Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:05:24 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:42:02 -0000, "Androcles"

|
| A dog operates like a drug detector.
| A car operates like a roller skate.
| A amplifier operates like an orchestra.
| Got any other irrelevant drivel to argue?
| We are discussing the direction of a force, and it is NOT radial.
| There is no radial force normal to a plane, planes do not have a centre
| of curvature.
|
| I might prefer to talk cricket today....
|
| HAHAHAHHA!
| ....8-140 in 34 overs and the poms still couldn't win....
|
The ashes are ours shrug.
Back to the subject. Indicate the blue radial force arrow.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/IndexImages/tangential.JPG

The ones in the middle.

Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:05:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:42:02 -0000, "Androcles"
|
| |
| | A dog operates like a drug detector.
| | A car operates like a roller skate.
| | A amplifier operates like an orchestra.
| | Got any other irrelevant drivel to argue?
| | We are discussing the direction of a force, and it is NOT radial.
| | There is no radial force normal to a plane, planes do not have a
centre
| | of curvature.
| |
| | I might prefer to talk cricket today....
| |
| | HAHAHAHHA!
| | ....8-140 in 34 overs and the poms still couldn't win....
| |
| The ashes are ours shrug.
| Back to the subject. Indicate the blue radial force arrow.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/IndexImages/tangential.JPG
|
| The ones in the middle.

Ah... so the others don't work?

On 07/01/2011 13:26, wrote:
In sci.math wrote:
...
It is also evident that this wacko is asserting that, when he takes a
right corner inside his car at 50 km/hr, he feels a "force" that
impulses him "forward" or "backwards" with respect to the drive wheel,
while the rest of us feel a "force" pushing our bodies to the "left"
of the car.

For someone that keeps delving into the mathematics of SR
he seems to appreciate less math and physics than a typical freshman.


Less than a typical fisherman, to be honest.

Wormley's Ralph aka "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote:
"Androcles" wrote:
Snip bantering about pitifully anal details

hanson wrote:
at issue is the
=== Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT
=== 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper.

... That is a kind assessment. Fact is that Einstein
agreed to be a "LYING IDIOT" after 2 years:
http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2

|||| 1) Einstein, as a Patent Office clerk in Bern had easy
|||| accessto Pretto's publication. AE spoke fluent Italian.
|||| (2) Milan Italy & Bern Switzerland are only 100 miles
|||| apart... & to boot, and even more self-indicting...
|||| (3) Einstein bragged & teased after his 1905 publication,
|||| which did not NOT contain any citation nor reference:
|||| "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your
|||| sources" -- AE.
|||| (4) Einstein, in 1907, under academic & public pressure
|||| confessed, and spelled out his views on plagiarism:
|||| Said Albert Einstein: "It appears to me, that even if
|||| the issue has already been solved by other authors,
|||| then despite that fact, since the issues of concern are
|||| here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled
|||| to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature".

There, there, see: Einstein himself told you that he was a
"LYING IDIOT" because he was a "HONEST IDIOT"
to tell the world that he was a "LYING IDIOT" ...ahahaha..
... and with that go back to your minutia to enjoy yourself
passionately farting at each other. Carry on and
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

On Jan 20, 11:13*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:



