| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
Page 1 of 60 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| NoEinstein |
 Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/298dbf95b82b1650?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Cleaning+Away+Einstein%27s+Mishmash#298dbf95b82b1650
-- NoEinstein -- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PD |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 8:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component
Component of what? Velocity? Distance? Acceleration?
Quote: carried
over from the previous second.
(1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting?
(2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object?
(3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
Are you talking about *force*, *energy*, *momentum*, or *velocity* of
impact? They are all *different* quantities, measured with different
units, and they are no more comparable than quarts and BTUs.
Here is a simple example to feed your head. A baseball is thrown
horizontally toward home plate at 95 mph. You have two choices how to
reduce the velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy of the ball to
zero:
a) you can catch the ball in a mitt and let the mitt, your hand, and
your wrist "give" over some distance.
b) you can brace your legs behind you and let the ball hit you in the
forehead.
In both cases, all of the velocity, kinetic energy, and momentum
carried by the ball are reduced to zero, and so the change in these
quantities is the same in both cases (a) and (b).
The *force* of impact, if you will kindly test this in your backyard,
is measurably different.
Likewise, you can devise simple experiments (hopefully putting
yourself at bodily risk) whereby in one case the momentum and the
kinetic energy are both completely transferred to a second object, and
in the other case the momentum is transferred but most of the kinetic
energy is not.
Similarly, you can devise simple experiments whereby the *force* of
impact of an identical object in two cases is identical, but the
energy delivered is different.
These simple experiments, which you are completely oblivious to, are
the reason why scientists distinguish the quantities *force* of
impact, *energy transfer* of impact, *momentum transfer* of impact,
and *velocity change* of impact, said distinction being something else
that you are oblivious to.
It would help *enormously* if you spent some time doing the
experiments that illustrate the distinctions between these quantities,
before wasting time in your backyard performing an analysis of your
own experiment that muddles them all up.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Igor |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 9:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
-- NoEinstein --
Take a highschool physics course and maybe you'll find out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tantal |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 26, 8:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component
Component of what? Velocity? Distance? Acceleration?
carried
over from the previous second.
(1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting?
(2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object?
(3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
Are you talking about *force*, *energy*, *momentum*, or *velocity* of
impact? They are all *different* quantities, measured with different
units, and they are no more comparable than quarts and BTUs.
Here is a simple example to feed your head. A baseball is thrown
horizontally toward home plate at 95 mph. You have two choices how to
reduce the velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy of the ball to
zero:
a) you can catch the ball in a mitt and let the mitt, your hand, and
your wrist "give" over some distance.
b) you can brace your legs behind you and let the ball hit you in the
forehead.
In both cases, all of the velocity, kinetic energy, and momentum
carried by the ball are reduced to zero, and so the change in these
quantities is the same in both cases (a) and (b).
maybe im sure you dont realize tha anomalies
you just did here
you predict that all tha kinetic is transformed in
to work and heat, right? 100% right?
wrong, it is much more than that
Quote: The *force* of impact, if you will kindly test this in your backyard,
is measurably different.
Likewise, you can devise simple experiments (hopefully putting
yourself at bodily risk) whereby in one case the momentum and the
kinetic energy are both completely transferred to a second object, and
in the other case the momentum is transferred but most of the kinetic
energy is not.
Similarly, you can devise simple experiments whereby the *force* of
impact of an identical object in two cases is identical, but the
energy delivered is different.
These simple experiments, which you are completely oblivious to, are
the reason why scientists distinguish the quantities *force* of
impact, *energy transfer* of impact, *momentum transfer* of impact,
and *velocity change* of impact, said distinction being something else
that you are oblivious to.
It would help *enormously* if you spent some time doing the
experiments that illustrate the distinctions between these quantities,
before wasting time in your backyard performing an analysis of your
own experiment that muddles them all up.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tantal |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
sure you dont realize tha complexity of this question
show tha details in your work
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Igor |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 1:59 pm, tantal <6fre3hu8e...@fireman.net> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 26, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
sure you dont realize tha complexity of this question
show tha details in your work
I think you mispelled "inanity". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PD |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 12:59 pm, tantal <6fre3hu8e...@fireman.net> wrote:
Quote: On Feb 26, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
sure you dont realize tha complexity of this question
show tha details in your work
For you, I offer special deal. $199.99. One day only. Nobody else gets
this good a deal.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| xxein |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 9:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
-- NoEinstein --
xxein: The 'coasting' component can come from two different sources.
It can come from no initial velocity (gravity without inertial
velocity to preceed it), or from an inertial velocity that is pre-
presented into a gravitational situation.
In either case, a m vs.r factor determines g (acceleration) that is
added to the velocity. Simply put, an acceleration just adds to
velocity of any mass. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Uncle Al |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
NoEinstein wrote:
Quote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second.
[snip crap]
That was quick. All velocity is relative. Idiot.
Quote: (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
[snip rest of crap]
"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers? One would not be surprised to learn
you have but one (natal, not surviving). That your family tree does
not branch is not compensated by your falling from the top of the
Stupid Tree and hitting every branch on the way down. Assuredly the
impact at the bottom reflects your taken path.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"xxein" <xxein@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:680cbf21-ea15-46f6-8904-615c3e2e749d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 9:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Quote: A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
-- NoEinstein --
xxein: The 'coasting' component can come from two different sources.
It can come from no initial velocity (gravity without inertial
velocity to preceed it), or from an inertial velocity that is pre-
presented into a gravitational situation.
In either case, a m vs.r factor determines g (acceleration) that is
added to the velocity. Simply put, an acceleration just adds to
velocity of any mass.
All that to say velocity is the integral of acceleration? Geez you stupid
shit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| NoEinstein |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
understand the message.
If you believe that what you were "taught" in college is sacred, then
by all means proclaim such. But if you are objective enough to even
consider becoming a scientist, show some objectivity. I will walk you
by the hand. But you must first know how to walk. -- NoEinstein --
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Quote:
On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
-- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| NoEinstein |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 11:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Sorry PD. You have no idea what objectivity in science is. Your
notion of "science" is to pit your stubbornness against my truths.
But you loose, because you are a looser. -- NoEinstein --
Quote:
On Feb 26, 8:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component
Component of what? Velocity? Distance? Acceleration?
carried
over from the previous second.
(1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting?
(2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object?
(3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
Are you talking about *force*, *energy*, *momentum*, or *velocity* of
impact? They are all *different* quantities, measured with different
units, and they are no more comparable than quarts and BTUs.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| NoEinstein |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 1:44 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Quote:
Dear Igor2: I have asked three simple questions which you can't
answer. So, it is YOU who need remedial work. -- NoEinstein --
Quote:
On Feb 26, 9:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
-- NoEinstein --
Take a highschool physics course and maybe you'll find out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| NoEinstein |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 26, 1:59 pm, tantal <6fre3hu8e...@fireman.net> wrote:
Quote:
Dear Tantal: Welcome to my post, new guy! Sorry, but your comment is
too vague... unless you can explain it. -- NoEinstein --
Quote:
On Feb 26, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
sure you dont realize tha complexity of this question
show tha details in your work
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
-- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 60 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 58, 59, 60 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:04 am
|
|