|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 30, 2:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *Gerald, 366.242199 rotations of the earth every astronomical year * *is not a matter of "belief" but an observable fact! Anybody can make * *the measurement. But Oriel doesn't deny the measurement! He admits that 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is the period of stellar circumpolar rotation! He just doesn't think it's right for us to call it "rotation". The natural day and night cycle that averages to 24 hours is the only legitimate and proper Earthly rotation, as far as he is concerned. Why this doesn't make sense, why it would turn astronomy into a confused jumble in which no progress could be made - just the disaster that he thinks Newton inflicted - is something he just can't seem to understand. He doesn't want to listen, even when I attempt to explain the issue as best I can. John Savard |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 29, 1:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/29/11 11:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote: Dear Sam: *Merely repeating an equation error by mathematically dissecting the terms making up the variables, does NOT make pounds of force and acceleration be the same thing! *The only useful part of Newton's Second Law of Motion is just the MOMENTUM portion. *Momentum is apt in an "acceleration" equation, because the results of any vaguely useful calculation must first convert the acceleration to the instantaneous VELOCITY at the point in question. *That changes the errant equation to: F = mv, which is the textbook equation for MOMENTUM. *However, that equation, also isn't an equation, because forces in pounds can't be equated to feet/second. * *ILLUCID Illucid? Would you care to elucidate? I'll bet you can't do that. Also, Sam, please answer this question: "Is it ever possible to get out four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds of streak?" If you support Einstein, you have to say... "Yes". Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein — |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 29, 2:00*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/29/11 11:27 AM, NoEinstein wrote: I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation! * *The only thing you have demonstrated, John, is that you are * *untutored in both physics and mathematics. Dear Sam: The dumb need to be taught by others. The SMART can teach themselves without school! I've redefined the Universe without taking the nonsense found in any text as gospel. I'll bet you are still thumbing through texts to have points for your arguments. Learn to THINK, Sam, and your text-thumbing days are over! — NE — |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On 1/30/11 10:56 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 29, 2:00 pm, Sam wrote: On 1/29/11 11:27 AM, NoEinstein wrote: I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation! The only thing you have demonstrated, John, is that you are untutored in both physics and mathematics. Dear Sam: The dumb need to be taught by others. The SMART can teach themselves without school! I've redefined the Universe without taking the nonsense found in any text as gospel. I'll bet you are still thumbing through texts to have points for your arguments. Learn to THINK, Sam, and your text-thumbing days are over! — NE — Can you solve physics problems (classical mechanics), John? Can you start with the differential equation F = dp/dt and assuming constant force derive the equations for a flown ball? |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 29, 2:22*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:57*am, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 28, 3:39*pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Jan 28, 11:18*am, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 27, 9:53*pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote: CORRECTION: *Newton's 2nd Law of Motion has a useless equation (produces no useful data) that is F = ma... NOT F = ma^2! *I've written Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 so many times that my fingers didn't type what my mind knows. Which, all things being equal, is not all that much. *Note: The WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law is correct: "For every constantly applied force on an object, there will be a corresponding acceleration in the same direction as the force." *The reason my correct equation F = v/32.174 (m) uses VELOCITY (instead of "acceleration") is because the convention for expressing acceleration is to state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second. That makes the FORCE proportional to relative first second VELOCITY, which is analogous to the constant acceleration. *Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. *— NoEinstein — You have not managed actually disprove F=ma, or anything related to Newtonian mechanics. Your errors wouldn't survive scrutiny in a high school physics lab. BTW, learn to use symbols. [jackass still top posts] Dear Eric, Dunce 3: ***Is POUNDS the same thing as feet per second 'square'?