Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 14 of 22 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 21 22
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
the speed of light squared = 8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2


thats exactly what I wrote.

you just forgot to use notation when you cut-n-pasted googles math ( 10^16 )

89875517873681764m/s

Quote:
Did the workers at Google also make the same mistake as me, TFF, scientists, engineers, math teachers and salesmen?


No they didnt , and I cant comment on all scientist , engineers , math teachers and salesmen.

but its obvious that you and TFF are wrong.

thats pretty simple and its also logical.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Let me repeat the same message. Be careful, the forum software will remove the superscripts if you quote it. Your reply below suggests you agree with the green text. Right?

Google itself says the "speed of light squared" is:
"the speed of light squared = 8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2"
Did the workers at Google also make the same mistake as me, TFF, scientists, engineers, math teachers and salesmen?


Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Did the workers at Google also make the same mistake as me, TFF, scientists, engineers, math teachers and salesmen?

No they didnt , and I cant comment on all scientist ,

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
you agree with the green text. Right


8.98755179 × 10^16 m^2 / s^2
same thing as what I posted
89875517873681764m/s

yes I agree

you didnt supply the answer google did.

whats your point?





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100

Originally Posted By: paul
8.98755179 × 10^16 m^2 / s^2
yes I agree


Earlier you said:

Quote:

the speed of light squared is
89875517873681764m/s


Are you saying they're both correct? It can be either m/s or m^2/s^2?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
it can only be m/s

the answer cant be meters * meters^2 / seconds^2

unless m^2 / s^2 = m/s

so if you have 100m/s

then you square that distance you would get

10000 m/s

you dont multiply m/s (units) only the number

so its obvious that googles calculator has an error
its not a numeric error its a program error that
is using the wrong notation.

because you would then have a wrong answer.

even googles sqr calculator shows that its calculator is wrong

type in "sqr 89875517873681764m/s"

and googles calculator displays the following

sqr(89875517873681764)(meters / second) = 299792458 m / s









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
so its obvious that googles calculator has an error
its not a numeric error its a program error that
is using the wrong notation.


Quote:

type in "sqr 89875517873681764m/s"
and googles calculator displays the following
sqr(89875517873681764)(meters / second) = 299792458 m / s

Yes, it's only taking the square root of the number because it's following the usual convention of applying unary operators before multiplication. It clearly shows you that's what it's doing by inserting the brackets with the answer.

Square root the whole thing together and see what you get:

sqr (89875517873681764 m^2/s^2)

Then try that with your answer. It won't even solve.

Last edited by kallog; 10/02/11 06:45 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
299792458 m/s * 299792458 m/s = 89875517873681764 m/s

lets see

number * number = number

m = the unit that only describes what the number represents

s = the 1 second

10 mph * 10 mph = 100 mph

not

100 m^2 / h^2

that would be ridiculous






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It won't even solve.


because the m^2 / s^2 is bullcrap that some know it all know nothing at all put in a book sometime in the past.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul

10 mph * 10 mph = 100 mph
not
100 m^2 / h^2
that would be ridiculous


Again Google disagrees: "10 mph * 10 mph", then "19.9844762 m^2 / s^2 in mph^2"

So Google, TFF, me, and that salesman selling the apartment are all making the _same_ mistake.

Nobody except you is doing it right.

I wonder how that happened?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
It won't even solve.

because the m^2 / s^2 is bullcrap that some know it all know nothing at all put in a book sometime in the past.


What happens when you multiply a distance by an acceleration?

5m * 3m/s^2

Or is that an impossible operation?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Nobody except you is doing it right.


well of course.

19.9844762 m^2 = 399.37928898836644 m

yes , google , you and TFF and the salesman are all wrong.

note: its not google that is wrong , it is one of googles programmers that is wrong , he was most likely taught wrongly.

so its just a very small percentage of google that is wrong.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
10 mph is not acceleration it is a velocity.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
5m * 3m/s^2


5m * 3 m = 15 m

s^2 : if seconds were 10 seconds or 10^2

then you would have 100 seconds

5m * 3m/100s = 15 m/100s

since you didnt say how many seconds then 1 second is assumed

1^2 = 1
that lowers the 5m * 3m/s^2 = 15 m/s equation to

5m * 3m/s = 15 m/s

now that all depends if you can move a distance * 3m/s

and a distance is just a distance.

can you move a distance * a velocity^2?

is that similar to making 4 bananas become 16 bananas by simply using incorrect notation?

can we teach our banks to do the same with our money?
you wouldnt happen to own a bank would you?

if we could work and earn
$100 day * 7 days = 700 dollars^2 (seven hundred dollars squared)

we could earn $490,000 a week

can we teach our employers to pay us in dollars squared?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
now that all depends if you can move a distance * 3m/s

No it doesn't. We can multiply any two quantities. It doesn't matter if the result represents some distance moved or energy consumed, or something else we don't even have a name for, but is still useful, like a speed squared.


Quote:

if we could work and earn
$100 day * 7 days = 700 dollars^2 (seven hundred dollars squared)

You actually don't know why the units get squared do you? There's no dollars^2 there because you're not saying dollars should be multiplied by itself. It's should be:

$100/day * 7 days
= $700 days/day
= $700

The simple concept is that units can be operated on the same as numbers. That's all Paul. Your way involves guessing the units because you have no consistent way to decide.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
now that all depends if you can move a distance


ok , then we can move a distance and that distance can be moved at 3 m/s

what force would you use to move a distance?

what is the mass of a distance so that I can determine the amount of force required to move a distance?

you used 5 meters * 3 m/s^2

how much mass is in 5 meters?