On Jan 18, 4:30 pm, "Androcles"
The friction between the brake pad and the drum is tangential. shrug
This is why rotating frames should not be used by young dropouts or
demented old fools like Wilson.
* *The friction of the shoe on the drum is tangential. The contact
force of the shoe on the drum is radial and outward from the center.
In Introductory Physics classes, this radial force is often called the
normal force.
* * * *If the drum did not exert a radial inward force on the shoe
pad, the shoe pad would go right through the drum. The reaction force
of the drum on the shoe pad is the same magnitude.
* * Until the brake shoe stops the drum, the brake shoe is sliding.
While it is sliding, brake shoe is applying a tangential force on drum
called kinetic friction. As an approximation, the magnitude of kinetic
friction is proportional to the normal force on the drum.
* * *What you said was incorrect. There is a radial outward force on
the drum. In this, Wilson is quite correct. If there was no radial
force on the drum, there would be no kinetic friction. There is a
curious dichotomy in your thinking. You recognize the frictional
force, but you don't recognize the normal force.
* * *This may indicate a more general problem. You do know that the
surfaces of solid bodies on contact generate two types of contact
force. If it is tangential to the surface, it is called a frictional
force. If it is perpendicular to the surface, it is often called a
contact force.
* * Introductory physics teachers and authors should pick another
phrase to designate the "normal force." At least in my opinion. The
phrase "normal force" seems to confuse some students. The phrase
doesn't make clear that this "normal force" is the inevitable
consequence of two solid bodies being in contact. However, the phrase
"contact force" can also mislead some students. Frictional forces are
also the result of two solid bodies contacting each other. Apparently,
your introductory physics instructor was rather sloppy when he taught
you force diagrams.
* *Please look up the definitions of normal force, kinetic friction
and static friction in any introductory course in physics. You both
seem to have a serious problem understanding the "normal force". I am
talking about pure, Newtonian physics used by mechanical engineers
years before Einstein was even born.
* * * * *I suggest that you both take a refresher course in
Introductory Physics. I recommend that you both pay special attention
to force diagrams, starting with the inclined plane. You see, in every
inclined plane problem there is a "normal force."

"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
* * * *I suggest that you both stay away from civil engineering.. I
would be afraid of standing near any frame which either you or Wilson
have designed. Neither of you are - normal !-)

Hahahahhhahha! You poor old bugger. Don't compare me with Andro when he's
drunk.
You have just quoted what I have been telling YOU. but you forgot *to mention
that in a centrifugal clutch, the radial force (normal force, contact force) is
REAL and CENTRIFUGAL.
I think I addressed that. I got it from Wikipedia, which is
always suspect. However, sometimes the authors get it right.
The phrase "centrifugal force" is used in two distinct ways. One
meaning of the phrase is that of an inertial force. The second meaning
of the phrase is that of a reaction force that keeps the object from
moving in a straight line. The reaction force causes orbiting bodies
to move in a circle as seen in absolute space.
When physicists say that centrifugal force isn't real, they are
specifically referring to the inertial force. The inertial force
doesn't exist in the reference frame of absolute space, as Newton so
carefully defined it in Principia.
The reaction force that prevents the object from moving in a
straight line is real. This is the force that really can be measured,
several ways, in absolute space.
The physicists who write books and teach courses should make it
clear that it is only centrifugal force of the first type that isn't
real. Centrifugal force of the second type is real.
I think teachers should at least try to point out some of the
ambiguities in physics jargon, with the understanding that it is a
matter of semantics. When Einstein said that centrifugal force isn't
real, he assumed that all the scientists who read the article knew the
difference. I think this was a good assumption.
An educated scientist could see by the examples he gave that he
was not talking about a reaction force. The way the distinction is
taught in introductory physics is mostly by example. The physics
student answers a question, and if he reads the question wrong, then
he is dinged. Thus, physicists develop a "feel" for the meaning of
questions, which means that the right sides of their brain know what
the phrase means. However, it would be helpful if teachers learn to
state the difference formally. Then, the student would learn the
difference in the left side of their brains.
I don't count you or Androcles as educated scientists. However,
maybe he and other writers should make the distinction clear at least
in the popular science writing books. You and Androcles have some type
of problem on both sides of your brains.
However, I have to admit that I find your misconceptions educational.
It is often said that words aren't important in science or
mathematics. However, when teaching I find the opposite is often true.
Really and truly, mathematics is more about words than numbers.

Incidentally, the term contact force is definitely misleading because it
doesn't have to be normal if friction is finite.

I know that. I just don't know a good word for the normal force.
The normal force is the component of the contact force that is
perpendicular to the surface. The frictional force is the component of
contact force which is parallel to the surface.
I disagree with the standard textbooks. The perpendicular
component isn't any more normal than the frictional component of the
contact force.
If anyone intelligent is reading this, they could help by finding
a better word to describe the "normal force." There should be a
specific name for the component of the contact force that is
perpendicular to the surface. I have spent years searching, and
haven't found a good one. When teaching class or correcting homework,
I have to write out the entire sentence. There must be a short cut.

