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 (), 388 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Bill S. #46185 11/20/12 02:56 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
DA Morgan. 4136 posts in under three years!


that was a long time ago , I wonder how he is doing these days.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Bill S. #46186 11/20/12 02:58 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Can we agree on that?


I cant.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
redewenur #46187 11/20/12 03:01 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
A point on the plane 50' higher than a point on the ground would, in 24 hrs, describe a circumference around the Earth 314' greater than that of the point on the ground. The plane and the ground beneath it remain in the same relative locations.


Exactly..


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46189 11/20/12 11:13 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quoting from Wiki is a bit like quoting from the Bible: there's always another quote!

"In geometry, a position or position vector, also known as location vector or radius vector, is a Euclidean vector which represents the position of a point P in space in relation to an arbitrary reference origin O."

Locating a point is relevant only in relation to another point, so identifying movement is relevant only with reference to some other thing.

The Earth rotates once in 24hrs relative to the sun. If there were nothing else in the Universe, could you still say that the Earth rotates?


There never was nothing.
paul #46190 11/20/12 11:18 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
I dont need any frame of reference.


You could be a bit lost without one.

What, in fact, you do is accept, albeit implicitly, the idea of "absolute space". Perhaps you do?


There never was nothing.
paul #46191 11/20/12 11:24 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: BS
If any part of the plane were moving relative to the ground, the plane would not be stationary relative to the ground.

Can we agree on that?


Originally Posted By: Paul
I cant.


So, in your physics an object can be moving and stationary, relative to some other object, in the same F of R, at the same time?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46192 11/20/12 03:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
its not my physics , it is physics.

Quote:
So, in your physics an object can be moving and stationary, relative to some other object, in the same F of R, at the same time?


YES !

centripetal force and centrifugal force equations demand the above to be correct.

force requires motion.
more motion = more force.

at the center of rotation there is little centripetal force
& little motion.
at ground level there is more force & motion
at the top of the plane there is even more force & even more motion.

if I am wrong then physics math is also wrong , but figure the odds of that happening.

also , if my physics as you say is wrong , then the earth could
rotate at 500 billion revolutions per second and the plane would never be launched from the ground.
the earth would not be shattered by the forces.

but physics and I are not wrong.

note: when I say physics math = non relativity math that does not use the
bullshit pre defined elements that ensure its correctness.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46193 11/20/12 04:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
force requires motion.

Then why am I not moving towards the center of the Earth? There is a force holding me down to the floor in here, but I am just staying right here in one place. If force requires motion where is the motion?

Just saying something that doesn't happen to be true doesn't make you particularly smart. You need to check the facts that have been shown to be true by repeated experiments and observations. Then you can say you know something.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill S. #46195 11/20/12 08:59 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
if my physics as you say is wrong


Where did I say that?


There never was nothing.
Bill #46200 11/21/12 01:59 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
centripetal force and centrifugal force equations demand the above to be correct.

force requires motion.
more motion = more force.


centripetal and centrifugal force , Bill.

but since you asked , the force that holds you to the floor
is gravity , which Im almost sure that you knew already.

and guess what ! you are falling towards the center of the earth.

there just happens to be something else that is falling that is blocking your fall.

if you were in a zero g environment you would not be falling towards any object due to any gravity influence.

you would not be moving so your body could not impress a force
on another object.

your body would have mass , but your bodies mass would need to be in motion before it could impress a force on another object.

force requires motion.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill #46201 11/21/12 02:09 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Just saying something that doesn't happen to be true doesn't make you particularly smart. You need to check the facts that have been shown to be true by repeated experiments and observations. Then you can say you know something.


well sure , if I use a magic formula that is designed to
show something a desired way , it will always show that it is correct ( it will always show the pre defined desired results ).


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #46202 11/21/12 02:11 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Where did I say that?


here

Quote:
So, in your physics


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46204 11/21/12 02:38 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
"...in your physics" = "Your concept of physics is wrong"??

Isn't the evolution of language a wonderous thing!


There never was nothing.
paul #46205 11/21/12 02:49 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
you are falling towards the center of the earth.

there just happens to be something else that is falling that is blocking your fall.


If something is blocking your fall, does that not stop you from falling?

Trying to fall = falling??? Yet more linguistic evolution, perhaps?

Possibly you will argue that the surface of the Earth is falling, and you are falling with it.
Would this mean that the Earth is shrinking?
Could this be another case of something that is moving and stationary at the same time, in the same F of R?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46206 11/21/12 02:53 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
you are falling towards the center of the earth.

there just happens to be something else that is falling that is blocking your fall.