*** Well, yes. Those are the units of the pound. Did you miss that part in high school? Dear Dunce 3: *The standard for scientific correctness isn't what the God damned Jewish publishers allow in their texts (high school texts, included)! I'm sure it is just a remarkable coincidence that a guy who rants against Einstein just pinched off a rant about 'the jews'. Regardless, let me see if I am reading you correctly. You seem to think the definition of the pound is a jewish conspiracy? *I can assure you that my CREDENTIALS are being made evident to the readers every day. I'll stipulate the truth of that. But let's expand on that further, John. In the ~4 years you've been ranting to USENET, have you actually managed to convince anyone that you are correct and that everyone else is wrong at a level that is testable in highschool physics labs which can be purchased with beer money? Eric: This link explains a $40.00 dropped object experiment which can be performed in any high school: Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en# *So far, your credentials relate only to your groundless put-downs of those of whom you are jealous, not to anything relating to real science. — NoEinstein — I've discussed real science plenty over the years. A google search is sufficient verification of that. Plus I do believe I just mentioned that d = 1/2 at^2 + vt is a useful consequence of F = ma and you chose to ignore that and instead rant about jewish book publishers. Eric: A big cause of the sad state of physics is due to the errant "Work-Energy Theorem." Too many mindless people see a "distance" and suppose that work must have been done to cause that distance. In actuality, a spaceship traveling 18,000 mph will keep going at that speed until acted upon by some opposing force. Coriolis saw falling objects covering greater and greater distances, and assumed, wrongly, that the KE is increasing exponentially. No one before yours truly has figured out that COASTING requires no associated FORCE. All of the errant physics from Coriolis to Einstein is due to the lack of understanding that KE dies NOT increase in proportion to the distance traveled, but only to the total TIME that the object is falling. An object falling for four seconds has four times more (non rest) KE than an object falling for just one second. At no point is the calculation of the distance of fall necessary! So, you don't impress me with any distance derivatives of an errant (non) equation, F = ma. My kinetic energy equation, KE = a/g (m) + v/ 32.174b (m). Will provide all of the useful information needed for most of mechanics. — NoEinstein — Do you have a response to that, or would you prefer to focus your ample free time on ranting about **** nobody cares about? [...] |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 29, 2:32*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:27*am, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 27, 9:53*pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote: CORRECTION: *Newton's 2nd Law of Motion has a useless equation (produces no useful data) that is F = ma... NOT F = ma^2! *I've written Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 so many times that my fingers didn't type what my mind knows. Which, all things being equal, is not all that much. *Note: The WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law is correct: "For every constantly applied force on an object, there will be a corresponding acceleration in the same direction as the force." *The reason my correct equation F = v/32.174 (m) uses VELOCITY (instead of "acceleration") is because the convention for expressing acceleration is to state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second. That makes the FORCE proportional to relative first second VELOCITY, which is analogous to the constant acceleration. *Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. *— NoEinstein — You have not managed actually disprove F=ma, or anything related to Newtonian mechanics. Your errors wouldn't survive scrutiny in a high school physics lab. BTW, learn to use symbols. [jackass still top posts] Dear Eric, the SHRIMP, Jewish, science flunk-out: Zero for three, John. I haven't claimed to have disproved the WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law of Motion. *I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation! I'll give you credit - that is a fascinating assertion. Thanks! Most that I say is fascinating, unless the reader happens to be shown to have EGG of his face! That is because "forces" (in pounds) can NEVER be equated to accelerations (in feet/second^2, [sic!])!! So John, did you _really_ just make that mistake? Force has units of [mass] * [length] / [time^2]. Just like F = ma says. No, Eric. Forces do not require an acceleration to BE! You are caught up in that now disproved "relativistic mass". If you took statics in engineering, like I did, you would understand that structures stand or fall, without any movement that could be quantified as an acceleration. Now, is the pound a unit of mass or a unit of force in imperial units? Were you not taught the metric system, or are you just so old that you don't give a ****? There's a reason the entire world minus the US has dropped imperial. I'm sure its' coincidence that it is next to impossible to find a system of units in use by a scientific paper that isn't a variation of metric. *You are from a class of psychos having the notion that you can increase your miniscule stature by trying to belittle others WITH statue in science. Who would that be, John? You are a psedononymous airmchair physicist who thinks he has 'disproved' F = ma. So you can not possibly expect me to believe that you have 'statue' [sic] in science. *Show the readers your status, Eric, by correctly answering this question: "Is it ever possible to get out 4 lbs. of hamburger after grinding up only 2 lbs. of steak?” *After you answer, or decline to answer, that question, no elementary school student will be holding YOU in high intellectual esteem. *— NoEinstein — That kind of question certainly does tell everyone the level at which you operate, doesn't it? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On 1/30/11 11:21 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
