the other side.

To continue the thought experiment, what if it were a 1.2kg particle striking a row of 1kg balls? I think it would be one particle going out at 1.2m/s, rather than 1 particle at 1m/s and a second at 0.2m/s or two of them together at 0.6m/s.>> ^heathen:

As you said momentum is mass velocity, and force is mass acceleration.
It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)
In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.
The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

>> ^messenger:

I know that multiple balls hitting one side will cause multiple balls to be released from the other side, but momentum isn't measured by counting the incoming particles; it's measured by mass velocity, and that's all. One ball hitting with great speed usually releases one ball at great speed out the other side. Two balls with very low speed, even with less total momentum than the single fast-moving ball, will release two balls from the other side at the same low speed. It's something about the number of particles, not their momentum, that determines how many are ejected.

As you said momentum is mass*velocity, and force is mass*acceleration.

It's the mass of the particles entering that determines the mass of the particles leaving.
As the balls in a Newton's cradle all have equal mass it's tempting to restate that as the number of particles rather than the mass of the particles.
However if you designed a cradle to have four 1kg balls and one 2kg ball then swinging the 2kg ball would cause two 1kg balls to be displaced. (The same effect as taping or gluing two 1kg balls together.)

In a normal Newton's Cradle the acceleration, due to gravity, is constant.
The constant mass and constant acceleration cause the predictability, as the only energy lost is to air resistance and other negligibles such as sound or minimal compression of the balls on impact.

The forces introduced by the magnet scale inversely with distance, making the outcome a lot more unpredictable.

I know that multiple balls hitting one side will cause multiple balls to be released from the other side, but momentum isn't measured by counting the incoming particles; it's measured by mass*velocity, and that's all. One ball hitting with great speed usually releases one ball at great speed out the other side. Two balls with very low speed, even with less total momentum than the single fast-moving ball, will release two balls from the other side at the same low speed. It's something about the number of particles, not their momentum, that determines how many are ejected.>> ^oritteropo:

Try splitting the beads in a Newton's cradle so there are more than one swinging in at the end, like this:
[embed removed]
It's not that the balls know anything in particular, it's that the momentum generated by a single ball is enough to dislodge an equal ball from the other end. In the case of the three balls, there is the right amount of momentum to dislodge three balls.
Now, when we have a magnet involved the single bead is accelerated towards the magnet at a great rate of knots imparting extra momentum so it's now equivalent to many balls (with just gravity) and the only thing stopping all the balls on the other side of the magnet flying off is that the same magnetic force is stopping the closer ones from moving.
>> ^messenger:
Love it, as with just about anything with Sixty Symbols.
I'd like to know why two balls broke off, rather than one, which is what happens in Newton's Cradle, no matter how hard to smack them. The row of particles has no way of knowing that the incoming particle was accelerated before it struck, so there must be something else at work here. I wonder if it's the incoming particle shifting the whole mass in the negative direction as it pulls on the magnet, and if the magnet were fixed in place if just one ball would move off.