Quote:
We can multiply any two quantities


then 5 dollars * 3 m/s^2 = ?

can you multiply 5 dollars x 3 meters?

would that be 15 dollar-meters

Quote:
You actually don't know why the units get squared do you?


m/s^2 = meters per second * meters per second
or
m/s^2 = meters per second per second

an object accelerating at 3 m/s^2
accelerates 3 meters every second.

after 1 second its speed is 3 m/s
after 2 seconds its speed is 6 m/s
after 3 seconds its speed is 9 m/s

so something that is accelerating at a rate of 3 m/s/s

should accelerate to a speed of 3m/s*3m/s=9 m/s in the 1st second

its just another case of flawed logic.

meters per second * meters per second !!!

you dont need to square meters or seconds.

an acceleration of 3m/s = an accelerating object that accelerates 3 meters each second

an object that has a speed of 3m/s = an object that has a speed of 3 m/s each second

unless its not that the meters are squared and only the seconds are squared.

as in meters per second divided by seconds

that would make sense.

because 3m divided by seconds can even show that it is right
an object accelerates at 3m/s for 4 seconds
ie...3ms/4s

you know its speed from the 3 and 4
3*4=12 m/s


but squaring meters is stupid.

as in googles 8.6856blablabla m^2/s^2 is stupid
















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: paul

then 5 dollars * 3 m/s^2 = ?

can you multiply 5 dollars x 3 meters?

would that be 15 dollar-meters

5 dollars * 3 m/s^2 = 15 dollar-m/s^2
5 dollars x 3 meters = 15 dollar-meters
yes.



Originally Posted By: paul

an object accelerating at 3 m/s^2
accelerates 3 meters every second.

Not quite. An object accelerating at 3 m/s^2 accelerates 3 meters per second every second.

Originally Posted By: paul

after 1 second its speed is 3 m/s
after 2 seconds its speed is 6 m/s
after 3 seconds its speed is 9 m/s

Yes.

Originally Posted By: paul

so something that is accelerating at a rate of 3 m/s/s

should accelerate to a speed of 3m/s*3m/s=9 m/s in the 1st second

No.

Originally Posted By: paul

its just another case of flawed logic.

Yes. On your part.

I won't waste another second with you. Take algebra 1.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
so something that is accelerating at a rate of 3 m/s/s

should accelerate to a speed of 3m/s*3m/s=9 m/s in the 1st second

No.


taken out of context.
I was just pointing out what the results of 3m/s*3m/s would equal.

ie...m/s/s
ie... meters per second * meters per second

3*3=9


Quote:
Not quite. An object accelerating at 3 m/s^2 accelerates 3 meters per second every second.


thats exactly what I wrote , you just added the stupid per second every second.

whats the point when theres only 1 second in 1 second?

so when saying 3m/s/s your actually saying 3m/s

Quote:
I won't waste another second with you.


I wont care another second per second per second into infinity.


Originally Posted By: TFF
2 bananas * 2 bananas = 4bananas^2 ( four bananas squared)

4 anythings squared = 16 anythings

Quote:
Take algebra 1


I might get a teacher that teaches flawed logic and I
wouldnt want to end up thinking illogically.

thanks for the offer , but I'll pass.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Why don't you try to simplify a few expressions the "wrong" way and see if can at least give repeatable results?

I tried using your way but I can't predict what the units should be. Can you explain the rules more clearly?

4^2 = ?

4^2 ft = ?

4 ft^2 = ?

4^2 ft^2 = ?

(4ft)^2 = ?


According to what I understand of your way, the last four above would be the same, and equal to either 16ft or 16 square feet (?). What are they according to my way?


Last edited by kallog; 10/03/11 03:48 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
if you were using the ^2 as number * number
the position of the ^2 would match the wat you say it.
causing less confusion.

4^2 = ? = four square

4^2 ft = ? = four square feet

4 ft^2 = ? = four foot squared

4^2 ft^2 = four square foot squared

(4ft)^2 = ? = four foot squared

perhaps if you were describing a number that is being squared a different symbol should be used.

such as

4^^2 = 4 squared
or maybe
^4^ = 4 squared
or better yet 4^x = 4 squared

since most wont use "square feet" or "sq ft"in physics this would allow them to write something that looks more important.

which is probably why they ruined everything in the first place.

because physics doesnt have a way to express the above variations without delivering incorrect anwsers.











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Come on, can you at least try?

4^2 = 16
4^2 ft = 16ft
4 ft^2 = ?
4^2 ft^2 = ?
(4ft)^2 = ?

What do you expect I'd put for the others?


Originally Posted By: paul
if you were using the ^2 as number * number
the position of the ^2 would match the wat you say it.
causing less confusion.


Quote:

4 ft^2 = ? = four foot squared
(4ft)^2 = ? = four foot squared


These don't mean the same thing, so using the same words will cause confusion. If you think they are the same, then is this also the same

4 (ft^2) = ?

Page 14 of 22 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 21 22

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5