On Jan 22, 7:28*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jan 20, 11:13*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:







On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:

On Jan 18, 4:30 pm, "Androcles"
The friction between the brake pad and the drum is tangential. shrug
This is why rotating frames should not be used by young dropouts or
demented old fools like Wilson.
* *The friction of the shoe on the drum is tangential. The contact
force of the shoe on the drum is radial and outward from the center.
In Introductory Physics classes, this radial force is often called the
normal force.
* * * *If the drum did not exert a radial inward force on the shoe
pad, the shoe pad would go right through the drum. The reaction force
of the drum on the shoe pad is the same magnitude.
* * Until the brake shoe stops the drum, the brake shoe is sliding.
While it is sliding, brake shoe is applying a tangential force on drum
called kinetic friction. As an approximation, the magnitude of kinetic
friction is proportional to the normal force on the drum.
* * *What you said was incorrect. There is a radial outward force on
the drum. In this, Wilson is quite correct. If there was no radial
force on the drum, there would be no kinetic friction. There is a
curious dichotomy in your thinking. You recognize the frictional
force, but you don't recognize the normal force.
* * *This may indicate a more general problem. You do know that the
surfaces of solid bodies on contact generate two types of contact
force. If it is tangential to the surface, it is called a frictional
force. If it is perpendicular to the surface, it is often called a
contact force.
* * Introductory physics teachers and authors should pick another
phrase to designate the "normal force." At least in my opinion. The
phrase "normal force" seems to confuse some students. The phrase
doesn't make clear that this "normal force" is the inevitable
consequence of two solid bodies being in contact. However, the phrase
"contact force" can also mislead some students. Frictional forces are
also the result of two solid bodies contacting each other. Apparently,
your introductory physics instructor was rather sloppy when he taught
you force diagrams.
* *Please look up the definitions of normal force, kinetic friction
and static friction in any introductory course in physics. You both
seem to have a serious problem understanding the "normal force". I am
talking about pure, Newtonian physics used by mechanical engineers
years before Einstein was even born.
* * * * *I suggest that you both take a refresher course in
Introductory Physics. I recommend that you both pay special attention
to force diagrams, starting with the inclined plane. You see, in every
inclined plane problem there is a "normal force."

"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
* * * *I suggest that you both stay away from civil engineering. I
would be afraid of standing near any frame which either you or Wilson
have designed. Neither of you are - normal !-)

Hahahahhhahha! You poor old bugger. Don't compare me with Andro when he's
drunk.
You have just quoted what I have been telling YOU. but you forgot *to mention
that in a centrifugal clutch, the radial force (normal force, contact force) is
REAL and CENTRIFUGAL.

* * * I think I addressed that. I got it from Wikipedia, which is
always suspect. However, sometimes the authors get it right.
* * *The phrase "centrifugal force" is used in two distinct ways. One
meaning of the phrase is that of an inertial force. The second meaning
of the phrase is that of a reaction force that keeps the object from
moving in a straight line. The reaction force causes orbiting bodies
to move in a circle as seen in absolute space.
* * When physicists say that centrifugal force isn't real, they are
specifically referring to the inertial force. The inertial force
doesn't exist in the reference frame of absolute space, as Newton so
carefully defined it in Principia.

I love this,carefully defined indeed!,I am still laughing from that
masterstroke in one paragraph where he launches into a whirlwind of
obfuscation and that last sentence is absolutely priceless,I am no
empiricist so I take enjoyment from these things -

"The causes by which true, and relative motions are distinguished, one
from the other, are the forces impressed upon bodies to generate
motion. True motion is neither generated nor altered, but by some
force impressed upon the body moved; but relative motion may be
generated or altered without any force impressed upon the body. For it
is sufficient only to impress some force on other bodies with which
the former is compared, that by their giving way, that relation may be
changed, in which the relative rest or motion of this other body did
consist. Again, true motion suffers always some change from any force
impressed upon, the moving body; but relative motion does not
necessarily undergo any change by such forces. For if the same forces
are likewise impressed on those other bodies, with which the
comparison is made, that the relative position may be preserved, then
that condition will be preserved in which the relative motion
consists. And therefore any relative motion may be changed when the
true motion remains unaltered, and the relative may be preserved when
the true suffers some change. Upon which accounts, true motion does by
no means consist in such relations." Isaac

http://gravitee.tripod.com/definitions.htm

Newton's actual version of absolute/relative space and motion is only
really found in another section where he is forced to provide actual
values and astronomical details in his attempt to generate an absolute
space by appealing to a hypothetical observer on the Sun to account
for retrogrades,use the Ra/Dec framework as a common denominator for
absolute/relative spaces (Earth around Sun/Sun around Earth) and
generally destroy what was up to then a fairly reasonable attempt by
empiricists to apply analogies to terrestrial effects and then search
for a cause through planetary dynamics.