If something is blocking your fall, does that not stop you from falling?

Trying to fall = falling??? Yet more linguistic evolution, perhaps?

Possibly you will argue that the surface of the Earth is falling, and you are falling with it.
Would this mean that the Earth is shrinking?
Could this be another case of something that is moving and stationary at the same time, in the same F of R?


Good reply. I was just about to make a similar reply, but you beat me to it by just a few seconds. As far as I can tell the surface of the Earth is not falling toward the center of the Earth, it is relatively stationary aside from small tidal and geological movements. It certainly doesn't seem to be moving (falling) down.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #46209 11/21/12 03:08 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
nope wrong answer.

you guys really do need to read about what you write about
before you press the submit button.

every single particle on earth is falling towards the center of the earth.

because of gravity.

and , guess why !!

because every single particle on earth is being accelerated
( Falling due to gravity )
towards the center as the earth rotates.

this is a science forum , why dont you two at least try to
appear as if you have learned something about science.

I know that this stuff isnt the fantasy land of quantum physics , and that it can actually be
calculated ( correctly ) using everyday math , and it does require a little effort on your part ( thinking ) but you guys
may not be capable of thinking along real reality lines.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46212 11/21/12 11:50 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
wrong


I'm beginning to think you have a point there, Paul.

I always thought that having a discussion involved exchanging views, not just telling people how stupid they were.


There never was nothing.
paul #46214 11/21/12 02:33 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
I know that this stuff isnt the fantasy land of quantum physics , and that it can actually be
calculated ( correctly ) using everyday math , and it does require a little effort on your part ( thinking ) but you guys
may not be capable of thinking along real reality lines.

Ok Paul, How fast am I falling towards the center of the Earth? I haven't noticed that the Earth is smaller than it was yesterday. In fact if I check any references I don't find any place that tells us how much smaller the Earth is getting.

Or have you redefined falling to match what you want it to mean the way you did Air Speed?

You see gentle readers how Paul makes up his own definitions and sticks to them with minor modifications so that he can show that he is right even when what he says has nothing to do with what observation and experiment have shown to be the way the world works.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #46215 11/21/12 03:09 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Bill


You see gentle readers how Paul makes up his own definitions and sticks to them with minor modifications so that he can show that he is right even when what he says has nothing to do with what observation and experiment have shown to be the way the world works.

Bill Gill
You seem to be appealing for help because you can't handle this argument on your own. What's up with that?
Is this some kind of religious manipulation thing?
The Reverend uses this same kind of trick when he gets frustrated to pull whatever judgments and frustration there might be in others to gain a feeling of camaraderie and superiority.

Democracy and religious prejudice seem to go hand in hand...


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Bill #46216 11/21/12 03:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Ok Paul, How fast am I falling towards the center of the Earth?


if you were sitting on the roof of your house.

and if you were 4000 miles from the center of the earth and on the equator.

then the circumference of the 360 degree circle that you are traveling in as the earth rotates would be 25,132 miles.

4000 x 2 = 8000 miles diameter
8000 x 3.14 = 25132 miles circumference.

you have a angular velocity of 1047 mph.
25,132 miles / 24 hours = 1047 mph.

in one second your angular displacement is 1535 ft/sec.

if gravity became a republican, and just decided to stop doing its job because it wanted more tax cuts and tax breaks and give aways
to the top 1% , and gravity was not accelerating you towards the center of rotation like is should be doing , then you would launch
at a 90 degree angle away from the center of the earths rotation.

at a velocity of 1535 ft/sec

gravity is pulling / accelerating you at a rate of 32.2 ft/s^2

that doesnt mean that you are falling that fast , thats just how fast that you would fall and accelerate as you are falling if there were nothing stopping you from falling.

your not being pushed down like some of your bone headed colleagues seem to think

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_gravity_pull_things_down_32.2_feet_per_second

Quote:
Gravity is NOT a pulling Force. Gravity is a "Pushing" Force of Mass Expansion.
Earth Mass is Expanding at the Gravitational Acceleration rate of 9.808175174 m/s^2
In order to understand you must first accept the Mathematics on Einstexxxxxxxxdotcom because Math does not lie. Then you can move on to



he doesnt even konw how to calculate the acceleration due to gravity in the first second , he thinks theres instant acceleration durring the first second of acceleration due to gravity. LOL

ie...

Quote:
After one second, the ball will be traveling 32.2 ft/s. After two seconds, it is traveling 64.4 ft/s, and after three seconds, it is traveling at 96.6 ft/s.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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