This is literally all anyone needs to hear from you before making up their mind as to whether or not you're worth engaging.

i find it fun from time to time tbh.

1st a spring needed to be a compression spring to be a spring.

Then santara correctly pointed out there are 2 types of springs, but gave it a different name than what Cornell had. so he was "wrong".

then when it was pointed out that a slinky directly matches what Card's source states was a tension spring all of a sudden Cornell was in on it.

Then the object became, "find a function to prove a slinky is a spring".

Then "it cant lift a garage door, so it isnt a spring"

now it's back to needing a function.



I assume that since i pointed out that a slinky, by its nature as a toy, acts as a spring and that's it's whole reason it's a toy to begin with, that that will also be in on the conspiracy. perhaps tension is another Newtonian hoax that will have to be redefined in search of the truth.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 27 2017 11:32am

It's hilarious no doubt. But of you're serious about trying to get him to think logically or rationally? You're gonna have a bad time. The only way to go into a conversation with card is to think 'what hilarious shit is he gonna say now?' Cos if you're there for anything other than laughs it just ain't worth your time. Unless you're a psychiatrist maybe... I'm sure anyone interested in the field would find such an utterly fucked up brain extremely interesting.

So push a spring down some stairs - does it act even remotely similar - Can you explain why not? How can you not know this? It appears you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect- thinking you understand stuff when clearly dont. Also a spring does not have a useful mechanical function - because it mechanics are complete different, Helical coils are not springs, it is made to transfer tension to just the next coil in a slow sequential segmented manner and not made to exert/absorb a continuous and constant tension.



The page actually said so, I didn't make it up. I can't help you if you willfully choose to remain blind.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 27 2017 12:00pm

sure that's a simple question. the thickness of the base material compared to it's width and the overall diameter of the helical coils cause it to be rigid in only the vertical direction. so when pushed sideways the helical coil collapses, however because it is a spring in shape once the slinky hits the next stair it begins to pull coil by coil until the slinky is once again in a vertical stack. a slinky is balanced in such a way that once it stacks up it still has enough horizontal force to once again topple itself, and repeat.

i said at the start of all this, which u conveniently ignored, that a slinky is an incredibly weak spring, but is still a spring. i identified the base materials and the shape of the spring as the reason for it's weakness. feel free to page back a bit and re-read what i wrote if you doubt me.

Comparing a slinky to a spring is like comparing a bowl of jello and an ice cube and saying they're the same thing because they're both made of water

Its an incredible weak comparison.

You even say it yourself - it is designed to transfer its tension to the next coil , not continuously throughout its length. It function is completely different so you cant assume Gravity = recoil when dropping because the recoil force is not transferred throughout the entire length.

There's something else going on here, something some people dont want you to realize.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 27 2017 12:19pm

stil up

there is no comparison. a spring is defined by it's shape, and a slinky matches that description. there is no comparison at all. a slinky isn't LIKE a spring, a slinky IS a spring. the fact that it's a weak spring doesn't make it not a spring. your argument is a weak one, but it's still an argument.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 27 2017 12:11pm

I agree