http://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm



You are bluffing and that is fine,people who do that are ten a penny
and can imitate Isaac is a low level sense but Isaac didn't entirely
exist on sowing confusion among his readers,he actually delved into
actual astronomical methods and insights at certain points while not
really understanding those things such as the equation of time
reflecting the averaging process which fixes the 24 hour day to
natural noon and he called absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality..." Isaac

If you understand how carefully he was defining absolute/relative
space,you should have no problem with the equation of time he is
trying to describe in that statement above which determines no
external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees.








* * The reaction force that prevents the object from moving in a
straight line is real. This is the force that really can be measured,
several ways, in absolute space.
* * The physicists who write books and teach courses should make it
clear that it is only centrifugal force of the first type that isn't
real. Centrifugal force of the second type is real.
* * * I think teachers should at least try to point out some of the
ambiguities in physics jargon, with the understanding that it is a
matter of semantics. When Einstein said that centrifugal force isn't
real, he assumed that all the scientists who read the article knew the
difference. I think this was a good assumption.
* * * *An educated scientist could see by the examples he gave that he
was not talking about a reaction force. The way the distinction is
taught in introductory physics is mostly by example. The physics
student answers a question, and if he reads the question wrong, then
he is dinged. Thus, physicists develop a "feel" for the meaning of
questions, which means that the right sides of their brain know what
the phrase means. However, it would be helpful if teachers learn to
state the difference formally. Then, the student would learn the
difference in the left side of their brains.
* * *I don't count you or Androcles as educated scientists. However,
maybe he and other writers should make the distinction clear at least
in the popular science writing books. You and Androcles have some type
of problem on both sides of your brains.
However, I have to admit that I find your misconceptions educational.
* * *It is often said that words aren't important in science or
mathematics. However, when teaching I find the opposite is often true.
Really and truly, mathematics is more about words than numbers.

Incidentally, the term contact force is definitely misleading because it
doesn't have to be normal if friction is finite.

* * I know that. I just don't know a good word for the normal force.
The normal force is the component of the contact force that is
perpendicular to the surface. The frictional force is the component of
contact force which is parallel to the surface.
* * *I disagree with the standard textbooks. The perpendicular
component isn't any more normal than the frictional component of the
contact force.
* * *If anyone intelligent is reading this, they could help by finding
a better word to describe the "normal force." There should be a
specific name for the component of the contact force that is
perpendicular to the surface. I have spent years searching, and
haven't found a good one. When teaching class or correcting homework,
I have to write out the entire sentence. There must be a short cut.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:28:53 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:

On Jan 20, 11:13*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:



On Jan 18, 4:30 pm, "Androcles"
The friction between the brake pad and the drum is tangential. shrug
This is why rotating frames should not be used by young dropouts or
demented old fools like Wilson.
* *The friction of the shoe on the drum is tangential. The contact
force of the shoe on the drum is radial and outward from the center.
In Introductory Physics classes, this radial force is often called the
normal force.
* * * *If the drum did not exert a radial inward force on the shoe
pad, the shoe pad would go right through the drum. The reaction force
of the drum on the shoe pad is the same magnitude.
* * Until the brake shoe stops the drum, the brake shoe is sliding.
While it is sliding, brake shoe is applying a tangential force on drum
called kinetic friction. As an approximation, the magnitude of kinetic
friction is proportional to the normal force on the drum.
* * *What you said was incorrect. There is a radial outward force on
the drum. In this, Wilson is quite correct. If there was no radial
force on the drum, there would be no kinetic friction. There is a
curious dichotomy in your thinking. You recognize the frictional
force, but you don't recognize the normal force.
* * *This may indicate a more general problem. You do know that the
surfaces of solid bodies on contact generate two types of contact
force. If it is tangential to the surface, it is called a frictional
force. If it is perpendicular to the surface, it is often called a
contact force.
* * Introductory physics teachers and authors should pick another
phrase to designate the "normal force." At least in my opinion. The
phrase "normal force" seems to confuse some students. The phrase
doesn't make clear that this "normal force" is the inevitable
consequence of two solid bodies being in contact. However, the phrase
"contact force" can also mislead some students. Frictional forces are
also the result of two solid bodies contacting each other. Apparently,
your introductory physics instructor was rather sloppy when he taught
you force diagrams.
* *Please look up the definitions of normal force, kinetic friction
and static friction in any introductory course in physics. You both
seem to have a serious problem understanding the "normal force". I am
talking about pure, Newtonian physics used by mechanical engineers
years before Einstein was even born.
* * * * *I suggest that you both take a refresher course in
Introductory Physics. I recommend that you both pay special attention
to force diagrams, starting with the inclined plane. You see, in every
inclined plane problem there is a "normal force."