Thanks! Most that I say is fascinating, unless the reader happens to be.... ...knowledgeable in physics and realizes that you are a doofus less educated than Potter. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 29, 2:32*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:27*am, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 27, 9:53*pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote: On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote: CORRECTION: *Newton's 2nd Law of Motion has a useless equation (produces no useful data) that is F = ma... NOT F = ma^2! *I've written Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 so many times that my fingers didn't type what my mind knows. Which, all things being equal, is not all that much. *Note: The WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law is correct: "For every constantly applied force on an object, there will be a corresponding acceleration in the same direction as the force." *The reason my correct equation F = v/32.174 (m) uses VELOCITY (instead of "acceleration") is because the convention for expressing acceleration is to state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second. That makes the FORCE proportional to relative first second VELOCITY, which is analogous to the constant acceleration. *Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. *— NoEinstein — You have not managed actually disprove F=ma, or anything related to Newtonian mechanics. Your errors wouldn't survive scrutiny in a high school physics lab. BTW, learn to use symbols. [jackass still top posts] Dear Eric, the SHRIMP, Jewish, science flunk-out: Zero for three, John. I haven't claimed to have disproved the WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law of Motion. *I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation! I'll give you credit - that is a fascinating assertion. That is because "forces" (in pounds) can NEVER be equated to accelerations (in feet/second^2, [sic!])!! So John, did you _really_ just make that mistake? Force has units of [mass] * [length] / [time^2]. Just like F = ma says. Now, is the pound a unit of mass or a unit of force in imperial units? Were you not taught the metric system, or are you just so old that you don't give a ****? There's a reason the entire world minus the US has dropped imperial. I'm sure its' coincidence that it is next to impossible to find a system of units in use by a scientific paper that isn't a variation of metric. *You are from a class of psychos having the notion that you can increase your miniscule stature by trying to belittle others WITH statue in science. Who would that be, John? You are a psedononymous airmchair physicist who thinks he has 'disproved' F = ma. So you can not possibly expect me to believe that you have 'statue' [sic] in science. *Show the readers your status, Eric, by correctly answering this question: "Is it ever possible to get out 4 lbs. of hamburger after grinding up only 2 lbs. of steak?” *After you answer, or decline to answer, that question, no elementary school student will be holding YOU in high intellectual esteem. *— NoEinstein — That kind of question certainly does tell everyone the level at which you operate, doesn't it? Eric: I clicked "reply", again, because I "sent" before I had completely answered. I don't use the metric system, because such doesn't have pounds as the units for much of mechanics. The question you haven't answered involves getting out more... meat than was put in. Nature doesn't work that way. The Law of the Conservation of Energy-and-or-mass never allows getting out more than was put in! Coriolis put in the UNIFORM force of gravity, and gets out semi- parabolically increasing KE. That violates the Laws of Nature! Einstein's SR also gets out exponentially more Energy than is put in (Just a uniform velocity increase). So, if you believe anything your Jewish God, Einstein, said, then you most believe you can get out more than has been put in. But if you believe that, then PROVE IT! Being only half a clear thinker won't cut it, Eric. — NoEinstein — |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 30, 9:13*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...] But let's expand on that further, John. In the ~4 years you've been ranting to USENET, have you actually managed to convince anyone that you are correct and that everyone else is wrong at a level that is testable in highschool physics labs which can be purchased with beer money? Eric: *This link explains a $40.00 dropped object experiment which can be performed in any high school: *Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... That be a good experiment to demonstrate the concept of thixotropic solids, but that's about it. Try pulling the same trick with something like, say, an air hockey table and pucks of known masses. Or