"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
* * * *I suggest that you both stay away from civil engineering. I
would be afraid of standing near any frame which either you or Wilson
have designed. Neither of you are - normal !-)

Hahahahhhahha! You poor old bugger. Don't compare me with Andro when he's
drunk.
You have just quoted what I have been telling YOU. but you forgot *to mention
that in a centrifugal clutch, the radial force (normal force, contact force) is
REAL and CENTRIFUGAL.
I think I addressed that. I got it from Wikipedia, which is
always suspect. However, sometimes the authors get it right.
The phrase "centrifugal force" is used in two distinct ways. One
meaning of the phrase is that of an inertial force. The second meaning
of the phrase is that of a reaction force that keeps the object from
moving in a straight line. The reaction force causes orbiting bodies
to move in a circle as seen in absolute space.

What are you talking about?
That is a CENTRIPETAL force.

When physicists say that centrifugal force isn't real, they are
specifically referring to the inertial force. The inertial force
doesn't exist in the reference frame of absolute space, as Newton so
carefully defined it in Principia.
The reaction force that prevents the object from moving in a
straight line is real. This is the force that really can be measured,
several ways, in absolute space.

CENTRIPETAL force

The physicists who write books and teach courses should make it
clear that it is only centrifugal force of the first type that isn't
real. Centrifugal force of the second type is real.

I don't know who wrote the article you are quoting but it is clearly wrong.
It is refering to CENTRIPETAL force.

I think teachers should at least try to point out some of the
ambiguities in physics jargon, with the understanding that it is a
matter of semantics. When Einstein said that centrifugal force isn't
real, he assumed that all the scientists who read the article knew the
difference. I think this was a good assumption.

For every force there is an equal and opposite force.

Centrifugal for is NOT real in a rotating frame because there is no apparent
force opposing it or reason for its existence. If you sit on a rotating
platform, an 'invisible' force pushes you radially outward.

It is however REAL in a centrifugal clutch...where it is a radial reaction to
the centripetal force exerted BY the drum onto the shoes.

can you understand that?

Is this somehow related to the fact that when we stand on the Eatrh's surface,
there is an invisible force pushing us INWARD?

An educated scientist could see by the examples he gave that he
was not talking about a reaction force. The way the distinction is
taught in introductory physics is mostly by example.

I cannot see why ordinary people are so confused about centrifugal and
centripetal forces.

Tell me:

1) What forces are involved when you twirl a mass around on the end of a string
tied to your finger?
2) What are the internal forces of a spinning flywheel?

The physics
student answers a question, and if he reads the question wrong, then
he is dinged. Thus, physicists develop a "feel" for the meaning of
questions, which means that the right sides of their brain know what
the phrase means. However, it would be helpful if teachers learn to
state the difference formally. Then, the student would learn the
difference in the left side of their brains.
I don't count you or Androcles as educated scientists. However,
maybe he and other writers should make the distinction clear at least
in the popular science writing books. You and Androcles have some type
of problem on both sides of your brains.

Please don't compare me with Andro.

However, I have to admit that I find your misconceptions educational.

That's not surprising. I seem to be the only genuine physicis here.

It is often said that words aren't important in science or
mathematics. However, when teaching I find the opposite is often true.
Really and truly, mathematics is more about words than numbers.

Incidentally, the term contact force is definitely misleading because it
doesn't have to be normal if friction is finite.

I know that. I just don't know a good word for the normal force.
The normal force is the component of the contact force that is
perpendicular to the surface. The frictional force is the component of
contact force which is parallel to the surface.
I disagree with the standard textbooks. The perpendicular
component isn't any more normal than the frictional component of the
contact force.
If anyone intelligent is reading this, they could help by finding
a better word to describe the "normal force." There should be a
specific name for the component of the contact force that is
perpendicular to the surface. I have spent years searching, and
haven't found a good one. When teaching class or correcting homework,
I have to write out the entire sentence. There must be a short cut.

'Normal' is OK. Its meaning is well defined.


Henry Wilson...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:21:53 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:05:24 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:42:02 -0000, "Androcles"
|
| |
| | A dog operates like a drug detector.
| | A car operates like a roller skate.
| | A amplifier operates like an orchestra.
| | Got any other irrelevant drivel to argue?
| | We are discussing the direction of a force, and it is NOT radial.
| | There is no radial force normal to a plane, planes do not have a
centre
| | of curvature.
| |
| | I might prefer to talk cricket today....
| |
| | HAHAHAHHA!
| | ....8-140 in 34 overs and the poms still couldn't win....
| |
| The ashes are ours shrug.
| Back to the subject. Indicate the blue radial force arrow.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/IndexImages/tangential.JPG
|
| The ones in the middle.

Ah... so the others don't work?

They do. hey have a radial component.

That's why brake shoes wear unevenely...


Henry Wilson...

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:23:41 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:11:50 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:

| Irrelevant? Sheesh, it won't stop the car if it's irrelevant. :-)
|
| It stops the car because the shoe exerts sufficient radial force on the
drum to
| enable friction to act tangentially.
|
I have to repeat the question, then.
Indicate the blue radial force arrow.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/IndexImages/tangential.JPG

The one in the middle. All the others have a radial cosine component.

If you ever change brake shoes you would understand this and why they wear
unevenly.



Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:28:53 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
| If anyone intelligent is reading this, they could help by finding
| a better word to describe the "normal force." There should be a
| specific name for the component of the contact force that is
| perpendicular to the surface. I have spent years searching, and
| haven't found a good one. When teaching class or correcting homework,
| I have to write out the entire sentence. There must be a short cut.
|
| 'Normal' is OK. Its meaning is well defined.
|
Normal to a plane is well-defined. Normal to a point is as ill-defined as
"inertial frame of reference", there are none.
Gravity is normal to a local plane on the Earth's surface, but you ozzies
are not normal, you are all upside down.
drosen0000 should not be allowed to teach until he's proficient in
mathematics, he's part of the great unwashed that thinks Einstein was some
kind of genius when he was already failing math as a teenager. Still, those
that can, do. Those that can't, teach.
There are just two important coordinate transformations, translation and
rotation. Radial force my arse, you first need to define radial in the
rotating frame. An aircraft or a ship translates around the Earth from place
to place, (x1, y1, z1) to (x2,y2,z2) and it rotates on it own axes with
pitch, roll and yaw. If I were to visit Sydney I'd have to rotate upside
down too. What we want drosen0000 to do is think outside the box. We may be
slowly succeeding.

I had occasion today to create a password on the internet for a company I
was making a purchase from. What ****ed me off was it had to be between 6
and 10 characters and must contain at least 1 letter and 1 number, the
person responsible thinking that would add security. In fact it doesn't, it
weakens it. Six characters (with upper and lower case) and 10 digits gives
(26*2+10)^6 = 56800235584 combinations whereas
the insistence of a number reduces it to (26*2)^5+10^6 = 381204032, a loss
of 56419031552 combinations. This is typical inside the box thinking, AOL
has had numbers in names since day one so the idiots copy it. A computer
trying all combinations would crack the password 136 times faster with the
stupid rule applied. Since I couldn't use AlbertEinstein for a password
because it was too long and didn't have a number I used xyzzypl0nk instead
and bought from a different company. Now you know one of my passwords that I
never use.
What's wrong with 'aaaaaa' as a password anyway? It's easy to remember and
nobody would believe you used it anyway, so it is as secure as any other.