a ballistic pendulum style experiment. Or any number of high school / freshman physics experiments that aren't are retarded as what you've offered. Besides, the question was whether you actually convinced anyone else of your claims. Plus your link actually pointed to your quite severe misunderstandings of introductory physics. I'm sure you mentioned your idiotic experiment somewhere in that thousand post thread but I can't be ****ed to look through it. *So far, your credentials relate only to your groundless put-downs of those of whom you are jealous, not to anything relating to real science. — NoEinstein — I've discussed real science plenty over the years. A google search is sufficient verification of that. Plus I do believe I just mentioned that d = 1/2 at^2 + vt is a useful consequence of F = ma and you chose to ignore that and instead rant about jewish book publishers. Eric: *A big cause of the sad state of physics is due to the errant "Work-Energy Theorem." Too many mindless people see a "distance" and suppose that work must have been done to cause that distance. Oh boy. Do you SEE any reference to energy in that equation? Do you even know how that equation is derived? *In actuality, a spaceship traveling 18,000 mph will keep going at that speed until acted upon by some opposing force. Congratulations you ****ing idiot you managed to state Newton's first law. Do you know how sad it is that I am actually impressed you managed to get something right for once? *Coriolis saw falling objects covering greater and greater distances, and assumed, wrongly, that the KE is increasing exponentially. Apparently you don't know what the word "exponentially" means. *No one before yours truly has figured out that COASTING requires no associated FORCE. * What the **** are you talking about? All of the errant physics from Coriolis to Einstein is due to the lack of understanding that KE dies NOT increase in proportion to the distance traveled, Nobody ever said it did, idiot. Hint: I know what "proportion" means. There's a relation between distance traveled and kinetic energy, but it certainly isn't a proportional relationship. but only to the total TIME that the object is falling. *An object falling for four seconds has four times more (non rest) KE than an object falling for just one second. *At no point is the calculation of the distance of fall necessary! So, you don't impress me with any distance derivatives of an errant (non) equation, F = ma. *My kinetic energy equation, KE = a/g (m) + v/ 32.174b (m). Thoughts: 1) Kinetic energy is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. 2) Learn to use symbols in your equations. 3) Learn the ****ing metric system. *Will provide all of the useful information needed for most of mechanics. *— NoEinstein — For 'most of mechanics' you say? Let's take that at face value. And test it. I throw a superball off a cliff with a horizontal velocity of 10m/s. The cliff is 100m tall. 1) How far away from the cliff does the superball land? 2) What is the superball's speed when it hits the ground? 3) How long does it take for the superball to hit the ground? This is the type of thing I was able to answer. In high school. Do you have a response to that, or would you prefer to focus your ample free time on ranting about **** nobody cares about? [...] |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Draper, what is mass, fundamentally?
On Jan 30, 9:21*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...] I haven't claimed to have disproved the WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law of Motion. *I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation! I'll give you credit - that is a fascinating assertion. Thanks! *Most that I say is fascinating, unless the reader happens to be shown to have EGG of his face! I'll agree that you think what you say is fascinating. That is because "forces" (in pounds) can NEVER be equated to accelerations (in feet/second^2, [sic!])!! So John, did you _really_ just make that mistake? Force has units of [mass] * [length] / [time^2]. Just like F = ma says. No, Eric. *Forces do not require an acceleration to BE! Do you know what acceleration is, John? It is a change in velocity. If an object sitting still is pushed, and it starts to move, did it accelerate? *You are caught up in that now disproved "relativistic mass". I would say no, because relativity has absolutely nothing to do with what you are arguing about. Your difficulties lie squarely in the realm of "**** you are taught in high school and physics 101". *If you took statics in engineering, like I did, you would understand that structures stand or fall, without any movement that could be quantified as an acceleration. Duh. That's because in statics, the sum of all the forces is equal to zero so there is NO movement. Now, is the pound a unit of mass or a unit of force in imperial units? This question stands. [...] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
everyone correctly witness outside Chester when the systematic youths present onto the alive rear | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 10:19 AM |
Let's see if I understand this correctly | FB | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 20th 07 09:38 PM |
Do we really understand the Sun? | SuperCool Plasma | Misc | 0 | May 25th 05 02:48 PM |
Saturn's moons, now named correctly | Chris Taylor | UK Astronomy | 10 | November 15th 04 11:21 PM |